[extropy-chat] Nuke 'em

Greg Burch gregburch at gregburch.net
Sun Oct 23 14:38:36 UTC 2005


Yes, but your comment begs the question of from whence comes the
electricity.  This is the issue I have with what I think of as
"California-style" energy and transportation reform schemes.  Such ideas
just seem to be a way to ship the problem elsewhere.  California mandates
low-emmission and emission-free vehicles, but makes no provision for
generation of the electricity that ultimately must power the creation of the
low-emission or emission-free energy sources (e.g. hydrogen or the grid
electricty to charge batteries).  As a practical matter, this just means
that California is shipping their pollution to the places where the
electricty is being generated by others.  If you track the actual ergs of
energy, a pure-electric vehicle in Los Angeles today is being powered in
large part by coal-fired power plants in places like the Four Corners area,
which now have increased pollution from the burning of fossil fuels,
amplified by the loss in efficiency of generating the power so far away and
shipping it over transmission lines.

To me, the "hydrogen economy" is just hot air until we face the real issue,
which is pursuing technologies that generate electricity with an acceptable
balance of safety, cost and environmental impact.  But for the two issues
I've identified in my original post, TODAY nothing seems to come close to
fission nuclear reactors on this multi-axis gris.

GB
  -----Original Message-----
  From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Dirk Bruere
  Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 8:08 AM
  To: ExI chat list
  Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Nuke 'em





  On 10/23/05, Greg Burch <gregburch at gregburch.net> wrote:
    Over the last few years I've come to the conclusion (like very many
people) that nuclear power generation is generally undervalued as a source
of electricity generation.  Opponents to nuclear power point to issues at
almost every step of the process from the mining of uranium ore through
storage and disposal of spent fuel and other waste.  Based on the evidence
of how many reactors are in operation or have been constructed (in the U.S.
at least) over the last 30 years, nuke proponents have done a poor job of
responding to those concerns.

    >From a technical standpoint, it seems to me that no alternative to
nuclear power generation comes close to the value that nuke plants can offer
in the face of the many societal problems created by fossil fuel energy
sources.  But nuke advocates have to have good answers to overcome the huge
hit that nukes have taken in public perception since Three Mile Island and
Chernobyl.  I'm sure that reactor design and operating procedures have been
and can be developed to adequately address the kinds of problems that gave
rise to those two incidents.

    But it seems to me that two issues remain as legitimate problems and
therefore major stumbling blocks to more widespread use of nuclear power.
These issues are weapons proliferation and waste storage.  Both seem to call
for structures of social control about which liberty lovers and skeptics
about government power and efficiency should have deep misgivings.  So I'm
interested in the thoughts of those here on the List about these two issues.
What kinds of social and technical mechanisms present the best balance
between harvesting the obvious benefits of nuclear power on the one hand and
avoiding the problems of inefficient and overly-intrusive social controls on
the other?



  If an efficient energy storage method could be developed eg electricty to
methanol with >80% efficiency, then totally renewable becomes feasible. Even
so, an electricity to hydrogen scheme coupled with a gas distribution grid
may be sufficient.

  Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20051023/13fdad98/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list