Posted by tallman at 12:08pm Jan 15 '06Why don't you want to live near one? The answer is obvious, but it's interesting that you probably tolerate living near many things just as dangerous. I think part of the reason nuclear isn't favored anymore is that there is a misunderstanding of the dangers associated with having such a plant near you (part of the problem is that the dangers really do constitute an issue, and an issue with some truth to it makes it much more difficult to overcome). Companies routinely transport chemicles that are every bit as dangerous as a nuclear plant (at least from an accidental standpoint), and chances are that you're regularly passing by or near such transports. The only reason we tolerate it is that we don't really know about it, and even if we do, we only know vague details... The companies are generally pretty safe with dangerous materials, and take certain precautions (i.e. when transporting chlorine (which was used in WWI as a chemical weapon) in bulk, it's usually sent by train in the middle of the night).
In any case, even if our politicians do get over the phobia of nuclear power, I seriously doubt they would build new plants in densely populated areas. For instance, I doubt we'd see one in Manhattan. In the mainland of New York, perhaps. There's space there. There's actually a nuclear plant near where I live. Not close enough that if something went wrong, I'd be in danger (unless I was driving in that location, which is possible - I used to pass by regularly), but that's kind of the point. The three nuclear plants I know about are far from the area they serve the most. There are, of course, still people that live near these plants, and I'm sure that's a fear for them... but that's why I suspect that new plants would be built in relatively remote areas.
The problem with solar is that you aren't the only one who has to make that determination, and simply hosting the generation isn't the only challenge. In the case of nuclear power, you need to get a few hundred, possibly thousant people to go along with a plant. If we're to make significant gains with solar power, we need millions of people to go along with it. This is one general problem with decentralized power (one of many) - decentralized power means that you have to convince way too many people. Solar power, so far at least, has not been that popular.
That doesn't mean it can't be, and I support efforts to do so (and in some cases, it probably makes more sense to use solar in place of or as a supplement to conventional power)...
To be honest, nuclear really isn't that popular either (for obvious, and partially justified reasons), and that's a major problem. However, in most other respects, it is a more capable solution than solar (imho)...
~[private]
In any case, even if our politicians do get over the phobia of nuclear power, I seriously doubt they would build new plants in densely populated areas. For instance, I doubt we'd see one in Manhattan. In the mainland of New York, perhaps. There's space there. There's actually a nuclear plant near where I live. Not close enough that if something went wrong, I'd be in danger (unless I was driving in that location, which is possible - I used to pass by regularly), but that's kind of the point. The three nuclear plants I know about are far from the area they serve the most. There are, of course, still people that live near these plants, and I'm sure that's a fear for them... but that's why I suspect that new plants would be built in relatively remote areas.
The problem with solar is that you aren't the only one who has to make that determination, and simply hosting the generation isn't the only challenge. In the case of nuclear power, you need to get a few hundred, possibly thousant people to go along with a plant. If we're to make significant gains with solar power, we need millions of people to go along with it. This is one general problem with decentralized power (one of many) - decentralized power means that you have to convince way too many people. Solar power, so far at least, has not been that popular.
That doesn't mean it can't be, and I support efforts to do so (and in some cases, it probably makes more sense to use solar in place of or as a supplement to conventional power)...
To be honest, nuclear really isn't that popular either (for obvious, and partially justified reasons), and that's a major problem. However, in most other respects, it is a more capable solution than solar (imho)...
~[private]
Re: Thinking again about energy policy - tallman