X-Message-Number: 20639
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 07:01:58 -0500
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: still more on energy sources

Hi everyone!

More for Bozzonetti: For nuclear power, there is the energy cost of 
building the reactor & its protective shell, and the energy that
it can then output. I do not believe that any agency, public or
private, is so stupid as to make ANY energy source which failed
to pay back the energy used to create it with even more energy.

For cryonicists generally, an interesting article in SCIENCE 
298(2002) 981-987, by a group of 18 physicists and engineers
who look at ALL known and proposed energy sources and discuss
the work needed to bring each to maximum productivity. Their
conclusion is that no single energy source could work for
a long time without considerably more development. Nuclear,
solar, etc were all included. For nuclear, one issue that was
omitted was the use of (shock! horror!) plutonium generated
by nuclear reactors to extend the supply for longer --- but
that too would require further development. As we can guess,
they looked only at energy sources which wouldn't further pollute
the air with CO2. Informative.

We're not going to solve our energy problems by politics and
tub-thumping. Even the "global" treaty we hear so much about,
that the US refused to ratify, deals only with developed
countries, while India and China alone would make just as 
much CO2 as all the other countries if they developed using
the same kind of energy sources as those we have now. If
we find a solution (and the only thing I can really see
that would prevent it is politics and failure to consider
all solutions) then we're dealing with our own future lives;
and similarly if we fail. 

Would cryonics last through such failure? Probably. But
it might put many more years between our suspension and our
revival.

          Best wishes and long long life to all,

                 Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20639