FPGA Central

Jerry Avins <[email protected]> writes:
>
> Well, when we see it working, let's use it and get on with the job.
> With any luck, the world's population can increase as many times in my
> grandchildren's lifetimes as it did in mine. What will it be like when
> population quadruples again?

Crowded.

Carlos Moreno wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:

...

>> I've told you that many people were taking space flight very seriously
>> then, FBI included.
>
>
> But still, in the mind of many people, that seemed so ridiculously
> far-fetched and science-fiction-like.


"The mind of many people" is hardly a reasonable standard. 53% of US
adults do not believe that existing species evolved from earlier forms.
Many of the rest think that evolution affects species as a whole (as in
"The Andromeda Strain") rather than individuals, The conclusions they
draw are worthless.

> My point -- putting aside the flight to the Moon, which was nothing
> more than the example I chose to make my point -- is that in the
> past century, Mankind has witnessed many technological leaps that
> 10 years earlier would seem *far* more far-fetched than the space
> elevator looks to me after reading that article.

The devil is in the details. There is a big difference between an
apparatus that hasn't yet been designed and a material whose existence
is merely hypothesized and hoped for.

There are those who believe that technology is the root of all that is
discordant. I disagree, but the layman's faith that technology will
eventually mitigate whatever harm it causes is pernicious. It allows
continuing accretion of harm.

> You do have a point, that the comparison is not fair -- comparing
> technological leaps *after the fact*, vs. predictions based on
> potential technological leaps (well, you didn't phrase it that
> way, but I'm sort of "translating/rephrasing" your point of view).
> Perhaps what you're saying boils down to: for each technological
> leap that was seen as far-fetch a decade earlier, there were
> perhaps tens or hundreds of other ideas that people would have
> thought possible never turned into reality?

Like Chamberlain's "peace in our time".

> I guess I would have to agree with that -- still, the "optimistic"
> point of view is kind of based on the fact that after seeing such
> an unbelievable rate of technological progress in the last century,
> nothing should surprise us at this point.

"God will provide" is no substitute for sowing crops.

> Or look at it this way: the jump from today's state of technology
> to 10 years from now with space elevators is far smaller than the
> jump from 1896 thinking that building a flying machine was impossible
> to today's state after just one century. If I had lived in the
> late 19th century and someone had told me that what Verne or
> H.G.Wells were writing (time machine notwithstanding :-)) could
> one day become reality, I really would have laughed very hard,
> and even seriously considered institutionalizing that person.
> But seeing the world today, nothing surprises me (this does not
> contradict your point that if things are unsound from the Physics,
> then we should be skeptical -- for instance, if someone tells me
> that perhaps in a few years we'll have super towers that reach
> outer space that are built with concrete, then sure, I'd laugh
> at that).

Right now, despite years of effort, nothing better is available. I don't
say it can't happen. I say don't count on it. Don't include it as a
necessary part of a plan for our future.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Everett M. Greene wrote:
> Carlos Moreno <[email protected]> writes:
> [snip]
>
>>I'll throw the ball back at you, saying: C'mon, you're a technical
>>man, how can you so radically dismiss the idea? -- I remind you that
>>it was merely 110 years ago that was said, and widely accepted as a
>>fact, that "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible to build"
>>(Lord Kelvin, 1895).
>>
>>Only 60 years later, we were putting these flying machines on the
>>Moon!!!!
>
>
> You need to check your arithmetic or clarify what you meant.
> 1970 - 1895 = 75.
>
> Isn't there an old saying that respected scientists
> are usually wrong when they say something is impossible?

"Possible" and "available" are too often confused. Believing that cures
for diseases are unimportant because someday we'll know how to resurrect
is very much like thinking that it's OK to pollute our planet now
because someday we'll know how to clean it up. Better to stay healthy.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Jerry Avins wrote:

>>> I've told you that many people were taking space flight very
>>> seriously then, FBI included.
>>
>> But still, in the mind of many people, that seemed so ridiculously
>> far-fetched and science-fiction-like.
>
> "The mind of many people" is hardly a reasonable standard. 53% of US
> adults do not believe that existing species evolved from earlier forms.
> Many of the rest think that evolution affects species as a whole (as in
> "The Andromeda Strain") rather than individuals, The conclusions they
> draw are worthless.

