From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 17:15:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.221351.10050@Princeton.EDU> mdd@nextc.princeton.edu writes:
>No one seems to have mentioned this yet...There are other ways to  
>distribute solar power besides using an electrical grid. Solar power can  
>be used to convert water to hydrogen quite efficiently and the hydrogen  
>could then be transported through an infrastructure similar to the natural  
>gas infrastructure that already exists. End users would then burn the  
>hydrogen. Or even better use it to power fuel cells. It is likely (I am no  
>expert) that is a more cost effective approach to solar energy than  
>erecting solar panels on the East coast, say. 

     Only two big problems.  1) It is not economical to do so,
     2)  Hydrogen go boom.

     [stuff deleted]

>It seems pretty clear to me that people need to think about these new  
>technologies. The picture of solar energy as a panel on every rooftop is  
>somewhat outdated. New nuclear power is not much more than a stopgap  
>measure, at least in its present form. And certainly any new nuclear  
>plants should not be in the old style. Safer, smaller plants of uniform  
>and well-tested design is the preferred direction. I seem to recall that  
>there is only about 70 years worth of fissionable uranium to be found,  
>although breeder reactors would be able to get around this shortcoming. 

     What is wrong with the 'old style' plants?  I admit that I'd like
     to see more commonality and new designs, but that has nothing
     to do with the viability of the old designs.

     As far as projections of the dearth of Uranium go, in the early 
     1900's there were projections that the world would run out of
     oil in the 20's.  In the late 1970's, there were projections
     that by 1992, the world would be suffering from a tremendous
     oil shortage.  Such projections always fail to take into account
     the fact that we're fairly clever beasts.  Breeding, aas you said, would
     completely eliminate this argument, as would use of other
     fuel cycles (as in thorium, etc.).

>In summary, there are several different alternative energy sources that  
>are environmentally benign and could be quickly developed and implemented  
>if we chose to vigorously pursue them. And, finally, there certainly can  
>be nothing wrong with encouraging conservation. New building designs that  
>can greatly reduce the amount of power used for heating and air  
>conditioning is one area of active research. Conservation is certainly  
>cheaper and more cost-effective than building new plants. Why else would  
>power companies offer $30 million for an efficient, CFC-free refrigerator?

     Probably because they will not be allowed to use CFC's very shortly
     and are interested in actually having customers with air-conditioners.

     However, certainly these things should be pursued.  But there are 
     always tradeoffs.  My wife's old company moved into a new, tight building
     and everyone was sick for a couple of years.  If it is at the cost
     of health or disadvantageous economics, saving energy does not make
     sense.

                                    dale bass

--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926