[extropy-chat] Nuke 'em

Damien Sullivan phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu
Sun Oct 23 16:09:25 UTC 2005

On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 09:38:36AM -0500, Greg Burch wrote:
>    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

No, Dirk said "then totally renewable becomes feasible"; I infer he meant
solar/wind/tides/whatnot becomes useful for baseline power.

Alternatively, accept less than 80% efficiency and just suck in more power.
10 billion people solar-powered at 50 kW/capita (input energy, not out of the
wall) is feasible, I think.  My model had been 20 kW toward electricity and
the rest to make synthetic hydrocarbons from CO2 (at 11% efficiency, a bit
higher than plants, *cough*) but if one assumes 10% overall that gives 5 kW of
usable power, which is still First World (at least in good climates) level,
though not US level.

As for nukes, yeah.  Some of the answers are out there but people don't listen
well.  Chernobyl can't happen in Western reactors, the design is all wrong.
TMI reportedly didn't actually release much; you're doing good when your worst
disaster didn't actually do anything.  Waste takes a lot less volume and lasts
less if you don't bury the U-238 and actinide products along with the fission

I've heard some enviros are looking at nukes more, in the face of probable
coal use.

I don't have any clever solutions to what seems an essentially social control

-xx- Damien X-) 

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list