🚀 go-pugleaf

Hal's Extropians Digest      Thu, 18 Jun 1992       Volume 92 : Issue   0010

    Selected messages from the Extropians list.  To join, send to:
    <extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu>.  Messages from the Extropians
    list may not be cross-posted without permission from the poster.
    Such permission has been obtained for all messages in this Digest.

    Hal Finney
    Extropians Digest Moderator

Today's Topics:
		      Biosphere II (2 messages)
	    Nuclear Power and the Environment (8 messages)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1992 11:38 MST
From: "James J. Lippard" <uunet!CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU!LIPPARD>
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Biosphere II

There have been a number of recent articles in the _Village Voice_
and in the _Tucson Weekly_ about the Biosphere II.  (Most of them
have been posted on the Usenet to sci.skeptic and can probably
be obtained from the poster, revpk@cellar.org.)

A number of the top people have resigned.  Margret Augustine, the
alleged co-architect of the Biosphere II, is under investigation
in Arizona for claiming credentials she doesn't have (i.e., being
an architect--she has a degree from the Institute for Ecotechnics,
a Biospherian diploma mill in London).  It was revealed that a CO2
scrubber was installed in the Biosphere II a few days before it was
sealed, and that fresh air has been pumped in from the outside.
Apparently a couple of the Biospherians threatened to leave unless
Space Biospheres Ventures publicly admitted that these things were
done.  When the Biospherian whose knuckle was chopped off by a threshing
machine left for medical treatment, she returned with various supplies.
About a year's worth of food supplies were stored in the bubble when
it was sealed, and that's mostly what they've been eating due to
problems with their agriculture.  Despite this, they've all lost
dramatic amounts of body weight.

It's pretty much a mess.  Biosphere II isn't a good point in an
argument for private scientific research.

Jim Lippard               Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy       Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 15:37:50 EDT
From: uunet!gnu.ai.mit.edu!rjc
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Biosphere II

> It's pretty much a mess.  Biosphere II isn't a good point in an
> argument for private scientific research.

   Oh, I don't know about that. The point could be made that
when they screw up, atleast they aren't wasting anyone elses
money but their own.

  How could anyone be against private scientific research? If it
isn't subsidized by your money, and it doesn't hurt you in any way,
why should you care?



-- Email to rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu -- CUT HERE -- PGP Public Key --
begin 644 rjc_gnu.pub
MF9( 0^GT*0Q287D@0W)O;7=E;&S> S$H1?-XL4<O1W$\I R?52(Q;+BKXT18
MRL#U[S=.;N%5:+I'0A$#M0'-87PP8@X+>3B+E,MUK.V<)B(HNM8<6MN63J3
M(>!I?7LPJOW8N$720'LO@.N$G]5BX!N[,!#+%(G6BWJ6(,>RT5*7$,&G_+Q;
.28^$>OV+38WF93P% !,O

end

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 10:00 CDT
From: "Charles T. Munson" <uunet!macc.wisc.edu!CMUNSON>
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: The Environment

This is Chuck0.  You all know that I can be found in the
radical ecology camp becasue

because I look at this from an anarchist point of view.  And I've
explained before my desire to question technology.  Now if
someone called me a luddite, I'd proudly wear that label.  I'd
be pleased to be associated with the Luddites, for they did
the right thing for their time.  They quite clearly saw that
the changes in the textile industry would ruin their way
of life and throw many of them into poverty.  The new technology
didn't do that, the way it was implemented affected them
(industrial capitalism).

We don't have to do that today, but we should ask intelligent
questions about technology and its relationship to people and
the environment.  Radical ecologists are often perceived to
be for throwing out all technology, in reality only a few support
that view.

My concerns regarding nuclear energy:
I'm aware that the nuclear power industry has a relatively good
safety record in the U.S., but their have been many accidents
and near disasters.  Don't forget that there are humans at
the controls and that even the best technology has it flaws
(like the Challenger).

