not: Climate skeptics win debate
- From: eugene@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eugene Miya)
- Date: 27 Mar 2007 13:31:36 -0800
The trade argument is that interdependence is an incentive to peace.foreign oil,
Unless we either really ramp up our solar efforts, or perfect fusion.Tell me how to solve problems of longer term neutron embrittlement and
issues such as plasma confinement.
In article <1175024055.906257.111880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Bruce Jensen <bpnjensen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't know how to solve the fusion problems, I am afraid, not being
a physicist - but I am willing to throw some $$$ at the problem for
those who are ready to take on the challenge. Let's bring that future
home to the present.
Well, American and other tax payers have thrown some amounts of money
toward fusions for well over 5 decades. The problem is that the
increments needed seem to be increasing.
Fission is subject to significant problems when human error creeps in,
and I am fairly uncertain that I'd want to expand that route
immediately or indefinitely. If more substantial safeguards could be
built in - and a real way to store the waste safely for all time - I'd
be up for it.
Actually error is merely one problem. We cut the fast breeder program
along the way due to nuclear terrorism concerns. Deliberate conscious
thought is the big problem with nation states and less there of.
I've had bosses who in the mid-1980s were surprised that we've not yet
lost cities to terrorism. Waste is an efficiency/economics problem.
In major part fuel reprocessing was supposed to deal with that, but then
we circle back to the terrorism problem. The problem trying to
eliminate error and accidents is that we have only crude ideas how to
generate power, and make plants safe. We only learn about problems
trying, but the consequences of mistakes tend to be larger than most
mistakes that we have made in the past as a society (consider the 100s
who die in plane accidents, and that's far safer than cars which in the
US kill over 40K year, for social more than technical reasons.
In the early 70s actually going back to the 1920s and earlier there were
a few people who thought cooling was the trend. This was reflected in
pop literature of poetry I think by E.A. Robinson in the poem Fire and Ice.
Yes, but was it considered a real problem? It struck me as a flash in
the pan...and cooling seems an easier thing to deal with than warming
anyway.
In the 70s yes, but likely not the 20s. The Sierra Club under Brower
started out pro-Nuclear power. Ansel Adams went to his grave
pro-nuclear after Dave switched. Those were the conditions I started
college (pre China Syndrome the movie). What changed in the 70s were
the ideas of infleunce and terraforming. In the 20s, I tend to doubt
many had the foresight to see worldwide influence. But that's about the
time of the expresison "Bang and whimper" for world's end.
I am not certain how you plan to have dealt with cooling (I recall a
amusing Twilight Zone episode on that subject).
1987: a great time to be in computers and on the net....
Ancient history now.
Ah, the march of time....
Life: no one gets out alive.
--
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ----------------------
For a quality mail server, try SurgeMail, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. Run a million users on a standard
PC running NT or Unix without running out of power, use the best!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgemail.htm ----
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: not: Climate skeptics win debate
- From: Bruce Jensen
- Re: not: Climate skeptics win debate
- References:
- Climate skeptics win debate
- From: Stormin Mormon
- Re: Climate skeptics win debate
- From: Bruce Jensen
- Re: Climate skeptics win debate
- From: Eugene Miya
- Re: Climate skeptics win debate
- From: Bruce Jensen
- Climate skeptics win debate
- Prev by Date: Re: New Book != SPAM
- Next by Date: Re: rabies
- Previous by thread: Re: Climate skeptics win debate
- Next by thread: Re: not: Climate skeptics win debate
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|