How do we do it? was Re: So what now do we do?

This is a truly great post!.

Now, how do we at ASA make this happen? It is important for my heirs and therefore
it is important to me. Even my atheist friend who says that he "worships the
selfish gene" would "rise to that cause".

I was only partially joking when I said that we should delete the word "nuclear"
from energy discussions. In my career at a major contractor, the use of terminology
often made the difference between success and failure.

Let us "rally around the flagpole" and do something instead of just yapping on this
list.

It could be worthwhile.

IMHO!

Walt

.

Kenneth Piers wrote:

> REPLY: This discussion again points out that we (and the rest of the world) are
> in a serious position regarding our energy future. None of the reports about
> world oil supplies and discovery rates are very encouraging; and natural gas
> reserves, while abundant in several overseas countries, are on the wane in the
> US and Canada. So our access to sufficient natural gas may be even more in
> doubt than our access to oil, since getting natural gas from overseas sources
> will require a huge investment in LNG technologies -shipping and port
> facilities - all of which will be costly and will have significant lead times.
> And of course, there are substantial environmental reasons for reducing our use
> of fossil fuels
> The only known technology that has the potential to provide sufficient energy
> for an indefinite time period and that is not subject to the problem of
> intermittent supply (as are direct solar and wind technologies) is the nuclear
> fast breeder technology. An energy supply system based on fast-breeder nuclear
> technology could, in principle, supply all of the energy needs of the world for
> an indefinite time into the future. Of course, it would mean an eventual switch
> to an all-electrified energy economy, which is certainly possible, but would
> entail major, major changes in the way our society is structured - particularly
> its transportation system. But currently there are no commercial fast-breeder
> reactors in operation. France has permanently shut down its 1200 MWe
> SuperPhenix liquid metal (sodium) fast breeder reactor for several reasons
> including: high cost of operation; low operation/downtime ratio; difficulty of
> servicing the reactor; and a rather poor safety record. Unless costs of the
> fast breeder technology come down, its safety record improves substantially,
> and we solve the socio/political problems associated with the operation of
> nuclear fuel reprocessing plants, one cannot be optimistic that fast breeder
> technologies have a promising future.
> MIT has just published a new interdisciplinary study entitled "The Future of
> Nuclear Power" (http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena/org/n/nuclearpower/ ) in which
> they make various recommendations regarding the expansion of the open-fuel
> cycle (one time through then waste storage - no reprocessing) nuclear program
> (the current US system) to three time it current level within the next 15-20
> years. Their contention is that there exists a sufficient supply of uranium to
> afford a significant expansion of the conventional nuclear power generating
> system. They do, however, note four problems that must be solved in order for
> this to occur: the construction cost of nuclear power plants must be reduced;
> safety of operation must be improved (and be so perceived by the public); the
> nuclear waste storage issue must be solved; and the nuclear proliferation issue
> must be solved. Again most of these problems have significant socio/political
> components and do not allow of a simple technical solutions.
> We are living in an age when energy issues are becoming extremely critical. We
> can not afford to long-delay making very important and world-shaping decisions
> about our energy future. Given the fact that the US now has a significant
> presence in nearly all of the major oil-rich regions of the world (including
> the Caspian region , but excluding only Iran) it seems clear that our leaders -
> knowingly or not - have positioned the US so that it can assure some kind of
> stable access to the remaining world oil resources. But that at best will be a
> stop-gap measure. We need to develop other resources on a vast array of energy
> fronts. I think that there will be no one single answer to our energy future,
> despite the lure of nuclear fast-breeders. Certainly energy conservation, on
> the consumer level, but also on the industrial and commercial level needs to be
> part - and an important part - of our energy future. But I also think that an
> expanded nuclear program of some kind must be a much more significant component
> of our energy future than it now is.
> ken piers
>
> >>> George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> 12/4/2003 12:39:55 PM >>>
> Jay Willingham wrote:
> >
> > Telling people in a technology driven society to back off on using that
> > technology is simply not going to work. Ask Gray Davis.
>
> There's a difference between telling people to stop driving cars and
> asking them
> to use cars more prudently & efficiently. It would not be in any serious
> sense a
> backing off of technology to get people to stop driving SUVs.
>
> Shalom,
> George
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

--
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================