>
> On Mar 1, 2008, at 9:53 AM, Bob Axtell wrote:
>
> AppTech said:
>>> I believe that energy costs will actually fall over time
>>>
>>
>> I do too. But I also believe that we may have to wait until
>> Lunar Helium 3 fusion power comes on line in a widespread
>> manner for this to happen.
>>
>> "Power so cheap it won't need to be metered".
>>
>> "It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy
>> in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter, will
>> know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as
>> matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas
>> and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger
>> and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far
>> longer than ours as disease yields and man comes to
>> understand what causes him to age."
>> Lewis L. Strauss
>> Speech to the National Association of Science Writers, New
>> York City September 16th, 1954.
>>
>>
>>
> Yes. This quote was made in a 3-page advertisement in Scientific  
> American in
> 1955. I carried it with me for years. Alas I finally lost it. and I  
> have
> been very
> suspicious of Scientific American ever since...
>
> The truth is that nuclear power is the MOST costly of all power
> generation methods.
> The US government has never admitted the true costs, because it would
> probably
> cause a taxpayer revolt. The original purpose of nuclear power was to
> provide a
> reliable  source of plutonium from spent fuel rods. Where do you think
> the USA _GOT_
> its warheads?
>
> After 9/11, the price went up dramatically. Now, no airplane is  
> allowed
> to overfly a
> nuke plant. Seriously armed guards are EVERYWHERE. Visitors must  
> have prior
> permission to even pickup a worker's paycheck. Unused radioactive
> material is
> stored ONSITE, an open invitation to evil-doers of all flavors. It  
> goes
> on and on.
>
> But solar concentration plants have problems too. The sun doesn't  
> shine
> at night, so
> energy must be shared between different generation methods, by  
> moving it
> over the
> power grid. But here in the USA, our "power grid" is a joke; it is
> overloaded now, so
> no new power can move over it. Third-world countries have better power
> grids than
> we have. One workable idea is to drop the power grid entirely, and
> pipeline hydrogen
> gas (cracked by excess electricity) between cites, and burn it at  
> night
> (as well as sell it
> to hydrogen-powered cars). But such planning takes competent political
> oversight, and
> here in the colonies, our politicians are much too stupid for  the  
> task.
>
> Here's the vision of a few Arizona engineers:
>
> 1. Establish a huge solar concentrator, with a 10-mile  area of  
> sunlight
> concentrators.
> Several turbine plants would generate electricity but only to crack
> water into hydrogen
> and oxygen immediately. The hydrogen will be pipelined to various
> generating plants in
> the USA, who will store the H2 then generate electricity locally on a
> 24/hr basis; in
> essence, the hydrogen would replace natural gas in the burners,
> generating no carbon
> dioxide.
>
> 2.  The hydrogen will also be delivered to hydrogen "filling stations"
> across the USA
> for use in clean-burning cars and trucks. Hydrogen burns with 0 (ZERO)
> smog emissions
> and creates just WATER as a waste product. No more adding CO2 to the
> atmosphere.
>
> 3. Oxygen can be sold to vendors  who will further clean it to be used
> in commercial
> or medical processes.
>
> A plant of this size can supply the needs of the entire USA from one
> site. No new nukes,
> no use of petroleum to generate electricity anymore. The headaches of
> the past are ended.
>
> If we don't do this, Mexico will.
>
> --Bob A

And what is wrong with that ?  Hooray !  What is the cost breakdown  
for this scheme ?  What are the dangers ? Any ?
cc


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