Ok, another instance of "could not agree more!!" :-)

>> Or look at it this way: the jump from today's state of technology
>> to 10 years from now with space elevators is far smaller than the
>> jump from 1896 thinking that building a flying machine was impossible
>> to today's state after just one century. [...]
>
> Right now, despite years of effort, nothing better is available. I don't
> say it can't happen. I say don't count on it. Don't include it as a
> necessary part of a plan for our future.

Fair enough!

Carlos
--

> Everett M. Greene wrote:
>
>> Carlos Moreno <[email protected]> writes:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I'll throw the ball back at you, saying: C'mon, you're a technical
>>> man, how can you so radically dismiss the idea? -- I remind you that
>>> it was merely 110 years ago that was said, and widely accepted as a
>>> fact, that "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible to build"
>>> (Lord Kelvin, 1895).
>>>
>>> Only 60 years later, we were putting these flying machines on the
>>> Moon!!!!
>>
>> You need to check your arithmetic or clarify what you meant.
>> 1970 - 1895 = 75.

[ This one doesn't show through my newsreader... I hope the
quote is shown and credited correctly ]

Well, ok, I said "flying machines on the Moon" -- I had in mind
more the "flying machines outside the atmosphere", and thinking
of the space program as a whole... Also, I was rounding the
results to some multiple of 10 (you're right, perhaps not even
to the *nearest* multiple of 10 :-))

You know, as in: 1896 is almost 1900, and the whole space program
was in the 1960s... So, 1960 (notice the clever removal of the
letter S) minus 1900, that's easy!

One would hope that the programs that I write for signal processing
(and for other things as well) do the rounding a little bit better,
huh? :-)

Carlos
--

Maybe we'll hit the critical mass needed to build the star ship Enterprise.

"Carlos Moreno" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eiyZe.310$%[email protected]..
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
> > With any luck, the world's population can increase as many times in my
> > grandchildren's lifetimes as it did in mine. What will it be like when
> > population quadruples again?
>
> Two options:
>
> 1) Complete and total apocalypse (in the form of World War III that
> could wipe out 3/4 or more of the population)
>
> or
>
> 2) Colonization of other planets and/or Moon; and/or construction of
> planets or habitable moons.
>
> Carlos
> --

Eric Edin wrote:
> Maybe we'll hit the critical mass needed to build the star ship Enterprise.

According to Roddenberry's (sp??) version of the future, that does not
occur until after the nuclear holocaust, which occured during the
present century... (makes you wonder if G.R. was a Prophet -- a-la
jules Verne -- rather than a fiction writer :-(((( At least his
view of the *future* future is quite positive)

Carlos
--

"Everett M. Greene" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> Jerry Avins <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> Well, when we see it working, let's use it and get on with the job.
>> With any luck, the world's population can increase as many times in my
>> grandchildren's lifetimes as it did in mine. What will it be like when
>> population quadruples again?
>
> Crowded.

Crowded , hungry and thirsty

If there are problems with food and clean fresh water now
how much worse will it get before the situation improves ?

And how long ?

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:38:44 +1000, "Alex Gibson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Everett M. Greene" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]. .
>> Jerry Avins <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>> Well, when we see it working, let's use it and get on with the job.
>>> With any luck, the world's population can increase as many times in my
>>> grandchildren's lifetimes as it did in mine. What will it be like when
>>> population quadruples again?
>>
>> Crowded.
>
>Crowded , hungry and thirsty
>
>If there are problems with food and clean fresh water now
>how much worse will it get before the situation improves ?
>
>And how long ?

I've always thought that one solution would be to evolve so that our
bloodstreams have higher salinity than seawater. Then we could drink
that, and there'd be no more shortage!

