James Newtons Massmind wrote:

> The problem is political not real. 

What means "political" and what's not "real" in that?

Planning on storing anything for more than a century is not "scientific" --
we don't have any proven technology for that. Let alone the mechanisms to
provide the required social stability to insure the required maintenance
over the lifetime of the facility. This is all "real".

> Again, disposal of radio-active waste, 235 or any other, could easily and
> safely be accomplished by just spreading it thin.

I can see crop dusters flying over NYC and LA, "spreading it thin" right
where the energy was consumed :)


> But the enemy of my enemy is my friend. 

Ouch... why is it that this fallacy is so popular? Haven't there been
enough examples yet to show that this doesn't work? 


Funny that nobody mentioned the IMO biggest energy source: more efficient
use. 

US total consumption: 100 P BTU/year, or 350 GJ/person/year 
Germany total consumption: 14 P BTU/year, or 200 GJ/person/year

I don't consider the German lifestyle that much different, in terms of
opportunity for happiness and comfort. Maybe fewer dryers and smaller cars,
but that's about it. And note that I don't find anything particularly
energy-efficient about the German lifestyle. There's lots of room for
improvements, in both lifestyles -- the difference here is just to show
what big difference even minor adjustments can make. More efficient use
often comes not only with less consumption, but also with fewer side
effects.


BTW, there seem to have been a host of cartoons in the US lately about the
increased oil consumption of China. Let's see: 

US petroleum consumption: 7.3 G barrels/year, or 3820 liters/person/year
China petroleum consumption: 0.3 G barrels/year, or 32 liters/person/year 

Hm... :)

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist