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

Getting the Energy Policy Act of 2003 passed would be
a good start. Of course, there is definite special
interest pork in it, which is what is creating some of
the problems and I don't pretend to be able to justify
everything contained in the bill. However, it
includes a lot of tax and other incentives for further
development of nuclear power.

--- Walter Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com> wrote:
> 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)
> ===================================
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
Received on Thu Dec 4 20:06:42 2003