As far as food is concerned, it's a bit strange, to me, anyway, that
there are a lot of edible things that nobody in the majority of the
populace bothers to eat (like bugs, for example, or dandelions). I
saw an analysis by one individual who claimed that cultures tend to
develop eating whatever provides the best energy/energy conversion
reward. People who hunt and/or plant crops get a lot of return for
that energy input, so they don't bother with anything else. Cultures
without productive farming (for whatever reason) and sparse hunting
expend the additional energy to collect bugs or other energy sources
that the "wealthier" (for lack of a better word) cultures would just
bypass.

I've long suspected that many people would starve to death in the
presence of abundant foodstuffs that they just don't recognize as
food.


Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp.
My opinions may not be Intel's opinions.
http://www.ericjacobsen.org

"Eric Jacobsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:38:44 +1000, "Alex Gibson" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Everett M. Greene" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected] ..
>>> Jerry Avins <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Well, when we see it working, let's use it and get on with the job.
>>>> With any luck, the world's population can increase as many times in my
>>>> grandchildren's lifetimes as it did in mine. What will it be like when
>>>> population quadruples again?
>>>
>>> Crowded.
>>
>>Crowded , hungry and thirsty
>>
>>If there are problems with food and clean fresh water now
>>how much worse will it get before the situation improves ?
>>
>>And how long ?
>
> I've always thought that one solution would be to evolve so that our
> bloodstreams have higher salinity than seawater. Then we could drink
> that, and there'd be no more shortage!
>
> As far as food is concerned, it's a bit strange, to me, anyway, that
> there are a lot of edible things that nobody in the majority of the
> populace bothers to eat (like bugs, for example, or dandelions). I
> saw an analysis by one individual who claimed that cultures tend to
> develop eating whatever provides the best energy/energy conversion
> reward. People who hunt and/or plant crops get a lot of return for
> that energy input, so they don't bother with anything else. Cultures
> without productive farming (for whatever reason) and sparse hunting
> expend the additional energy to collect bugs or other energy sources
> that the "wealthier" (for lack of a better word) cultures would just
> bypass.
>
> I've long suspected that many people would starve to death in the
> presence of abundant foodstuffs that they just don't recognize as
> food.
>

Quite a lot of insects get eaten (or did) in the very south of China and in
that area of Asia.
Maybe something to do with lack of game in the mountainous region ?

Been told by a friend there is a restaurant in Beijing a bit like Macdonalds
except that it serves insects - fried ants etc

<http://www.virtualtourist.com/travel/Asia/China/Beijing_Shi/Beijing-1024960/Restaurants-Beijing-Eating_insects_snakes_and_other_strange_things-BR-1.html>
<http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/p/m/fa232/>
<http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/p/m/49e13/>
<http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/p/m/1c09c/>
<http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/p/m/a8db7/>

I'll have to try them when I head over for the olympics.

Alex

Carlos Moreno wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
>> With any luck, the world's population can increase as many times in my
>> grandchildren's lifetimes as it did in mine. What will it be like when
>> population quadruples again?
>
>
> Two options:
>
> 1) Complete and total apocalypse (in the form of World War III that
> could wipe out 3/4 or more of the population)

Wars have poor history of population control. More likely, are new
kinds of diseases.

>
> or
>
> 2) Colonization of other planets and/or Moon; and/or construction of
> planets or habitable moons.
>
> Carlos
> --

Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:

...

> Wars have poor history of population control. More likely, are new
> kinds of diseases.

There have been plenty of wars and mass genocide since I was born.
Clearly, war isn't much help. Notice the flattening in the curve at
http://tinyurl.com/sns7 which optimistically predicts a mere doubling.
That's just a projection. Curves published in the 1950s were similar,
underestimating 2000 population by two. We'll see the next quadrupling
and we'll learn to live with, it not like it.

...

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Carlos Moreno wrote:
> > Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> >
> >> The most important technology breakthrough in next couple
> >> of decades will be cheap clean energy.
> >
> >
> > We've had that for the last half-a-century (well, maybe
> > just a quarter-of-a-century?). It's called nuclear
> > energy. According to all specialists I've known, it's
> > by far the most environmental-friendly form of energy...
> > (yes, they agree that the irony is kind of thick, but
> > when you think about it, they're right -- they're very
> > very right).
>
> Where do you propose to put the ashes?

In the subuduction zones where one continental plate is pushed
under another. Incidentially, some of these zones happen to be
located where the sea is deepest and the sea floor least accesible
(e.g. the Marianas trench). It's a win-win-win scenario:

1) One gets "clean" nuclear energy
2) The ashes is inaccesible for bad guys who wants to make
dirty bombs
3) The ashes is recycled into the earth's interior in the least
amount of time.

Rune

Rune Allnor wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:

>>Where do you propose to put the ashes?
>
>
> In the subuduction zones where one continental plate is pushed
> under another. Incidentially, some of these zones happen to be
> located where the sea is deepest and the sea floor least accesible
> (e.g. the Marianas trench). It's a win-win-win scenario:
>
> 1) One gets "clean" nuclear energy
> 2) The ashes is inaccesible for bad guys who wants to make
> dirty bombs
> 3) The ashes is recycled into the earth's interior in the least
> amount of time.

But that time is geologic time. It will be very long in
human terms before the subduction has a signifigant effect.
This leaves the question of what the danger is in
potentially contaminating those very deep sites.


Bob

--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Bob Cain wrote:
> Rune Allnor wrote:
> > Jerry Avins wrote:
>
> >>Where do you propose to put the ashes?
> >
> >
> > In the subuduction zones where one continental plate is pushed
> > under another. Incidentially, some of these zones happen to be
> > located where the sea is deepest and the sea floor least accesible
> > (e.g. the Marianas trench). It's a win-win-win scenario:
> >
> > 1) One gets "clean" nuclear energy
> > 2) The ashes is inaccesible for bad guys who wants to make
> > dirty bombs
> > 3) The ashes is recycled into the earth's interior in the least
> > amount of time.
>
> But that time is geologic time. It will be very long in
> human terms before the subduction has a signifigant effect.

Sure. On the other hand, people are alrady thinking in terms
of millions of years, when it comes to storage of nuclear
waste. I highly radioactive material with a "half-time" of
250000 years is still to be reckoned with in 5 million years,
if stored by the ton.

> This leaves the question of what the danger is in
> potentially contaminating those very deep sites.

Well, playing with nuclear stuff is no game. No short cuts
can be made. Dealing with these kinds of things require
proper sealing etc.

Rune

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 02:06:43 GMT, Randy Yates <[email protected]> wrote:

>"NVKISHORE" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> hi all,
>>
>> Now a days there is a lot of discussion in my peer grp as what the next
>> technology beakthrough is gonna be, i hav got some choices of which it
>> will be one.
>>
>> 1. Nano technology
>>
>> 2. Quantum mechanics
>>
>> 3. Artificial Intelligence, Robotics
>>
>> 4. Genetics and bioinformatics
>>
>> I would like to know what ya opinion, knowing which I will be extremely
>> lucky and happy.
>
>A practical fusion reactor will change the world as we know it. Now if the
>US would apply a little more than a few million a year on the plasma containment
>problem, we'd probably be there soon.

Hi Randy,

I agree.

[By the way, I'll bet ya' a bottle of beer that the
mysterious Mr. (or Ms.) NVKISHORE's question
is related to a homework problem.]

See Ya',
[-Rick-]

The estimate I have heard on nuclear fusion is that the know-how to build a
fusion plant might be available in 2075 barring a dramatic breakthrough. They
haven't gotten near break-even yet.

The two step process I've heard about for the disposal of radioactive waste
from fission reactions is to reprocess the fuel rods to remove the unused
uranium and plutonium for use in further processing. The remainder would be
buried in specially reinforced barrels holes drilled in the middle of the
North Pacific. There is a large area with a sediment bottom which has been
geologically stable for the last 70 million years with no reason to believe
that there will be any change in the next 500 million years. The only
question is whether the radioactive waste would diffuse through the sediment
after the barrels corrode. A simple test would show whether that would work.
This idea was proposed by some scientists at Woods Hole.

In article <[email protected]>, Jerry Avins <[email protected]> wrote:
>Carlos Moreno wrote:
>> Jerry Avins wrote:
>>
>>>> Launching nuclear waste to outer space is just an example;
>>>> there may be other alternatives that Scientists and Engineers
>>>> could come up with *if* they could count on massive amounts
>>>> of energy that is produced at a reasonable cost; again,
>>>> perhaps you don't even need other methods; perhaps with
>>>> massive amounts of energy, one could improve and make the
>>>> burial solution much more efficient and safe?
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a glorious thought! It will make nuclear energy practical when we
>>> learn how to implement it. Not before, though.
>>
>>
>> Point well taken.
>>
>> However, we are forgetting that the discussion should be whether
>> the other methods are better. The answer that I keep defending
>> is NO. You're pointing out potential hazards with nuclear energy;
>> however, you're disregarding the *non-potential*, the very real
>> (real as in "they're happening") hazards of the other, inefficient
>> forms of producing energy (well, I'm mainly referring to burning
>> petroleum), for which, IMHO, the only possible defense is that
>> "well, the infrastructure is already there, and it is already
>> working, so it's economically unsound to throw that away".
>
>Fossil fuels are harmful. That harm is increased because the energy used
>by each of us harms all of us, and our numbers are increasing
>frighteningly fast. Whatever the "long term" solution may be -- fusion
>would be great -- it won't work in the long term if population continues
>to grow. Ocean temperatures are a degree warmer that they were not long
>ago. The weather consequences of that should be clear to everyone by
>now. Still, better the devil we know than the devil we don't. How much
>land will we lose to Chernoble-like incidents before that too seems to
>be a problem? (Tell me it can't happen here. Right!)
>
>Whatever energy source we use, the problem can be greatly mitigated, but
>people in power don't want to spend and power is so cheap that users
>don't want to save. The US rejected the Kyoto accords because they would
>have hurt a few of the President's favored industries. Sulfur dioxide in
>stack emissions can be scrubbed almost completely.
>
>Enough power is wasted in the US alone just on unused powered-up
>computers to supply all of the energy needs of Switzerland and Luxemberg
>combined. There are ways to reduce atmospheric pollution without
>poisoning the earth. We're too cheap to control stack emissions in known
>and relatively inexpensive ways. Are you so naïve as to imagine that
>money will nevertheless be found for permanent disposal of spent nuclear
>fuel or adequate fusion research?
>
>> Hydro-electric energy is an entirely different beast; it might as
>> well be *the* perfect energy source, if only it were available
>> everywhere. And still, not that perfect; it doesn't cause damage
>> and waste on a per-megajoule basis, but it does cause a one-time
>> ecologic damage that could be quite considerable.
>>
>> Wind is perhaps an even better source in that sense -- except
>> that it has to be far less efficient (I'm guessing here), and
>> again, it's not necessarily accessible everywhere.
>>
>> This article about Space Elevators (the one I mentioned in another
>> branch of this thread) talks about the possibility of putting
>> solar cells out there, where there's *a lot more* solar energy
>> than down here where it has been filtered by the (outer) atmosphere,
>> and send the energy directly by cables -- they mention that when
>> Space Elevators reduce the cost of putting materials and
>> infrastructure out there (outside the atmosphere), then that
>> strategy as a source of energy might become feasable. When you
>> think about it, yes, it seems silly that we have to be discussing
>> here about nuclear vs. non-nuclear energy, when we have at merely
>> 150 million kilometers, a source of such a brutally high amount
>> of energy :-) Nature has known to take advantage of it; why
>> couldn't we?
>
>One needs unobtainium to build a space elevator. A material is
>characterized by density in lbs/in^3, and allowable stress in lbs/in^2.
>Dividing one property by the other gives the length before the material
>breaks of its own weight. Density/allowable stress = allowable length/g.
>(Converting pounds force to pounds mass introduces g.) Why don't you
>calculate the allowable lengths of a hanging pieces of structural steel
>and music wire, and also of a Kevlar thread? After your enlightenment,
>consider that any elevator structure would have to withstand hurricane
>winds. Good luck!
>
>Talking through one's hat is easy, but fortunately the voice is muffled
>in a way that's recognizable by people who've heard it all before.
>You're a technical man. Before letting yourself run away with youthful
>enthusiasm, do some simple calculation to check orders of magnitude.
>
>Jerry

