From: Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de
Date: Sat Jun 02 2001 - 02:14:15 MDT
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> > As a stopgap measure, coal, oil and methane, as microinstallations.
>
> None of those are cheaper or safer.
Okay, let's compare notes. IIRC we've got a local methane generator
(not a turbine, it's plain ICU) installed in the community quite a few
years ago. It's powered by methane (from Russia and North Germany,
Scandinavia etc.) which comes through the pipeline. It's a small-grain
installation owned by the community, and is comparatively cheap. The
exhaust goes through heat exchanger, and is used to heat the community
swimming pool, so the bulk of available combustion enthalpy is utilized.
Release of radioactivity: zero. Pollution: pretty much nigh zero. (If
you start talking about carbon dioxide here, you've got a problem).
Installation grain size: small as compared to your average multi-GW
reactor. Micrograin energy agorics, does it ring a bell? Can I own
a piece of a nuke plant, personally? Do you think energy monopoly is
good for you? Thought so. No transformation and transportation losses,
since power is consumed locally. Full thermal utilization, see swimming
pool (or heating nearby houses) -- compare this with nuke, which are
typically built in the sticks, so you can't get a heat pipe anywhere
without tremendous losses.
Somehow, I think the installation is cost effective.
As to safety, well, I guess in theory there could be a gas leak,
and someone could be smoking nearby. Or the mechanic would drop a
monkeywrench on top of somebody's head when repairing it. Sure this
scales to larger proportions in case the whole country is riddled
with microinstallations, but this is a problem set monkeys are familiar
with. You might observe that monkeys don't have a good mental model
of a reactor, especially if you have to save costs on training.
Moreover, please observe that I said stopgap measure. If you think
building big nuke rigs is a solution, I must say you're missing 90%
of the picture.
> > Meanwhile, getting non-Carnot processes running with fuel reformers up to
> > speed, then phasing out fossils with hydrogen/photovoltaics, both
> > terrestrial and using photovoltaics sats (launched from Luna, and
> > microwaving power down to rectenna grids on ground via phased array
> > integrated into panels).
>
> Sure, but not cheaper until after on the order of a 10 year
> massive down payment.
If it wasn't for nuke euphoria in the 1970s, we would have put considerable
R&D expenses into photovoltaics, water electrolysis, water photolysis, fuel
cells and fuel reforming. 30 years of massive R&D usually translate in results.
Now we wasted 30 years already. Do you think we can afford to waste a few
more decades, especially considering explosive industrialization in the
3rd world?
> >
> > Nuke really makes no sense in biosphere context.
>
> This is simply an empty assertion.
I should get you an interview with a few folks who have inhaled
a small soot particle from a burning reactor core. I think you
might find out that confidence of these people into nuke energy
of any kind is permanently shattered.
Do you think you can say these people are negligable? There's
a certain river in Russia which will make you absorb a serious
dosage if you just happen to sit by its side for a couple of
hours (nevermind what would happen if you drank from it, or ate
fish still living in it). Lots of Russian Arctic is contaminated
with nuke sub related activities. Some people thought it was a
good idea to pool liquid radioactive waste in a large container,
until the said thing blew (whether it was chemical or nuclear is
not really important) the spicy stuff all across the local landscape.
Sure, this is the Extropian list, where nuke power is cool, but
sometimes you have to think for yourself. Nuke power is very
cool in space, especially if you're so hardassed you can pull out
the fuel rods in person. Given the monkeys abysmal record of
handling hot isotopes and above holistic considerations you might
want to reinvestigate the issue.
Focusing on a single aspect of the problem only proves my point:
monkeys are irrational animals. It is good engineering to not let
them express their irrationality in palpable ways.
______________________________________________________________
ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204
57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:54 MST