RE: Nuclear power

From: Glenn Morton (glenn.morton@btinternet.com)
Date: Sun Jan 21 2001 - 12:17:50 EST

  • Next message: Dick Fischer: "Re: Biological roles for junk genes after all"

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Lawrence Johnston [mailto:johnston@uidaho.edu]
    >Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 4:33 PM
    >First, thank you Glenn for keeping us up to date on the shrinking
    >supply of fossil
    >fuels. That is a great service, you are our Expert in the
    >business. I am amazed
    >that nobody has come out and said what seems to me is an obvious
    >answer - Nuclear
    >Power! (NP). It's time has come, and then some.

    I think we are going to have to use all forms of energy and even then we may
    run short. I agree with Laurence that nuclear is going to have to be part
    of the answer. But I ran some numbers--admittedly crude--and I don't see how
    nuclear will be able to replace approximatley 65% of our energy requirements
    by the middle of this century. To achieve that goal, we will have to invest
    in nuclear like there is no tomorrow (which there might not be, but that is
    another story). But I also think we are going to have to tremendously
    improve solar power efficiency. There are a few rays of hope in this regard,
    like black silicon, (see New Scientist Jan 13, 2001, article "Tall, Dark and
    Stranger") but their application is a ways off.

    Several things are going to have to happen to solve this problem:

    1. We are also going to have to cease sueing everytime someone wants to
    build a power plant.

    2. Environmentalists are going to have to work with industry rather than
    against it. The worst thing the environmental movement can face is a
    backlash because people's lights are going out or because they can't get
    fuel to go to work. The panic I saw on people's faces over here when the
    strikers shut down the refineries told me that nothing is going to stand
    between mankind and the energy he needs to maintain this technological
    society. During that time, food trucks didn't move, ambulances were running
    out of fuel, plane flights were canceled and people were getting a bit
    scared. And that was after only 3 weeks of strikes. Like it or not the world
    needs energy and we need lots of it.

    3. people are going to have to change their lifestyle a bit.

    4. we are going to have to get over the notion that we can tax people into
    submission and force them by such means not to drive their vehicles. Given
    that the UK paysaround $4.00 per gallon tax on gasoline, it doesn't really
    stop people from driving. People simply have to get to work.

    5. Public transporation must get better. Even here the bus system isn't up
    to the task of moving people quickly from one place to another. It would
    take me an hour to ride the bus to my office which is about 10 miles away.
    Why? because I must go into town to the central bus terminal and then catch
    another bus out of town. Seems rather a waste of time.

    6. Oil policy will have to become more freindly to exploration. The company
    I worked for many years ago had lots of production from California. We were
    trying to do exploration there also. But because the political system would
    throw road block after road block in the way of ever drilling a well, we
    finally left California. We would get approval from one board to drill only
    to have another group of politicians stop us. When we got through that
    hurdle, the first group might have changed their mind. And finally much of
    the California continental shelf, which has lots of oil and gas on it, was
    declared off-limits to those nasty oil companies. All we were doing was
    trying to meet the energy needs of California and the US, but they didn't
    want us to do that there. They wanted oil from elsewhere. I strongly suspect
    that the utilities have had the same experience in that state. And now,
    California is reaping what they sowed. To solve there problem will require a
    change of mind about what they want--energy or a vista that has no man-made
    object in sight.

    7. California needs to take a hard look at this situation. I hear people
    claiming that this energy crisis is the outcome of deregulation. Maybe that
    exasperated the problem. But as the chart in that speech I mentioned in my
    last post showed, the reduction in investment for electrical generation
    capacity started long, long before they even thought of deregulation. But,
    the politicians will say what it takes to get re-elected and that usually
    means finding some sort of scape-goat.

    Because I believe that this problem will take quite a while to solve, I am
    willing to bet that California will lose population and jobs over the next
    10 years. Companies can't run when the energy supplies are unsure. This will
    mean a reduction in their political power.

    glenn

    see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
    for lots of creation/evolution information
    anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
    personal stories of struggle
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 21 2001 - 12:14:23 EST