John Herman wrote:
> The estimate I have heard on nuclear fusion is that the know-how to build a
> fusion plant might be available in 2075 barring a dramatic breakthrough. They
> haven't gotten near break-even yet.
>
> The two step process I've heard about for the disposal of radioactive waste
> from fission reactions is to reprocess the fuel rods to remove the unused
> uranium and plutonium for use in further processing. The remainder would be
> buried in specially reinforced barrels holes drilled in the middle of the
> North Pacific. There is a large area with a sediment bottom which has been
> geologically stable for the last 70 million years with no reason to believe
> that there will be any change in the next 500 million years. The only
> question is whether the radioactive waste would diffuse through the sediment
> after the barrels corrode. A simple test would show whether that would work.
> This idea was proposed by some scientists at Woods Hole.
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Jerry Avins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Carlos Moreno wrote:
>>
>>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Launching nuclear waste to outer space is just an example;
>>>>>there may be other alternatives that Scientists and Engineers
>>>>>could come up with *if* they could count on massive amounts
>>>>>of energy that is produced at a reasonable cost; again,
>>>>>perhaps you don't even need other methods; perhaps with
>>>>>massive amounts of energy, one could improve and make the
>>>>>burial solution much more efficient and safe?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's a glorious thought! It will make nuclear energy practical when we
>>>>learn how to implement it. Not before, though.
>>>
>>>
>>>Point well taken.
>>>
>>>However, we are forgetting that the discussion should be whether
>>>the other methods are better. The answer that I keep defending
>>>is NO. You're pointing out potential hazards with nuclear energy;
>>>however, you're disregarding the *non-potential*, the very real
>>>(real as in "they're happening") hazards of the other, inefficient
>>>forms of producing energy (well, I'm mainly referring to burning
>>>petroleum), for which, IMHO, the only possible defense is that
>>>"well, the infrastructure is already there, and it is already
>>>working, so it's economically unsound to throw that away".
>>
>>Fossil fuels are harmful. That harm is increased because the energy used
>>by each of us harms all of us, and our numbers are increasing
>>frighteningly fast. Whatever the "long term" solution may be -- fusion
>>would be great -- it won't work in the long term if population continues
>>to grow. Ocean temperatures are a degree warmer that they were not long
>>ago. The weather consequences of that should be clear to everyone by
>>now. Still, better the devil we know than the devil we don't. How much
>>land will we lose to Chernoble-like incidents before that too seems to
>>be a problem? (Tell me it can't happen here. Right!)
>>
>>Whatever energy source we use, the problem can be greatly mitigated, but
>>people in power don't want to spend and power is so cheap that users
>>don't want to save. The US rejected the Kyoto accords because they would
>>have hurt a few of the President's favored industries. Sulfur dioxide in
>>stack emissions can be scrubbed almost completely.
>>
>>Enough power is wasted in the US alone just on unused powered-up
>>computers to supply all of the energy needs of Switzerland and Luxemberg
>>combined. There are ways to reduce atmospheric pollution without
>>poisoning the earth. We're too cheap to control stack emissions in known
>>and relatively inexpensive ways. Are you so naïve as to imagine that
>>money will nevertheless be found for permanent disposal of spent nuclear
>>fuel or adequate fusion research?
>>
>>
>>>Hydro-electric energy is an entirely different beast; it might as
>>>well be *the* perfect energy source, if only it were available
>>>everywhere. And still, not that perfect; it doesn't cause damage
>>>and waste on a per-megajoule basis, but it does cause a one-time
>>>ecologic damage that could be quite considerable.
>>>
>>>Wind is perhaps an even better source in that sense -- except
>>>that it has to be far less efficient (I'm guessing here), and
>>>again, it's not necessarily accessible everywhere.
>>>
>>>This article about Space Elevators (the one I mentioned in another
>>>branch of this thread) talks about the possibility of putting
>>>solar cells out there, where there's *a lot more* solar energy
>>>than down here where it has been filtered by the (outer) atmosphere,
>>>and send the energy directly by cables -- they mention that when
>>>Space Elevators reduce the cost of putting materials and
>>>infrastructure out there (outside the atmosphere), then that
>>>strategy as a source of energy might become feasable. When you
>>>think about it, yes, it seems silly that we have to be discussing
>>>here about nuclear vs. non-nuclear energy, when we have at merely
>>>150 million kilometers, a source of such a brutally high amount
>>>of energy :-) Nature has known to take advantage of it; why
>>>couldn't we?
>>
>>One needs unobtainium to build a space elevator. A material is
>>characterized by density in lbs/in^3, and allowable stress in lbs/in^2.
>>Dividing one property by the other gives the length before the material
>>breaks of its own weight. Density/allowable stress = allowable length/g.
>>(Converting pounds force to pounds mass introduces g.) Why don't you
>>calculate the allowable lengths of a hanging pieces of structural steel
>>and music wire, and also of a Kevlar thread? After your enlightenment,
>>consider that any elevator structure would have to withstand hurricane
>>winds. Good luck!
>>
>>Talking through one's hat is easy, but fortunately the voice is muffled
>>in a way that's recognizable by people who've heard it all before.
>>You're a technical man. Before letting yourself run away with youthful
>>enthusiasm, do some simple calculation to check orders of magnitude.
>>
>>Jerry


