Re: [OT] Paging Frank K. (was: 'Re: [OT] Why Bush?')

From: C (cc-news_at_hermes.mirlex.com)
Date: 11/08/04 

Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:11:33 GMT

Betov wrote:
> C <cc-news@hermes.mirlex.com> ?rivait news:VuIjd.34$1i3.33@newsfe1-
> gui.ntli.net:
>>Betov wrote:

[snip]

>>Do you mean an experimental fusion power station? That
>>would be an interesting development. (I presume it
>>will use a Deuterium-Tritium fuel mix, like JET.)
>
> Something like this, i suppose. Don't ask me about what
> technical method: I know nothing about this.
>
> What i know of, is that the decision was not about building
> a _research_ Unit, but an experimental _production_ Unit
> (that would have also been much probably used for research
> also, i suppose).

Ah yes, such a experimental production unit would indeed
be a major step towards building a fusion power station.

> My point is not about the fact, but about why the USA voted
> for Japon, in the last international meeting, in order to
> lock the decision on a 50/50 situation:
>
> The USA is, first, an "Crime-&-Oil" Organisation. This is
> this only point that must be considered when trying to
> understand why the USA do this or that.

That would be one interpretation of the facts.

> When you have world-wide Companies making tons of money
> from one given resource, there is no hope that any better
> solution could come out. So is it for the fusion. Discussing
> if it is doable or not, and how, is not my cup of tea.

Fusion power is definately 'doable', though the research
required to produce a working plant is too expensive for
corporations or even individual governments.

> I don't drink tea, by the way.

<expression of abject puzzlement> :-)

> We had one another bright example, in the past years,
> with the "wash".
>
> [Sorry, i don't know the proper English name for this.
> My dictionary says: Lye, lixivium, wash... I will say
> "Wash powder"]

Close: 'Washing power' is the commonly used term here.

> The wash powder is one of the important pollution
> source for the water.
>
> If i recall well, this was in Corea, several years
> ago, that they found out a way to have the clothes
> whashing done without any wash powder in the machine.
>
> Try to buy one. :)

:-)

> As long as there are guy making mountains of money
> with wash powder, you will not be allowed to buy such
> a washing machine.

The number of times something similar has happened
is legion. And not just in energy production, there
are hundreds (if not thousands) of patents which have
been brought out by corporations intent on maintaining
the status-quo.

> What i finaly mean, is that there is _no_ Energy
> problem for the future and that the Oil collapse
> is _not_ a problem, but an artificial Crime-&-money
> ones. The day there will no more be any oil, we will
> _do_ the fusion (or anything else). And why the first
> Fusion Reactor for _production_ is not yet being build
> is because Crime-&-Co has still Oil to sell to us.
>
> I choosed _this_ example, because i am far from convinced
> that the same logic would fully apply to the other
> alternative energy productions. Wind, Sun, Sea waves,
> Bio-Mass, and so on, have all heavy inconvenients and
> and high prices. The most absurd i have seen in my own
> region, was the "Green-Oil": They make Oil with a plant
> called, in french (...), "Colza" (...). Not only it is
> xxxx times more expensive than fuel Oil, but the agriculture
> pollution coming with this, is one of the most important
> damage done to the land... Nevertheless, here, the people
> feel very happy when they have a Bus where they can read
> "I work with Colza"... the "Green Energy"... so great! :))

Most of the 'Green' see not to know the science behind
what causes pollution. Another example is buying a new
'greener' car every few years and scrapping the old model.
The amount of pollution resulting from the actual manifacture
of the car _far_ exceeds the pollution the average car
produces in its lifetime -- so by buying the 'greener' car,
they are causing more pollution.

> Here, in Europe, most of our "Nature defenders" fellows
> ("Greens") are strongly against nuclear Energy. IMHO,
> they should, all the contrary be 100% in _favour_ of it.
> This is, up to now, the only Energy source, without
> any real pollution, that can be done at very low cost.

