[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: persistence of anti-nuclear activism
Once the government decides that nuclear power generation is vital to the
stability and security of this country, it won't matter what anti-nukes
think (however right or wrong that may be). I would challenge anyone to
come up with a plan that secures our energy future without having nuclear
power as part of the mix. As I have said before, we are going to need every
tool in that energy tool box to meet our future energy needs.
We can't go jumping into the sci-fi just yet...even if we did crack the
fusion nut and were able to build a generation facility, a standard
fission plant would probably still be in the mix as well. This particular
discussion came up in one of my past NE classes. The class considered the
incredible amounts of power required to startup a fusion plant. A very
reliable source of power is required to handle not only the startup loads,
but also the hotel loads associated with normal operation.
The only practical option for providing this power was either a very
reliable power grid, or a secondary generation facility that would provide
power for startup. This sister facility would more than likely be a small
advance design fission plant. This fission/fusion hybrid seemed at the time
to be a practical solution. It was very interesting discussing this and I
thought that the class made a good attempt at trying to separate the
practical from the science fiction.
But the fact of the matter is that we don't have the knowledge to crack the
fusion nut yet, and it will still take a very long time to go from a
satisfactory laboratory demonstration to a full-fledged power generation
unit. We don't have that kind of time...
My opinions only.
DJWhitfill
NeilKeeney@AOL.COM
Sent by: To: mcaceci@radal.com, radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
owner-radsafe@list.vand cc:
erbilt.edu Subject: Re: persistence of anti-nuclear activism
11/07/01 08:27 AM
Please respond to
NeilKeeney
In a message dated 11/6/01 3:37:17 PM Central Standard Time,
mcaceci@radal.com writes:
<< In my opinion, it is irrelevant here to comment the latest idiocy from
the
latest anti-nuclear activist (they are the illiberal ones, to be sure, by
the way). Let us ask ourselves instead: who is really against nuclear
energy - and what reasons move the media - and why? >>
Well put and on target of course. Much as the news anchors are merely the
"smiling heads" of the news telecast, those taking an organized position
against commercial nuclear power could be considered to be simply the
"concerned" individuals or groups representing a group that could stand
to
lose should nuclear power prosper as an energy source. The sad thing is
that
many "concerned" individuals aren't even aware they're being duped or
they're
being specifically targeted because their's is a "reactive platform" for
issuing false data.
I recall working with graduate students in 1979 at the U of MD on an effort
to transfer a gene from Blue-Green Algae to a corn embryo. We were
attempting
to isolate and transfer the gene that selects for fixing free nitrogen from
the atmosphere from the algae to the corn embryo. Can you imagine the
ramifications of succeeding? Potentially a corn plant that would thrive
like
a weed given a substrate and - water.
Following the sequence from there it is a short step to abundant alcohol
for
clean fuel and reduced mechanical wear of internal combustion components,
abundant food for third world countries, abundant animal feed... The list
goes on and on... There would be other problems to overcome of course.
Parasitism and diseases and so forth.
Now. There is absolutely no question in my mind that this is not now
technically possible. If we can grow a fifteen pound salmon in one year
when
it's wild siblings grow two, we could probably now transfer the gene that
selects for the free nitrogen trait.
So the answer to your question is the same as the answer to why we don't
have
a pesty corn weed taking over the planet now. It would sort of turn
civilization as we know it on it's head. Abundant fuel, abundant food...
What leverage could governments use on so-called third world countries that
suddenly don't need "economic assistance"? What would Wall Street do
without
fossil fuel futures? How would politicians get elected without PAC money
from
fossil? What would the auto parts industry do in the absence of current
obsolescence schedules? Just how cheap would a barrel of oil go for? And
gee. Why would we need to interact with OPEC?
We so-called civilized beings spend the bulk of our time trying to survive
by
driving or riding great distances to a job that we work to pay for the
production of goods and services that have their prices established by
their
production and profit margin costs. What if that cost were reduced by 80
percent due to reduced energy costs?
Jeez. We'd be that much freer to CREATE along other survival routes for
mankind and wouldn't that be something?
Neil Keeney
RRPT
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.