2)  The physical defects in current plans could cause serious
problems in an emergency.  I've talked to people who constructed
some of these plants and they told me stories about shortcuts
and falsified documents.

3)  The biggest factor in this whole equation that nobody ever
talks about.  Where does the fuel come from?  For the most
part, current fuel for nuclear plants comes from the American
west, from INDIAN reservations.  They are fighting a life and
death battle to stop uranium mining on their lands.  This is
a struggle that I support and one that I think they will win.
Maybe you could turn all that nuclear stuff in ICBMs to
fuel for plants.  That would be great--I'd rather have nuclear plants
than nuclear weapons.

4) As an anarchist I'm uncomfortable with centralized institutions such
as the nuclear power industry.  I feel that a centralized
energy system leads itself to autocratic and environmentally
destructive uses.  What amount of centralization
is ok for a free society?

These are some of My concerns.

chuck0

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 13:24:01 EDT
From: uunet!gnu.ai.mit.edu!rjc
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: The Environment

> be pleased to be associated with the Luddites, for they did
> the right thing for their time.  They quite clearly saw that
> the changes in the textile industry would ruin their way
> of life and throw many of them into poverty.  The new technology
> didn't do that, the way it was implemented affected them
> (industrial capitalism).

   Some people resist change because they can't adapt. Luddites may
have resisted technology because it was in their self interest, but
that doesn't mean they are right. Technology benefited the human race
far more than their jobs.

> We don't have to do that today, but we should ask intelligent
> questions about technology and its relationship to people and
> the environment.  Radical ecologists are often perceived to
> be for throwing out all technology, in reality only a few support
> that view.

   Many people in the "movement" favor a retreat from industrialism and
they don't see technology as the problem solver.

> My concerns regarding nuclear energy:
> I'm aware that the nuclear power industry has a relatively good
> safety record in the U.S., but their have been many accidents
> and near disasters.  Don't forget that there are humans at
> the controls and that even the best technology has it flaws
> (like the Challenger).

   Challenger best technology? NASA uses computers that are 20 years
old. NASA is a bureaucratic monster.  Could you list these
"many" accidents and near disasters? I know of only a few.
IMHO, nuclear luddites are causing more danger than they are
preventing. By preventing the US from building new nuclear
plants and staying with 20 year old technology, they are creating
a safety threat.

    Nuclear technology has improved tremendously over the last 20
years. There are new plant designs out there that are incapable of meltdown
because of their self regulating design. (negative feedback)

> 2)  The physical defects in current plans could cause serious
> problems in an emergency.  I've talked to people who constructed
> some of these plants and they told me stories about shortcuts
> and falsified documents.

   Exactly. So let's build new plants.

> 3)  The biggest factor in this whole equation that nobody ever
> talks about.  Where does the fuel come from?  For the most
> part, current fuel for nuclear plants comes from the American
> west, from INDIAN reservations.  They are fighting a life and
> death battle to stop uranium mining on their lands.  This is
> a struggle that I support and one that I think they will win.
> Maybe you could turn all that nuclear stuff in ICBMs to
> fuel for plants.  That would be great--I'd rather have nuclear plants
> than nuclear weapons.

   I don't think enriched nuclear fuel is usable in current reactors.

  I believe the majority of world nuclear fuel comes from Africa and
South America, not INDIAN reservations.  Recently there was a proposal
to mine uranium on indian reservations and the indians turned down the
plan.  I believe you are wrong in saying that the fuel comes from
indian reservations, but I'll have to research it more.
  In any case, when the indians own their land, they can dictate whether
or not it is mined. If it gets mined, it is only because they want
the profit it would bring them.

> 4) As an anarchist I'm uncomfortable with centralized institutions such
> as the nuclear power industry.  I feel that a centralized
> energy system leads itself to autocratic and environmentally
> destructive uses.  What amount of centralization
> is ok for a free society?
>
> These are some of My concerns.

   Talk to environmentalists about centralization. They are the ones
calling for more government control and regulation.


> chuck0
>

-- Email to rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu -- CUT HERE -- PGP Public Key --
begin 644 rjc_gnu.pub
MF9( 0^GT*0Q287D@0W)O;7=E;&S> S$H1?-XL4<O1W$\I R?52(Q;+BKXT18
MRL#U[S=.;N%5:+I'0A$#M0'-87PP8@X+>3B+E,MUK.V<)B(HNM8<6MN63J3
M(>!I?7LPJOW8N$720'LO@.N$G]5BX!N[,!#+%(G6BWJ6(,>RT5*7$,&G_+Q;
.28^$>OV+38WF93P% !,O

end

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 11:03:27 CDT
From: Michael R Linksvayer <uunet!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!mrl28033>
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: The Environment

Chuck0 writes:
> My concerns regarding nuclear energy:
[deleted]

I have concerns about nuclear energy too. Let's get rid of
liability restrictions on nuclear plants, and eliminate the
price-setting mechanism where a monopoly power provider makes
a virtually guarunteed profit no matter what it does.  Here in
central IL consumers are getting gouged (and I use that word
very carefully) by Illinois Power.  We have to pay for the
Clinton nuclear plant even though it has produced almost no
energy and is shut off most of the time.  In a competitive environment
IP would pay for its mistake by going bankrupt.

What about other technologies? In the local newspaper's person
in the street opinion section, out of ~5 people, no less than
two attributed changes in the weather to space launches.
"We've go to stop putting things in space." is a quote.  How
much sillier can one get?

> as the nuclear power industry.  I feel that a centralized
> energy system leads itself to autocratic and environmentally
> destructive uses.  What amount of centralization
> is ok for a free society?

Good question. A die hard libertarian would probably say the
amount of centralization is irrelevant, as long as there is
consent to the order.  I doubt a high degree of centralization
is conductive to consent though.  Rather it is conducive to
fools being told that they consent, and therefore believing
that they do consent.  That the IRS gets away with calling the
income tax voluntary should tell you something.

As long as we're questioning centralization, let us question
why so many environmentalist leaders want to centralize
environmental decisions for the whole world in one body....

--
Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   (217)344-1326

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 09:14:49 PDT
From: uunet!autodesk.com!robertj (Young Rob Jellinghaus)
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: New clear power (was Re: The Environment)

	From Chuck0

	I'd be pleased to be associated with the Luddites, for they did
	the right thing for their time.  They quite clearly saw that
	the changes in the textile industry would ruin their way
	of life and throw many of them into poverty.  The new technology
	didn't do that, the way it was implemented affected them
	(industrial capitalism).

New technologies always transform economies.  Is the right response
to smash the technology in the hope of stemming the tide, or to
come to terms with it and transform your personal life to fit the
new world evolving around you?  The first response never works.
The second just might.

	4) As an anarchist I'm uncomfortable with centralized institutions such
	as the nuclear power industry.  I feel that a centralized
	energy system leads itself to autocratic and environmentally
	destructive uses.  What amount of centralization
	is ok for a free society?

I agree with this, on many levels.  Anyone who reads comp.risks
knows that the risks of large, complex, intradependent systems
(like nuke plants) are many, mainly because of the unpredictable
interactions among the many parts of a horrendously complex
system.  The classic claim about nuke plants is that each com-
ponent is very reliable, and there are many backup systems; the
classic problems always involve multiple disjoint failures which
collectively form an unanticipated and almost impossible to
comprehend failure mode.  No backup system can anticipate every
failure, and there are _lots_ of failure possibilities.

Moreover, as Chuck0 says, nuke plants require a huge capital
investment, extensive attention to safety and pollution issues,
and inordinate maintenance costs.  Not a very extropian set of
characteristics.  I'm placing more hope in the Drexlerian "solar
asphalt" (from _Unbounding the Future_), which shouldn't take
more than another thirty years to invent... and with current
advances in energy efficiency, our fossil fuels will easily last
that long.

