Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!andromeda!argus!ken
From: ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci
Subject: Re: Nuclear power vs Coal vs Alternatives
Message-ID: <334@argus.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 13-Jul-86 06:12:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: argus.334
Posted: Sun Jul 13 06:12:36 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Jul-86 01:15:10 EDT
References: <442@meccts.UUCP> <2238@peora.UUCP> <519@gargoyle.UUCP>
Organization: NJ Inst of Tech., Newark NJ
Lines: 60
Xref: watmath net.politics:17327 net.sci:1230

In article <519@gargoyle.UUCP>, carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes:
> >
> >I read a book that did an analysis like this a few years ago, "The
> >Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear". I don't recall the author's
> >name.  [Joel Upchurch]
> 
> Petr Beckmann's book appeared about ten years ago.  Most thoughtful
> opponents of nuclear power are familiar with his line of reasoning.
> I recently posted an article explaining some of the problems with
> this count-the-dead-bodies-per-megawatt-hour type of argument.  So
> far I have seen no response.
Don't worry, I'm writing one, but I hate writing long responses to
items, it means I have to think.               (:->

> 
> If we are going to have a battle of the books, have any of the
> pro-nukes read anything by Amory and Hunter Lovins, such as *Soft
> Energy Paths*, *Brittle Power*, and *Energy Unbound*?  These are well
> informed and thoughtful discussions of energy policy which provide no
> aid and comfort to the nuclear advocates.

Eh, most of my references are not books commonly available in bookstores.
Most are articles taken from technical journals and from various
reports, such as the TMI, Rassmussen, and Lewis reports.

I don't know about those books but I remember reading parts of one
by Barry Commoner in a bookstore one day.  I loved how he equated
the output of 100% of something with 110% of something.  Then was
his solar power street light.  The expense of such a device would
be ludicrious, and the inability to use it in so many places makes
the device laughable.

But all these so called soft energy paths are missing something very
important.  They all depend upon the utility company being able to
supply power when more than about 3 days of sunless days occur.  That
means that the utilities still have to design their systems as though
there were no such solar systems.  And that would drive up the rates
of electricity because the utilities still have to pay for the power
capacity even though it isn't usually used.  And if they don't provide
the capacity, they will have to cut off most of the people using solar
power after the third cloudy day, because the utilities won't have the
needed capability.

> Richard Carnes

-- 
Kenneth Ng:
Post office: NJIT - CCCC, Newark New Jersey  07102
uucp(for a while) ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!argus!ken
soon uucp:ken@argus.cccc.njit.edu
bitnet(prefered) ken@njitcccc.bitnet
	     or  ken@orion.bitnet
soon bitnet: ken@orion.cccc.njit.edu
(We are VERY slowly moving to RFC 920, kicking and screaming)

Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical, that is
the only planet in the federation that can make that claim"

Savaak: "He's so....human"
Spock: "No one is perfect"