Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!meccts!mvs
From: mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci
Subject: Re: Nuclear power vs Coal vs Alternatives
Message-ID: <450@meccts.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 13-Jul-86 17:07:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: meccts.450
Posted: Sun Jul 13 17:07:44 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Jul-86 02:39:25 EDT
References: <442@meccts.UUCP> <2238@peora.UUCP> <519@gargoyle.UUCP>
Reply-To: mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein)
Organization: MECC Technical Services
Lines: 38
Xref: watmath net.politics:17333 net.sci:1232

In article <519@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes:
>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.

A problem the "soft energy" advocates have is that they confuse the
seperate issues of nuclear proliferation and nuclear power.  This is a
serious error and has been covered before.

Lovins also assumes an advisarial stance toward nuclear power.  What
he doesn't seem to realize is that solar energy and nuclear power are 
partners.  If solar energy is ever to be made economical, it will
compete with oil - not with nuclear power.  Oil fired electricity is
several times as expensive as nuclear and is usually used to help meet
peak loads during the day when the sun is shining.   This is exactly
when solar power could make a contribution.  Solar could then someday
assist nuclear and coal in meeting daily peaks.   

It will be a long while before solar will be cheap enough to
accomplish that, and in fact the health risks from such a diversified
energy source could even be greater then the health risks from coal.
Already the deaths just from radon gas are working up to the 
deaths caused by coal.  (Radon gas collects in all homes and 
is especially prevalent in tightly insulated "solar" homes.)

Getting back to the issue at hand, let us remember that the debate is
the safety of nuclear power.  To do this we can't compare apples and
oranges, we have to compare nuclear power with its alternatives.
Right now the only alternatives to nuclear power are oil and coal.  
So, if you want to prove that nuclear power is too dangerous, simply 
show that the health risks from coal or oil are lower.
-- 
Michael V. Stein
Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services

UUCP	ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs