X-Message-Number: 20622
From: 
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 12:32:40 EST
Subject: Re: CryoNet #20612 Nuclear power

--part1_12d.1d84364d.2b2e16b8_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


From Thomas Donaldson:

> For Bob Ettinger: For what it's worth, given that I commented on
> Yvan's message, I am in favor of nuclear power. An interesting
> report appeared in SCIENCE a few weeks ago: those writing the
> report looked at ALL available energy sources, and basically 
> found that we wouldn't be able to support ourselves without
> making too much CO2 unless work was done to improve all the
> others. I'm in favor of nuclear power but not against solar
> power ... it's just that it won't give us enough if tried
> alone.
> 
Have seen that argument before. Many years ago, (I think it was in the 
70's!), there was some hot debate about the general use of nuclear power in 
France. The military/political/money-industrial side was pro nuclear (what 
they have done anyway), the green/technical was for solar energy. The MPMI s
aid that solar was not up to the job, the GT answer was that if half the 
money put in the nuclear was put in the solar, it would be possible to 
exploit solar energy in space (a la Peters Glaser), where that ressource is 
for all practical purpose unlimited.

The MPMI countered that the rocket used to build that infrastructure would 
consume as much oil energy as the solar sats would produce in 20 years!

The GT then pointed out that nuclear power plants was even worst: building 
them soaked as much oil energy as they could produce in 35 - 40 years, that 
is their maximum life span. 

The conclusion was that we must build nuclear energy station because they was 
a good way to transform cheap oil energy into high selling price electric 
power.

The problem remains the same today: Nuclear energy is not a primary energy 
source, it is as fuel cells burning hydrogen. You must use a primary energy 
source to make hydrogen or to make the nuclear station. In any case that 
source will be fossil fuel. Coal is dirt, oil makes CO2 and money for 
muslims, methane from undersea clathrate ice would be muslim free and being 
more efficient than oil, would produce less CO2 for a given usefull power. 
The methane reserves are ten billion billion tons. As much to sustain the 
current consumtion level for one billion years. Forty years from now, oil, at 
least in plenty, cheap form, will be out. The choice will be between coal and 
burning ice.

My choice: Cool down burning ice to stabilize it at low pressure. Make cold 
pipes with it then boil off the hot ice in the pipe. Cap the pipe with a 
large bell to recover CH4. Burn a part of it to break the other part into 
carbon and H2. Use H2 to power the civilization and  liquefied CO2 to cool 
other ice deposits.

Yvan bozzonetti
Religion:
I am catholic as Newton was.


--part1_12d.1d84364d.2b2e16b8_boundary

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20622