Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site meccts.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!dicomed!meccts!mvs
From: mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Oil and the costs of Fission Electricity
Message-ID: <267@meccts.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 10-Nov-85 14:28:03 EST
Article-I.D.: meccts.267
Posted: Sun Nov 10 14:28:03 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Nov-85 22:02:19 EST
References: <460@mhuxm.UUCP> <740@whuxl.UUCP> <10822@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <528@scirtp.UUCP> <1092@jhunix.UUCP>
Reply-To: mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein)
Organization: MECC Technical Services, St.Paul, MN
Lines: 54
Summary: Time to clear up some points.

In article <528@scirtp.UUCP> todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes:

>   cost of total failure. In the event of a meltdown (a real possibility
>   by anyone's reckoning) the consequences will range from catastrophic
>   to cataclysmic, depending on who you talk to. When you consider the
>   price, is it worth it?

A meltdown in a commercial reactor has never occured and if one were
to occur there are many indications that the results would be
mild compared to problems with other power sources.  The
Rasmussen report put the number of lost lives due to loss-of-collant
accidents (if there ever was one) at an average of less then *1*
person.  Yet there are hydroelectric dams in California where it is
estimated that a disaster could kill hundred of thousands of people.

The best example of the inherent safety of nuclear power over other
forms of power was the accident at Three Mile Island.  As Petr
Beckmann writes in "The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear"

"Within hours from the begining of the accident [Hours? How long does
it take for an oil tanker to blow up?], the industry had flown in
teams of experts; one such team engaged in almost Naderite 'what if'
fantasies.  What if the pump now slowly cooling the core fails?  We
use the primary loop.  What if that fails, too?  We still have the
ECCS.  What if both loops fail because the power fails?  We still have
a diesel stand-by generator.  What if that fails, too?  Let's fly in
another, just in case.  And they did.  (It was never needed.)
What 843 MW facility, other than nuclear, gives you that kind of time
to take countermeasures?  What other 843 MW facility will contain a
chain of five independent, horrible failures - human and mechanical -
without the loss of a single life?  How do you evacuate the population
when a dam breaks?  How do you take preventive measures while a gas
refinery blows up?"


>Maybe Fusion power will liberate us all from this dilemna, maybe
>decentralized power (solar, wind, cow manure *8-}, etc...) will
>be the answer. Until we have a clear answer, we must conserve,
>use clean power (hydroelectric, domestic natural gas), and put
>a lot of resources into energy research, especially fusion and
>solar.
>                 Todd Jones

The important thing to remember about solar, wind, cow manure etc. is
that at best they are only a *supplementary* form of power. The energy
available is not anywhere near what our society needs to survive.  For the
foreseeable future coal and nuclear are the only choices and coal is
far dirtier and produces millions of times more wastes.
-- 

Michael V. Stein
Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services

UUCP	ihnp4!dicomed!meccts!mvs