🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 00:40:12 +1000, "ant" <dont-look@evil.spam> wrote:

>
>none (Quarks like a duck) wrote in message
><8hmmgv$20f$3@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
>>Don Libby <no.spam@tds.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"D.A.Kopf" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One likely datum we would probably both stipulate: nuclear fission will
>never
>>>> provide a sustainable energy source for mankind.
>>
>>>???  It is already providing a sustainable energy source for mankind.
>>>Nuclear fission is sustainable for hundreds or thousands of years.  A
>>>large increase in the number of nuclear power plants can be expected
>>>beginning twenty to fifty years from now.
>>
>>>-dl
>>
>>Twenty-five years from now, the overwhelming proof will be that
>>nuclear power is mutating the human race into genetically defected
>>people.
>>
>>Also, efficiency advances will make power consumption equal to today's
>>or even less.
>>
>
>not to mention the increases in efficiencies of renewable energy
>generation, bio fuels, and other alternate energy sources which are likely
>to happen, i would rather see orbiting solar power plants then more massive
>nuclear plants, orbiting solar power plants will probably be about as
>expensive as a nuclear option is by then, and with any luck i will still be
>around then to see what happens, 

Perhaps this is the crux of the issue.  Faith in future technological
development is a powerful thing, history has set a precedent.  I am a
big fan of space-based solar, but it is LONG way off.  We will need a
huge step forward in the technology we use to raise payload, perhaps
"space-towers" as in Arthur C Clarke's 'Fountains of Paradise'.

But these are futures.  What about now?  When we need power, we cannot
rely on dreams.


>unlike some of the people who are so
>confident that nuclear technology is the solution. 50 years ago nobody
>accurately predicted the shaped of the present that we live in so i believe
>it is a little early to predict an expansion of nuclear power in 50 years
>time based on toadies technology.

Nuclear power will expand because of current requirements, and the
fact that nuclear is the only alternative to fossil fuels in many
cases NOW.  If other technologies come forward over the next 50 years,
they will take time to implement, and they will affect the way we
source energy 100 years from now.

And if those technologies do not come forward in the next 50 years,
nuclear has a potentially long future, we have lots of time to develop
and implement other technologies.


>just on the grounds of the legacy of nuclear waste that we are leaving for
>future generations nuclear power is ethically and morally wrong, 

So too, is delivering a world to our children that is starved of
energy.  Remember, the developing world is desperate for power now,
and it is "ethically and morally wrong" to deny them.  Are they
looking at solar and wind power?  No, they are not.

>funny how
>the nuclear experts damned that morals,  ethics and emotions be excluded
>form the debate and that nuclear power must be judged only on reductionism
>scientific principles. 

Environmental issues, including the issue of waste disposal, are very
central to the choice of nuclear power over the alternatives.  I
believe the issue has been resolved, but the question for many
remains:  have we solved waste issue, or at least can it be solved
adequately?  It seems to me if you are inclined to have faith in the
future development of alternative power technologies, why not have
faith in our ability to safely manage nuclear waste.

>if somebody feels that leaving nuclear was for
>future generations to enjoy is wrong then that opinion is valid, by al
>leans attempt to persuade people but dont try and exclude the ones whose
>opinions dont agree, as many nuclear experts demand that they not be "held
>hostage to public opinion" and democratic processes. many of them are
>closet totalitarians or technocrats IMO.

If our energy choices were to be subject to democratic principles,
then all our power would be produced by solar power.  But it isn't,
because solar power has technical limitations.  It is not that the
"experts" are totalitarian, it is that the politicians know that they
must rely on the advice of experts to make the correct choice, ie one
that is both technically and economically viable.


...Greig