> > He3?  Ha, for a minute there I thought it was going to be 
> some silly 
> > technology that is largely theoretical, no commercial success, not 
> > even out of the lab, no supporting infrastructure, unknown costs & 
> > risks, and no efficiency results.
> 
> > Apart from a few minor 'easily solved' quibbles, He3 looks good.
> 
> A mere matter of engineering :-)
> The sun has it down pat already.
> 
> But, yes.
> It WAS meant to bea pie in the (literally) sky comment.
> BUT, also, its nature is such that it completely trashes the 
> peak oil arguments.


I look forward to your plan of parking a small sun somewhere (Tasman Sea?)
or the alternate of using H-bombs to power a Stirling engine, Orion-style.

I'm not sure how the fantasy (and it is, at this point) of He3 trashes the
peak oil argument.  Peak oil is just stating the half-way mark.  While you
can quibble about the date, which depends on rubbery figures, outright lies,
new technology, abiogenics, new discoveries etc, it will happen.

The problems with oil are rising demand, no new discoveries, greenies upset
about drill Antartica, shale oil has never been worth mining (even now), and
requires a bit more than just squeezing rocks (like needing lots of water),
and like toothpaste, the first 50% is much easier to get too than the last
50%.  If we're beyond the halfway mark, 2050 will see the last drop burnt.

Building a few nuclear power plants can be considered the safe bet; we know
it works, and we know the pros & cons.

In the mean time, fire up the He3 miners, dig holes thru the mantle, cover
deserts with solar collectors & wind farms, build greenhouses with kilometer
high chimneys, kick the surfers off the beach so make room for the tidal
generators, and give everyone an exercise bike with a generator.  One of
these might work.

Tony

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