Posted on 04/16/2003 2:38:56 PM PDT by atomic conspiracy
Over the past few decades, the American public has become increasingly wary of nuclear power because of concern about radiation releases from normal plant operations, plant accidents, and nuclear waste. Except for Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents, releases have been found to be almost undetectable in comparison with natural background radiation. Another concern has been the cost of producing electricity at nuclear plants. It has increased largely for two reasons: compliance with stringent government regulations that restrict releases of radioactive substances from nuclear facilities into the environment and construction delays as a result of public opposition.
Americans living near coal-fired powerplants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear powerplants that meet government regulations
Partly because of these concerns about radioactivity and the cost of containing it, the American public and electric utilities have preferred coal combustion as a power source. Today 52% of the capacity for generating electricity in the United States is fueled by coal, compared with 14.8% for nuclear energy. Although there are economic justifications for this preference, it is surprising for two reasons. First, coal combustion produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are suspected to cause climatic warming, and it is a source of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, which are harmful to human health and may be largely responsible for acid rain. Second, although not as well known, releases from coal combustion contain naturally occurring radioactive materials--mainly, uranium and thorium.
Former ORNL researchers J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco made this point in their article "Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants" in the December 8, 1978, issue of Science magazine. They concluded that Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations. This ironic situation remains true today and is addressed in this article.
(Excerpt) Read more at ornl.gov ...
Had we allowed fission to mature we would be independent of the ME today.
Recent hormesis data suggest that low doses are *good* for you. I keep a nice chunk of uranium oxide under my bed that boosts my dose to about 20X that of normal folks.
See the article called "A Scientist Finds Independence" in my profile.
Pauling's Linear No Threshold theory of radioactive harm is bunk.
Had we allowed fission to mature instead of murdering it in the 1970's we would be independent of the Middle East today.
BTW, are you on the Nuclearspace forums? I've seen your screen name there.
Visualize Tim Robbins with a small windmill, supported by shoulder straps, jutting out in front of his mouth -- enough electricity to power a small midwestern town.
Sigh. I tire of pointing out the same points over and over.
Wind and solar will never supply more than a tiny fraction of our energy needs. This is because they are dilute as opposed to intense sources.
The available intense sources are: (1) Fossil; (2) Nuclear; and (3) hydroelectric.
All feasible hydro sources are already fully exploited.
So take your pick among (1) or (2).
By way of example, because I've done the calculations repeatedly here, using solar energy, one would need 150 square miles of solar cells to supply California alone with electric power.
If solar cells cost $0.01 per square centimeter, that comes out to a mere $300 billion in solar cells, not counting maintenance, infrastructure, etc.
Wind is even worse.
--Boris
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.