There may be some pro-nuke extropians, but it doesn't seem that
most of us subscribe to the "nuke in every pot" ideas that were
popular in the fifties... which is fine by me.

Rob Jellinghaus (robertj@Autodesk.COM)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 13:36:51 EDT
From: uunet!gnu.ai.mit.edu!rjc
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: New clear power (was Re: The Environment)

> There may be some pro-nuke extropians, but it doesn't seem that
> most of us subscribe to the "nuke in every pot" ideas that were
> popular in the fifties... which is fine by me.

    I'm a pro-nuke extropian (Nuke fusion, anti-matter).  Solar
Power is too inefficient per square area of material. Even if current
solar panels were 100% efficient they still take up a large amount
of land mass per power output.
   We are never going to explore the stars on solar power. The energy demands
for relativistic flight can only be met by nuclear power.

   Nuke Power produces the most bang per gram and that makes it worth it.

  I believe we can make Nukes as safe as we want them, if only we
build more of them, and power companies invest in R&D to build
safer plants.

  Nanotech has the potential to be more dangerous than nuke power
and have much greater pollution ability (grey goo).

  I'm not against solar power, it just has limited uses.

> Rob Jellinghaus (robertj@Autodesk.COM)
>

-- Email to rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu -- CUT HERE -- PGP Public Key --
begin 644 rjc_gnu.pub
MF9( 0^GT*0Q287D@0W)O;7=E;&S> S$H1?-XL4<O1W$\I R?52(Q;+BKXT18
MRL#U[S=.;N%5:+I'0A$#M0'-87PP8@X+>3B+E,MUK.V<)B(HNM8<6MN63J3
M(>!I?7LPJOW8N$720'LO@.N$G]5BX!N[,!#+%(G6BWJ6(,>RT5*7$,&G_+Q;
.28^$>OV+38WF93P% !,O

end

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 11:23:03 PDT
From: uunet!autodesk.com!robertj (Young Rob Jellinghaus)
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: New clear power (was Re: The Environment)

	From rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu Thu Jun 18 11:10:02 1992
	    I'm a pro-nuke extropian (Nuke fusion, anti-matter).  Solar
	Power is too inefficient per square area of material. Even if current
	solar panels were 100% efficient they still take up a large amount
	of land mass per power output.

True.  Current solar technology isn't terribly viable.  But the
"solar asphalt" concept--make a material that's tough, useful for
construction, durable enough to drive on or land on, and able to
generate electricity from light--means there's lots more available
land mass:  all over our constructed surfaces!

	We are never going to explore the stars on solar power.
	The energy demands
	for relativistic flight can only be met by nuclear power.

I'm not against nuclear power per se; I just think that current
nuclear power plants are a bad idea.  I haven't given the new
designs you mention a detailed look, but I'd be very surprised if
they weren't still subject to all kinds of nasty complex failures.
Radioactivity is dangerous enough that I'd prefer to avoid using
it at all--at least until we can get out into space, or until we
can build reactors with materials that are far stronger and more
durable than those used now.

	Nuke Power produces the most bang per gram and that makes it worth it.

Worth what?  Worth the investment in today's technology to build
huge clunkers?

	  I believe we can make Nukes as safe as we want them, if only we
	build more of them, and power companies invest in R&D to build
	safer plants.

I see this as parallel to the space argument.  We could build
spacecraft "as safe as we want them, if only we build more of
them".  Why don't we?  Because with our current technology, each
one still has to be basically hand-crafted, and the materials and
construction technology just aren't as durable as you need--or if
they are that durable, they're far too expensive.  Spacecraft and
nukes both need much better components for much less money before
they will be truly worth building in large quantities.

	Nanotech has the potential to be more dangerous than nuke power
	and have much greater pollution ability (grey goo).

All too true, but early nanotech won't present these problems,
and will make better cheaper materials available.

	I'm not against solar power, it just has limited uses.

