From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: misc
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:18:39 GMT


-From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
-Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
-Date: 21 Dec 92 04:32:00 GMT
-Organization: University of Houston

Just a few random comments, not directly relating to the conclusion of the
original post:

-I know
-what fission is and one of the largest plants of that type are within a few
-miles of my present location. Unfortunately the contractor scum that built
-it for TVA's nuclear program did such a poor job that it took over a billion
-dollars just to straighten out all of the defects (Browns Ferry). 

Isn't that the one those idiots set fire to while checking for air leaks
with a candle?

-I agree that
-fission is a nice, relatively safe form of energy production. It is also
-very expensive. Each plant costs somewhere in the 5-8 billion dollar range.

Part of that is bad management and nonstandard designs, and part is from
frivolous lawsuits by misguided "environmental" groups and others delaying
the approval process. The nuclear power industry could be managed much better
than it has been in the US - France is a better example of what's possible.
There is an ongoing effort to improve the safety and standardization of
new fission power reactor designs in the US. Maybe it will come along in time
to save the Eastern forests from destruction by acid rain.

-The answer that a third world person would give you to that is that the
-west does not provide the right type of help. It is ok to feed people 
-overseas. It does much to make Westerners feel good about themselves and
-how they are helping the starving masses. What is lacking is teaching those
-people how to help themeselves. 

-Give me a fish and I eat for today
-Teach me to fish and I eat for a lifetime

There's at least one charity you can give money to that will finance volunteers
who go to third world countries and teach the people how to generate real
wealth.

-What about copper? Yes yes I know that we can substitute aluminum for copper in
-most cases but aluminum is only 90 as efficient as copper at carrying electricty
-This translates into a 10% decrease in the net efficiency in most of our
-power generating and distribution system. If copper were cheaper (more abundant)
-then we could save billions per year just in this area.

Given the high density and mechanical properties of copper, they might elect
to continue using aluminum for long-distance transport even if the prices
of the metals were the same. Copper-plated conductors might be an option.

-What about stainless steel? This has been commented on here before but I'm
-gonna bring it back up. If the cost of stainless were 1/100 of what it is 
-today, we could build bridges with it that would last for centuries rather
-than for decades. Since the last round of this discussion, I have spoke with
-Civil engineers (I am an ASCE (American Society of  Civil Engineers) member)
-and they would love to have stainless. The more difficult workability would
-more than be offset by the lower operating costs that such bridges entail. 

Why don't you and Gary duke it out over this one, and the rest of us will
wait on the sidelines for the outcome? :-)

-Most
-bridges that are steel, such as the Golden Gate must be constantly painted and
-buffed and treated to stop or slow down corrosion. 

I've heard that's literally true for the Golden Gate Bridge - they paint it
from one end to the other, then immediately start over.

-Look around at your dead nuclear power program. Look around.

It's not as dead as it was a few years ago.

-Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space