John,
A large number of solutions to the waste-disposal problem have been
proposed, ranging from the reasonable and practical to the weird and
wacky. (My favourite weird and wacky idea was someone's suggestion to
establish an enduring Nuclear Priesthood. This would be charged with
the responsibility of protecting the world's nuclear dumps throughout
all the social changes that will occur over the next few thousand
years.) I am sure that some of the more sensible solutions, like the
Synrock idea from Australia, could be very effective in locking up
99.99% of the radioactive waste that is produced by the world's reactors.

My big concern is the remaining 0.01%(?) of the radioactive waste that
is routinely and legally released in the normal course of operation, or
through operational 'incidents' when welds crack and so on. (This is
apart from catastrophic Chernobyl-like releases which we are assured are
a thing of the past and only happen in communist reactors.)

Once this stuff gets into the air and water it can't be removed, and it
can't be avoided. It gets concentrated in all living organisms, but
particularly those at the top of the food chain and particularly in the
young. It is of little comfort that most of that muck in in a hole in
the sea-bed when some of it is sitting in the bones of our children and
grandchildren, steadily and radiating their living cells.

So, instead of discussing how to bury the 99.99 per cent of the waste, I
would be more interested in hearing how the nuclear industry proposes to
prevent that other 0.01% from entering the environment.

We will know that we are getting close to a solution when the industry
is happy to accept operating licenses that specify NO DETECTABLE RELEASE
in the water and air around the plant, and when the risk experts, the
insurance companies, no longer include nuclear-incident exclusion
clauses in their householder insurance policies. I don't think that
will be happening soon!

Regards,
John

The area I was suggesting is 12000 feet below the surface. I suspect that it
would be very difficult to find the waste buried 100 feet below the bottom at
12000 feet depth.

The French were dumping radioactive waste after glassification in specially
designed barrels in the middle of the North Atlantic. They didn't bury the
barrels. I haven't heard how this method of waste has worked out. It's only
been maybe ten years or so since the barrels were dumped.

One of the interesting pictures I saw on the net was a Green Peace motor boat
towing a Zodiac trying to catch one of the barrels as it was released from the
ship.

In article <[email protected] com>, "Rune
Allnor" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>In the subuduction zones where one continental plate is pushed
>under another. Incidentially, some of these zones happen to be
>located where the sea is deepest and the sea floor least accesible
>(e.g. the Marianas trench). It's a win-win-win scenario:
>
>1) One gets "clean" nuclear energy
>2) The ashes is inaccesible for bad guys who wants to make
> dirty bombs
>3) The ashes is recycled into the earth's interior in the least
> amount of time.
>