Someone make a note: I agree with Russell on this. Peak oil is the least persuasive argument. Environmental damage is the next up on the list for me. It is plausible, and frightening. But the top of the list is that fossil fuel dependency puts power in the hands of foreign oil producers and oil barons like our current administration. The failure of the PR effort in support of nuclear power in the USA strongly influenced our current involvement in this insane war. If we had all the power we needed, along with stronger support for mass transit, and some support of local organic farmers, Bush would not have been able to justify the invasion of Iraq. We would not have killed more civilians than Sadam, made ourselves a pariah in the world, and justified any number of future terrorist actions. BTW, we are on track to have killed more US soldiers in Iraq than the 9/11 terrorists killed in the WTC right around Christmas this year. But then it all boils down to the unbelievably freaking stupid US citizens that we have bread over years of welfare coupled with an educational system whose real purpose is to churn out sheeple, and a lack of evolutionary pressure (e.g. the gene pool needs some chlorine). And a little more awake time during high school science class might have turned the tide. Do you remember Carl Sagan saying that there were enough nuke warheads in the world to kill everyone twice over? Want to know how they justified that? You would have to either group the entire population of the earth in one place, then set off all the bombs together, or you could slice up all the warhead material and feed just a sliver to each person on the planet. Other than that, there is NO WAY that the nuke arsenal could have killed everyone. Not even close. Massive death? Sure. Huge die off? Sure. Everyone? No way. Based on reading articles on the fall out patterns from nuclear warhead tests, I calculated that if EVERY warhead were expended on the USA alone, targeting only the most populated areas (ignoring military targets) you MIGHT have been able to kill 90% of the population. And that is just the USA. Anyone who sat down and thought about it for a while could have realized that it was fear mongering, pure and simple. But the sheeple don't think. --- James. > -----Original Message----- > From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu > [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf Of Russell McMahon > Sent: 2006 Sep 02, Sat 02:04 > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Subject: Re: [OT] On Nuclear power > > > ... if peak oil is true, > > Dons Kevlar vest, nomex overalls, anti-libertarian radiation > shields, anti-socialist ... > > 1. It's not. (Ducks). Read ?1970s? 'Club of Rome' stuff for > possible clues as to why. > > 2. Even if it is, and it's not (see 1.), then we have enough time > (tm) to get the He3 fusion reactors going and the "few" > Shuttle loads a year coming back from the Lunar strip mining > operations in order to supply all the world's needs. The > beanstick elevators will help, but > He3 is so overpoweringly overowering that good old chemical > rockets work just fine to get what Lunar He3 we need. > > 3. And then we are OK until we can get the giant here> He3 'deep dip' mining and return going. > > 4. And then we are OK for longer than is sane. > > While there are very dirty versions of fusion available, and > the easier (not easy) ones are the dirty ones, the holy grail > of He3 fusion is a waste free energy source. > > Even if Peak Oil be true (see 1.) it has NOT included nuclear > fusion in its gambit and so it's irrelevant, as long as we > work together to get the decent version of fusion going as > soon as reasonably possible. > And there's the rub. > > > Nuclear seems to be the only thing capable of filling the > gap in the > > shortest time. > > Maybe, but - > Shortest time not needed (see above) > Not needed anyway (See above). > > > It may take 50-100 years to put an alternate in place, especially > > since there's no 'front runner' in any of the proposed replacements. > > 50 years is fine. > We can progress through the Shale Oil, continental shelf > Methane, deep trench MEthane, Southern Ocean "you've got to > be brave for that one" > Oil. And, if we were really serious, Robert Stirling would > save us :-). > > > This means nuclear should be be a temporary measure, > > This means nuclear is not needed as a temporary solution, > which is just as well, as we all know how disastrous fixes > that are meant to be temporary solutions all too often turn > out to be :-). > > > Russell > > > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change > your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist