[ExI] pentagon wants orbiting solar power stations
sjatkins at mac.com
Tue Oct 16 18:31:39 UTC 2007
On Oct 14, 2007, at 11:51 AM, hkhenson wrote:
> At 10:46 PM 10/13/2007, you wrote:
>> On Oct 13, 2007, at 3:56 PM, hkhenson wrote:
>>> Both fusion and fission generate neutrons. There is a really big
>>> problem in that neutrons can be silently diverted into making Pu
>>> 239. The problem will only be recognized when a city is terror nuked
>>> without warning.
>> I have heard it said that such usages to produce Pu 239 is not a
>> simple process and leaves telltales allowing detection. As far as
>> being possible I think this is very well recognized as it is used as
>> an argument against countries like Iran developing even supposedly
>> peaceful nuclear tecnology. So I doubt very much we are blind to the
>> possibility or require a city being nuked to alert us.
> Google "Keith Henson" plutonium
>>> Also, the biggest use of oil is transport fuel, and that not easy to
>>> displace with fission. It can be done, but the resultant fuel will
>>> be very expensive. See my discussion on dollar gasoline here a
>>> while back.
>> What kind of transport are we talking? Some 60+% of oil used in the
>> US is used by cars and trucks. How many of them could run just fine
>> off of electricity generated by nuclear power?
> Not very many of them. But even if *half* could, it won't solve the
> carbon and energy problem.
Why can't all cars and light trucks be electric? And why wouldn't a
substantial decrease in oil burned help?
More information about the extropy-chat