[pp.int.general] Don't roast our planet

Sat May 19 14:18:43 CEST 2012

Interesting point Antonio.

Jan, thanks for the study, interesting as well, reminds me a comparison
between how many people get killed by terrorists and by other causes [1]..
but even if nuclear energy kills less people than other energy sources in
normal operations, i would oppose it first because of the waste
problematic, second about the impossible risk assessment of a nuclear
accident, cos there, even if an accident has a small probability of
happening, if it happens, it could have devastating consequences.

[1] http://megmclain.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/terror-risk.jpg

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Antonio Garcia <ningunotro at hotmail.com>wrote:

>  Nuclear raises an institutionalized paranoia that ranges on the obscene,
> yes, definitely.
>
> And what causes that paranoia is nothing else but the fact that... you can
> not hide military nuclear facilities if it is not behind the radiation
> background of civil nuclear facilities. That is the only reason why Germany
> can agree to dismantle civil nuclear facilities (because they have no
> military nuclear facilities of their own to hide) and no other country
> (USA, GB, IL, FR, RU, ...) is anyway near considering it possible.
>
> The rest of the story is a plain propaganda smokescreen to hide behind
> conveniently.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 12:46:21 +0200
> From: charly.pache at gmail.com
> To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Don't roast our planet
>
>
> Andrew, thanks for your input, I read once 'nuclear' electricity was
> cheaper because the costs of the storage and re-treatment were not included
> in the electricity bill but were paid by the states, is it true?
>
> About the deaths/serious injuries after a major nuclear incident, i guess
> you should consider the higher number of people who get cancer and die from
> it into the figures. And the population is still contaminated many decades
> after the accident, like in Tshernobyl. The worst report talks about
> '985,000 deaths as a result of the radioactivity released' [1]. Fukushima
> consequences will be probably terrible as well and it's no wonder they
> stopped all their nuclear plants in Japan. In my opinion, the risk is to
> high. Better a life with less confort than a life with cancer.
>
> But you're right about the wind energy, i heard that the big companies
> just do it to to make money with public subventions, they don't really care
> about being green or efficient.
>
> [1]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects#New_York_Academy_of_Sciences_publication
>
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Andrew Norton <ktetch at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 5/18/2012 5:49 AM, Kenneth Peiruza wrote:
>
> > Right now, Spain is producing 10% of it's energy with renewable sources,
> > and 11% of its electricity with wind power. Wind power is (as stated by
> > US dpt. of Energy) significantly cheaper than nuclear power, and below
> > market-prices. The cheapest source is advanced combined cycle, which
> > will increase its price in the next years, as it's based in fossil fuels.
> >
>
> Ooh boy. You combined the W and the N in a statement, and oh boy...
>
> First, Nuclear is expensive, yes, why? Because of an institutionalized
> paranoia that ranges on the obscene. Were we to submit any other form of
> electricity generation to it, nuclear would be the cheapest.
>
> We had a major nuclear incident last year. Despite that, the
> deaths/serious injuries at nuclear power locations remains? Oh, Zero.
> How many fatalities have there been at wind power sites in, say, 2011?
> ELEVEN!
> Oh my.
>
> Do you know what constitutes a 'leak' at a nuclear power station? If you
> take a smoke detector in, it will flag a leak alarm. If you carry a
> bunch of bananas, it will trigger a leak alarm, you have a handful of
> brazilnuts? leak alarm...
> I haven't actually checked this but some very rough calculations
> indicate to me that if you take a wind power turbine, and put it in a
> nuclear power site, it will set off the leak alarms.
> THIS IS WHY IT'S SO EXPENSIVE.
>
> When you have people making policy that don't understand the science,
> then you have serious problems. I live in Georgia. We're actually
> getting a new nuclear plant built here (albeit many many miles from me).
> There's lots of nuclear protesters around there. About 20-25 miles away
> is a coal plant (one of the biggest in the US - Georgia Power's plant
> Scherer) and there's NO nuclear protesters there. Obvious you might
> think. Just one problem - residents around plant Scherer, are starting
> to suffer from Uranium poisoning, as the ash pool leeches into groundwater.
>
> I have no worries about nuclear power. Perhaps because about 10 years
> ago, i did some design work at a nuclear power plant+reprocessor. Last
> September, I sat next to (or withing 5 meters of, at all times) a
> nuclear reactor. Not just ANY reactor though, but one a 17yo kid had
> built himself. here it is -
> http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d32/ktetch/0903011932a.jpg (that
> bright spot on the left side of the pic is from my laptop, which is
> where I was sitting, working the mixer desk) and here's a video of it in
> action, showing it's radiation output with a Geiger-Muller counter
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrbgIQ8X3uc
>
> Of course, all this is because I understand radiation, and nuclear power
> (really, it's not that hard. and the day before, I'd led a panel on a
> particle accelerator that has uses including dealing with nuclear waste)
>
> But Wind? Wind scares the crap out of me. If there's no wind, it
> generates nothing. If there's too much wind, it generates nothing
> because they have to stop it so it doesn't break. If the brakes fail, it
> catches fire, and spews huge amounts of toxic smoke. These fires are
> usually left to burn because they're incredibly difficult to put out,
> and very high up (and fanned by the high winds that started it). And if
> the fire spreads it can be VERY nasty; one wind-turbine wildfire in
> Australia torched an area of national park roughly the same size as the
> Fukushima exclusion zone. Then there's the blades - In Germany it's been
> shown that bits of blades can embed themselves in house roofs kilometers
> away. If it gets cold, they can throw big ice chunks just as far.
>
> then there's effectiveness. A study by the UK National Grid found that
> wind turbines provided only an average around 23% of their rated
> generation capacity. So you have to build even MORE. That's more
> expense, and of course, that's not usable all the time.
>
> The UK was also looking at, I believe, cutting the heavy subsidies paid
> to wind generators, who were being paid even if they were generating
> NOTHING.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9076458/Wind-industrys-extensive-lobbying-to-preserve-subsidies-and-defeat-local-resistance-to-turbines.html
>
> But seriously, if you want to talk about cost, make sure you understand
> ALL the facts, especially those facts which drive the costs. Know your
> facts, know your science, know that nuclear is the best option at present.
>
>
> - --
> Andrew Norton
> http://ktetch.co.uk
> Tel: +1(352)6-KTETCH [+1-352-658-3824]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPtqdmAAoJECjjuYTW3X5H+dkH/ij2TLlzsNUYpnC/lnslEHzE
> zbP7GUq3oQetq+NvkmrtDMHuaKPm6boM7xjrw+ZftuoVKROZ1AZOUtKjTyXadsdU
> D1KgZbcUrMiXzFGyYWObA1Za1l7OIdWTCLgEgUuxY4BypHzG27ujYe5EyIHOYX1t
> y0TUUNSaPTibMI375oCQUERR84ObZSIGP+D5mS3KLTLsE3E8ssI+U4p1awBfNLe5
> LewixkIfyQwkSdBnosLZUCrn8KaV+yFtCfemqLz5bXxgLDHOzks3kpKsNnghrlyd
> LLrRjYk2k6KyfbIsuf+i/KIEMGU8iSgU342EZXu4/6UXX0yAEXkMKrc9iTvOrzI=
> =IlbZ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________ Pirate Parties
> International - General Talk pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20120519/ed0421b1/attachment-0001.html>