Re: New Power Stations
- From: "Ian Smith" <ianinhoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 19:20:53 +0100
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawillers@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4477b841@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Ian Smith" <ianinhoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Nuclear power on the Earth's surface is just *so* last century - we live
right under the biggest nuclear explosion in the solar system - it's
called 'the solar system'.
Of course, to emulate it properly, we would have to fuse hydrogen into
helium. Fusion power is the one we want. It promises far more energy,
with
much better safety and far less nasty stuff to deal with. Actually, this
is the flavour I meant for the speculative long-term future. Deep-space
exploration and colonisation are going to require highly autonomous
energy-production systems, with massive power-to-weight ratios. Fusion
power fits the bill, IMHO.
To stay on Earth, or to explore the rest? Human nature being what it
is, my money's on the latter.
I don't think we will live long enough as a species the way we are going.
But if we do then it's got to be solar wind power.
Yes; my point is that we might live long enough, and solar power may
play a part in it, but so will some kind of advanced nuclear.
I agree with you that the means of energy
production/extraction/generation/regulation/financing are all subject to
the whims and aspirations of many in power whose self-interests don't
coincide with the greater good of mankind or the planet as a whole.
I also agree that it would be a very good thing to develop more
renewable energy sources, and become more efficient at using our watts;
even if only because cheap oil is on its way out, and the holy grail of
fusion is some years away yet.
The holy grail of fusion has *always* been 'some years away yet'. Well -
it has been since I was a kid at least.
That's how they get the money for decade after decade of fruitless
research.
Not entirely fruitless. Last year they gave the go-ahead for the first
actual power station to be operational by 2015, contributing megawatts onto
the grid in France, albeit on an experimental basis. Not cheap or easy, but
certainly progress.
. Of course
some of these people wanted computers and Ferraris and plasma TV screens
the same as anywhere else, but by no stretch of the imagination can they
be said to 'need' them in order to have a happy life.
A W-S
Yes, without any source of fuel, there would surely be a significant
reduction in global population, with accompanying problems, such as
global
war, famine, disease etc.
Oh sure - like the west having cheap fuel has prevented wars and famine
and disease for the last 100 years eh?
No, it's a question of severity. Take away our energy-reliant technology
and we're in big trouble, at least in the west. Highly-mechanised food
production, and other life-extending population-boosting activities, are
gone. Hypothetically, of course.
Gimme a break - are you one of those who still think we invaded Iraq to
look for WMD by any chance?
"We" invaded Iraq to help prolong US global economic hegemony.
Nigeria has one of the highest per capita reserves of oil and one of the
highest incidences of famine and disease in the world too.
Kind of blows your theory out of the water somewhat.
And as for 'a significant reduction in global population' - you make that
sound like a *bad* thing.
Well, it's a bad thing for those who would have to prematurely expire,
surely? My guess is that population quotas would not be merit-based. Though
the end result would much more sustainable, I suppose. (And don't call me
Shirley...)
I should qualify that any power source I cite
being "the only hope for the future" etc. is with the intention that we
don't have this drastic population reduction, nor a departure from modern
technological society, for that matter.
Hunter>farmer>engineer>...space-coloniser: I think we've progressed
quite well in a few thousand years. It would be such a waste of human
ingenuity to go back.
Space colonisation is an impossible dream. Get real.
Can assure you I'm real, and not some rogue operating-system out
there...
Seriously, no it isn't. It is an almost inevitable consequence of human
instinct. I say almost because our instinctive behaviours might just lay
this planet to waste before we get that far.
We might make it to Mars or even some of the outer planets one day but
that is hardly 'space colonisation' that's the equivalent of popping down
the road to the chippy.
The next Solar system would take us thousands of years to reach even if it
was possible to travel at the speed of light - which it isn't. It
certainly isn't going to happen with primitve nuclear powered engines
that's for sure. Maybe if we figure out time travel but nuclear will have
nothing to do with that either.
I'm all for 'progress' - passionately so in fact - but nuclear power isn't
progress it's a dirty, dinosaur industry and it's time we moved on.
A W-S
I'm all for progress too. It's just that I see it going a bit further
than you do. Always the optimist, I am. ;-)
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Aruba
- Next by Date: Re: PC Nazis target Scotland
- Previous by thread: Aruba
- Next by thread: SCOTLAND, L'ECOSSE, SCHOTTLAND, ESCOCIA, La SCOZIA
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
