SOTU 2007: Innocent question 7

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Gandhi Posted 12:38 pm
   23 Jan 2007

   indeed...They don't need a modifier because they (the man) have no intentions of implementing their usage on a mass scale. Since they are not to be used, they need no convincing modifier to pull people in.

   Permalink

2. 

   astodg Posted 1:16 am
   24 Jan 2007

   a clean safe sandwichnot only do they not need modifiers, they were sandwiched between clean coal and clean safe nuclear technology - although woodchips didn't have a modifier either...

   Permalink

3. 

   GRLCowan Posted 4:01 am
   24 Jan 2007

   Wind power is neither safe nor relatively safeIt is of course truthful to call something safe and mean only that its imperfect safety is nonetheless superior to that of all demonstrated alternatives.
   Paul Gipe at http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html sa... have occurred since. The UIC at http://uic.com.au/reactors.htm says 2004 nuclear elec...

   Permalink

4. 

   GRLCowan Posted 4:03 am
   24 Jan 2007

   GrrIt is of course truthful to call something safe and mean only that its imperfect safety is nonetheless superior to that of all demonstrated alternatives.
   Paul Gipe at http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html sa... have occurred since. The UIC at http://uic.com.au/reactors.htm says 2004 nuclear elec...

   Permalink

5. 

   GRLCowan Posted 4:07 am
   24 Jan 2007

   This fool doohickey is jinxedIt is of course truthful to call something safe and mean only that its imperfect safety is nonetheless superior to that of all demonstrated alternatives.
   Paul Gipe at http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html sa... have occurred since. The UIC at http://uic.com.au/reactors.htm says 2004 nuclear elec...

   Permalink

6. 

   kmp Posted 4:20 am
   24 Jan 2007

   Maybe becausewe have no experience with solar & wind power, we do not need to be convinced that they are something they're not.  I would say, these days, the most appropriate modifier for solar & wind would be "affordable" because most people seem to think that they (solar & wind) are not.
   Much like most people seem to think that "clean coal" is oxymoronic and "clean, safe nuke-u-ler" is Woxymoronic.

   Permalink

7. 

   GRLCowan Posted 5:27 am
   24 Jan 2007

   Maybe the naked links are throwing it offWe do have experience with wind power; it suggests wind power workers are very significantly less safe than nuclear plant workers.
   Paul Gipe at BreathLife says, for wind-generated electricity, 0.15 deaths per TWh in 2000; others including this have occurred since. The UIC says 2005 nuclear electricity production was ~2600 TWh, so at the same 0.15 deaths per TWh rate that industry would have killed 390 of its workers in that year. There was that steam accident in Japan, but I'm not sure it was in 2004. If not, the body count was zero that year.
   --- G. R. L. Cowan, boron combustion fan
   
   Oxygen expands around B fire, car goes

   Permalink