Two responses.
Fukishima has not negated the need for multiple sources of energy that don't add carbon contributions to the atmosphere. Nuclear power isn't perfect; it takes a lot of energy to build a power plant, much of that fossil fuels. Nonetheless, it is a great long-term advantage over coal, and some over natural gas. Solar, wind and geothermal, contra her claim, cannot realistically be part of that. And, in terms of net carbon footprint, it takes manufacturing processes to build wind and solar parts and erect them in place.
Plus, wind has its own NIMBY issues. Solar has big environmental issues as far as major installation siting in the U.S., in the desert southwest. Geothermal? You're NOT going to tap too close to Yellowstone, or Lassen, or you have environmental-type issues there.
Second, she "shades" much of her worrisomeness, with many a "may" in the column.
And, a few appear to be wrong. Do we "know" that radiation is cumulative? Let's take cosmic rays.
Finally, there's this last line:
They had hoped that peaceful nuclear energy would absolve their guilt over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it has only extended it.Really? You're an emotional mind-reader?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments are appreciated, as is at least a modicum of politeness.
Comments are moderated, so yours may not appear immediately.
Due to various forms of spamming, comments with professional websites, not your personal website or blog, may be rejected.