🚀 go-pugleaf

No one ever claimed that any alternate methods could be put into imediate use,
they all requier s certain degree of  research.  Longer term monitored storage
can not be put into imediate use iether, no suitable, acceptable sites have yet
been located, and all known potential suitable canadates fail under the criterion
of acceptability because people object to all of them.  What these alternative
methods, perticuarly the use of subductions zone, offer, is a method that could
potentialy be both suitable, and acceptable, to virtualy every one.  In addition,
if research were carried our agressivly, it could possible be put into use long
befor any suitable, acceptable, site for long term monitored storage could be
found and prepared.

The great mistake of nuclear power was the lack of forthought.  The by-products
generated by it are easily contained at the site (unlike the use of fossil
fuels), So they are not released into the environment, but, you have to find some
place where you can put them for a very long time.  Not thought about that. Even
now, few people are.

Eventualy, a switch to a fuel like ethanol would be very wise.  Argicultural
bi-products (the part of the plants no one eats) provide an out standing source
material for the production of ethanol.  The by-product from producing ethanol
makes a good live-stock feed, or a good base for fertilizers that do not lead to
the break disapearance of top soil.  With high efficency intenal combustion
engins combined with ethanols high oxygen content, and a good catalitic
converter, the emsions would be minimal, And the production of the raw material
for the production of ethanol removes such emmisions from the air so there is an
overall zero net increase in atmospheric levels of those various emmision.  The
only modifaction needed to make a petrol engin use ethanlon is a slight
alteration of the fuel injection system, so existing technology (like a '57 Bell
Air :) could be very easily converted to use ethanol.  the same trasportation and
distrobution systems coud be used, over all, it is an easy enough switch.  When
used with a distributed Solar system, and perhapse also a suplimentative wind
based system, as well as fuel cells, distributed ofcoarse, a potential
electirical system that does not have any negative impact on the environment
could be implimented with allmost no noticable change to the end users.  They
would still drive there cars, go the same fueling stations, etc... Perhapse the
only noticable differences would be lower cost at the fuel pumps, fewer farmers
in economic distress (by opening up a new market for a product they all ready
produce), smal solar cells ontop of telaphone poles, and fuel cells in the
basments of various buildings and homes, and fewer black outs becuase the
electirical grid would be distributed so knocking out a few nodes wouldn't have
much effect on the system overall.  The Solar cells wouldn't be very noticed, who
looks in the basement?  over all, the change would be unnoticed, but very
welcome.

Unfortunatly we would still need to find a place to put all the nuclear waste we
have stockpiled over the years... subduction zones?  well, if research went on
while the electrical and transport systems were being shirted to thier new,
distributed, environmentaly friendly implementations, a way to make it work could
probably be worked out, and started.

So, how to kick it all off?



Quarks like a duck wrote:

> As someone posted months earlier....what color is the sky on your
> planet.
>
> There are no solutions. Monitored storage is the only choice for now
> but subject to terrorism. I don't like monitored storage but the only
> sensible method for now.
>
> nuclear power is the most expensive boondoggle ever.
>