<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2769" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=658093114-23102005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=658093114-23102005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=658093114-23102005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=658093114-23102005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=658093114-23102005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>GB</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Dirk
Bruere<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, October 23, 2005 8:08 AM<BR><B>To:</B> ExI chat
list<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [extropy-chat] Nuke
'em<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 10/23/05, <B class=gmail_sendername>Greg
Burch</B> <<A
href="mailto:gregburch@gregburch.net">gregburch@gregburch.net</A>>
wrote:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">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.<BR><BR>>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.<BR><BR>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?<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>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.<BR><BR>Dirk<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>