No argument there.  But for much of what nuclear power is used
for now--feeding the worldwide electric grid--solar power will be
perfectly adequate... once the technology catches up.

Rob Jellinghaus (robertj@Autodesk.COM)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 15:13:40 EDT
From: uunet!gnu.ai.mit.edu!rjc
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: New clear power (was Re: The Environment)

>
> 	From rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu Thu Jun 18 11:10:02 1992
> 	    I'm a pro-nuke extropian (Nuke fusion, anti-matter).  Solar
> 	Power is too inefficient per square area of material. Even if current
> 	solar panels were 100% efficient they still take up a large amount
> 	of land mass per power output.
>
> True.  Current solar technology isn't terribly viable.  But the
> "solar asphalt" concept--make a material that's tough, useful for
> construction, durable enough to drive on or land on, and able to
> generate electricity from light--means there's lots more available
> land mass:  all over our constructed surfaces!

  I'm all for this. We can never have too much energy, but solar power
has to be supplimented by other sources.

> Worth what?  Worth the investment in today's technology to build
> huge clunkers?

   Worth the risks.  Just as many people would like more and more
computation power, I also want more and more energy. Particulary
because something has to power all those nanites, and
you need tremendous energy output for any sort of speedy flight.

> I see this as parallel to the space argument.  We could build
> spacecraft "as safe as we want them, if only we build more of
> them".  Why don't we?  Because with our current technology, each
> one still has to be basically hand-crafted, and the materials and
> construction technology just aren't as durable as you need--or if
> they are that durable, they're far too expensive.  Spacecraft and
> nukes both need much better components for much less money before
> they will be truly worth building in large quantities.

   And nanotech can provide these materials. But, that doesn't
preclude us from building such materials crudely and using them today.
We didn't give up on computers just because the ENIAC's vacuum tubes
were too prone to failure and consumed too much power.

> No argument there.  But for much of what nuclear power is used
> for now--feeding the worldwide electric grid--solar power will be
> perfectly adequate... once the technology catches up.

   Agreed.  One nice thing about solar power is that it doesn't
require a central control of resources (fossil fuels, uranium) because
the energy resevoir is the sun, which no one owns. However, just like
Nuke technology, Solar power currently doesn't have good enough materials.
Solar panels degrade after a while, are very inefficient, and hence
require a large amount of land to get a good energy output.

> Rob Jellinghaus (robertj@Autodesk.COM)
>

-- Email to rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu -- CUT HERE -- PGP Public Key --
begin 644 rjc_gnu.pub
MF9( 0^GT*0Q287D@0W)O;7=E;&S> S$H1?-XL4<O1W$\I R?52(Q;+BKXT18
MRL#U[S=.;N%5:+I'0A$#M0'-87PP8@X+>3B+E,MUK.V<)B(HNM8<6MN63J3
M(>!I?7LPJOW8N$720'LO@.N$G]5BX!N[,!#+%(G6BWJ6(,>RT5*7$,&G_+Q;
.28^$>OV+38WF93P% !,O

end

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 13:40:15 PDT
From: uunet!autodesk.com!robertj (Young Rob Jellinghaus)
To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: New clear power (was Re: The Environment)

	From rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu Thu Jun 18 12:52:28 1992
	   And nanotech can provide these materials. But, that doesn't
	preclude us from building such materials crudely and using them today.
	We didn't give up on computers just because the ENIAC's vacuum tubes
	were too prone to failure and consumed too much power.

True.  But then again, when ENIAC failed, all you had to do was
replace a vacuum tube and maybe turn the fan on to clear the
smoke.  When a nuke plant fails, you can wind up spilling
radiation.  No, thanks.

(This is all just personal opinion--if others can make safe nuke
plants that produce cost-effective power at a profit, fine!  Just
please be careful--I have a riparian right to a radiation-pollu-
tion-free biosphere....)

Rob

------------------------------

End of Hal's Extropians Digest Volume 92 Issue #0010
****************************************************