Yes.

> About this, it seems that everybody is confusing the
> possible "atomic pollution" with the control of the
> security instances. Chernobyl was not the fault on
> the technology.

You are correct. Chernobyl was the result _not_ of
energy production, but of an experiment conducted
without adequate safty measures. Even the minimal
safty features present on the Russian reactors, which
are far less than those in France or the UK, had been
disabled at the time of the meltdown. Under normal
conditions the reactor would have shutdown automatically,
had the autoshutdown not been disabled too.

> It was the fault on a childish politic
> behaviour, giving the responsability to uncompetent
> individuals. In countries like the European ones, the
> "greens" should be associated to the Control process.
> They should have their own expert, with a "White Card"
> and a "Pass" to everything and anything, plus a "Veto"
> right, to take full right decisions. In such democratic
> conditions, there would never be _any_ atomic pollution.

I think more would be needed than just that, I would
advocate building nuclear reactors themselves underground
(eg. in disused quarries), so that any radiation leaks
would be contained. This would have the additional
advantage of making the reactor chamber immune from most
forms of terrorist attacks. In addition, storage of spent
fuels should be underground in geologically stable areas,
in the UK there are hundreds of ex-coal mines which would
be near ideal for this purpose.

> We have everything needed for doing so: The Technical
> level, The Democratic Level and the financial Level.
> The only thing locking the Atomic Industry is, as usual
> the mythology, and the two ends' Propaganda (the one from
> the top dominant who want to keep their position, and
> the one from the Nature Associations, who prefer illusions
> to facts).

Yes. One of my favourate facts to report to opponents of
nuclear energy is that a coal fired power station typically
outputs 3 times _more_ raditation than an equivalent wattage
nuclear station. (Yes, paradoxically, coal == more radiation.)
And that is before you consider the pollution inherent with
coal power.

> For example, the past month, in France, the decision was
> taken for the construction of what they call "The next
> generation fission reactors). All my friends are fully
> _against_. I am fully in favour of it, and convinced
> that we _must_ do this.

I agree. Though there are issues which need to be considered
with nuclear power, these are in no way insurmountable and
many of the 'problems' most people see with nuclear energy
do not in reality exist.

> The only thing the "Greens"
> fellows should ask for, is to have a democratic control
> on it, with money from the gouvernment, to pay the
> experts committed by the "Greens", and not by the
> Gouvernment.

That seems a good idea: having the experts responsible for
safty selected by the environmentalists.

> This is perfectly _possible_ to do. They
> just do not even think of _asking_ for it... :(

Typical, their arguments based on emotion not fact, yet
again. Some things never change.

C
2004-11-8

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whiny liberals make me embar-assed to be an American!
    ... >> Do you think all the crap that comes out of power plant smokestacks ... One statistic I saw claims that 10,000 deaths PER YEAR ... >> are attributable to pollution from coal burning. ... People are so freaked out by radiation and the issue of nuclear waste ...
    (rec.motorcycles)
  • Re: Water and the lack of it
    ... These were shipping disasters, not Nuclear. ... millions of man-lives lost from emphysema and cancer from the air pollution ... are, and will be accidents. ... useful power produced during the next century or so. ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: Route 38 Routemaster last day
    ... >> suggesting that the production of electricity is sometimes less than ... >> sources such as wind power or hydro sources. ... pollution, the point of delivery from diesel buses (in addition to the wider ... Scandinavians blamed British power station gases, ...
    (uk.transport.london)
  • Re: Bio-diesel 159
    ... should be working out how to electrify the line all the way to ... Then the train could be powered by a variety of sources ... At the source of traction its certainly cleaner, and can produce more power ... but its just moved the pollution from the train to the power ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: Water and the lack of it
    ... pollution and very few deaths from nuclear when compared to oil. ... Certainly there is no forgiving the horrible consequences abuse of power, ... country where non performance like happened at Chernobyl would mean ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)