Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:56:34 -0600
Reply-To: John Rodgers <jh_rodgers@BELLSOUTH.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: John Rodgers <jh_rodgers@BELLSOUTH.NET>
Subject: Re: gas prices.. and what they'll be this summer
In-Reply-To: <vanagon%2004022522332292@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
The issues of forces pushing growth of civilizations and populations
and fuels to meet the needs of that growth are at it's very least
complicated. France met that problem by going to nuclear power a long
time ago. They basically took a survey of the various type of nuclear
generators that existed at the time, and then picked one, and replicated
that all over the country. They produce so much electrical power they
are able to sell the excess to other nations.
The thing that forced France to go that direction was that at the time
of the industrial revolution the got onto coal, and they used up all
their coal reserves. With limited opportunities for Hydro Power in
France, they had to do something or simply sink into oblivion as the
rest of the industrial nations sped past.
France has developed their power system with few major incidents. There
was no expense spared to get the nuclear plants on line. In this
country, the plants were put out to the lowest bidder, a scary thought.
And, it resulted in a mishmash of reactor types instead of one size fits
all. The stability of a one-size-fits all works because of
standardization's of construction, operation, and the use of the
science. But, because of the politics involved, much of the nuclear
plant growth has been stopped.
An interesting aside, when I went into the Navy in late '50's I was
stationed at a special Naval facility on Chesapeake Bay that kept track
of marine traffic. We also kept track of submarine traffic. To do that
we has special sonar, hydrophones, and banks of mines on the bottom of
the bay and could take out any submarine or ship that tried to enter the
bay. After all, the biggest part of the Atlantic Fleet was based at
Norfolk, VA. At the end of my second year there, an article appeared in
Science and Mechanics Magazine, or Popular Science or one of those
magazines. It has every detail of our operation disclosed in that
magazine. The underwater, listening equipment, the sonar, the mines, the
shore based facilities, the nike missile sites back in the woods, the
radar. It was all there, and telling how it all worked. I was astounded.
In 1987 a article appeared in Popular Science that told of the small
nuclear power plant the size - and similar shape - of a 250 gal. Propane
tank. The system was of sufficient to supply all power required to heat,
cool, and otherwise meet the needs of a home of a 6 person family for 15
years. All the details of the construction were there, description of
the atomic power pack to fuel the system, the whole thing. Not long
after that you could not find a trace of that article anywhere. It was
like it never existed.
Both of these episodes make for the appearance of a conspiracy. But I
found them interesting, at the least.
There are many things that drive the needs for fuels for our nation. Our
increasing numbers, our increasing consumerism, the drive for profits in
a capitalistic society, Manipulation of products - telling the world -
such as the article on the HECB facility - to sell magazines or for what
other reasons - for motivation for profit is part of the game. The
disappearance of the small home atomic power plant - manipulation. Done
to keep the existing markets open longer thereby avoiding the costs of
upgrading. New infrastructure, new products, are costly to bring to
market, and they don't produce profits until some degree of maturity in
the marketplace has been reached.
But it will all catch up sooner or later. And we will all pay for the
profit takers that now exist.
regards,
John Rodgers
88 GL Driver
Daniel L. Katz wrote:
>one of the greatest benefits of fission power plants is the low toxicity
>of the radioactive waste per unit energy produced. this is especially true
>of reprocessed waste, even more so for waste reprocessed from the fast
>breeder reactor. unprocessed waste from power reactors presents no
>immediate proliferation risk. processed waste has no proliferation risk
>ever.
>
>in any case, the fundamental driving these resource issues is the
>exploding united states and world populations. in fact, we are probably
>lucky that there is no magic well that gushes forever with free oil, else
>humankind would use the energy windfall to continue its growth until an
>even bigger catastrophe came about. note (i) at its present growth rate of
>1.4%/y, world population will grow by 300 million, roughly the present
>united states population, in just 3 y and (ii) until recently, that magic
>well actually existed, something like a breeder reactor for oil, because
>the energy from one barrel of oil was enough to discover and produce many
>new barrels of oil.
>
>dlk
>
>
>
>>I don't feel like I can support nuclear power until we figure out what
>>to do with the waste. It's looking increasingly unlikely that we'll be
>>able to shove it all down Nevada's throat. Meanwhile it's stacking up
>>in "temporary" storage at nuclear plants, most of which are near
>>critical fresh water sources...
>>
>>--
>>
>>David Brodbeck, N8SRE
>>'82 VW Diesel Westfalia
>>'86 Volvo 240DL wagon
>>
>>
>
>
>
| 
