Article View: ca.environment
Article #8127Re: Nuclear vs. Solar
From: Jon Roland
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 04:01
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 04:01
43 lines
3031 bytes
3031 bytes
In article 25258@gn.ecn.purdue.edu, zika@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Michael Zika) writes: >In article <1992Jun7.222928.1843@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes: >>In article <l322udINNd30@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> jdr@starflight.Corp.Sun.COM writes: >>>Like many students of physics, I once leaned toward nuclear power. But as I >>>continued to read the literature over the years the realization emerged that >>>nuclear fission is intrinsically unsafe, over the long term, in ways that >>>can't be fixed. > > Alright, socio-political problems, definitely; economic problems, yes; >technical problems, occasionally (what engineering system doesn't?); but >"intrinsically unsafe, over the long term, in ways that can't be fixed" -- >how do you justify this? > > Let's get back into the realm of science, shall we... > The limitations of any technology are difficult to "prove" in a few, simple propositions. It is more a matter of the deep insight that comes only after years of study. There is no easy answer, but there are some hard lessons. There is a similar problem with "proving" that there is no viable alternative between sealed, compact cities, and the collapse of human civilization all the way back to the stone age, taking the natural ecosystem with it. People are accustomed to the idea of scattered living. They take it for granted, never questioning its place in the larger scheme of things. The "proof" comes from the systematic analysis of one economic system and one technology after another, looking at the characteristic annual material retention rates of each, and finally realizing that no system other than sealed, compact cities will work over a long time span. Nothing less is "sustainable" for more than a few decades, a century at most, all things considered. That conclusion doesn't come out of a simple thermodynamic theorem, although it is based on one, because it also involves the labor of systematic interpretation across the entire class of possibilities. --- jdr@starflight.corp.sun.com, starflt@uunet.uu.net Jon Roland Starflight Corporation, 1755 E Bayshore Rd #9A, Redwood City, CA 94063-4142, 415/361-8141
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<l3avllINNlk9@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!sun-barr!news2me.ebay.sun.com!jethro.Corp.Sun.COM!starflight!jdrReferences:
<1992Jun10.005501.25258@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10607c,cdd4fb4e2095d95a X-Google-Attributes: gid10607c,public X-Google-Thread: 10df74,cdd4fb4e2095d95a X-Google-Attributes: gid10df74,public X-Google-Thread: fb58e,cdd4fb4e2095d95a X-Google-Attributes: gidfb58e,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1992-06-10 06:39:00 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!sun-barr!news2me.ebay.sun.com!jethro.Corp.Sun.COM!starflight!jdr From: jdr@starflight.Corp.Sun.COM (Jon Roland) Newsgroups: ca.environment,sci.environment,talk.environment Subject: Re: Nuclear vs. Solar Date: 10 Jun 1992 04:01:57 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Lines: 44 Distribution: world Message-ID: <l3avllINNlk9@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> References: <1992Jun10.005501.25258@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> Reply-To: jdr@starflight.Corp.Sun.COM NNTP-Posting-Host: starflight.corp.sun.com