From: millerj@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Snide Pucker)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:05:42 GMT
Organization: Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering//Argonne--East

In article <53135@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
#>>In article <53089@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
#>>>So, you think that Lovins believes that fluidized coal, active glass, and
#>>>photo-electron equipment are "low tech"? That would be rather an odd
#>>>thing to believe.
#>
#>Lovins writes:
#>   [soft technologies] ... are flexible and relatively low technology
#>   --- which does not mean unsophisticated, but rather easy to understand
#>   and use without esoteric skills, acessible rather than arcane.
#>
#>In the context of "Sfot Energy paths" it is clear that he wants to contrast
#>the centralized operation of nuclear power plants with the operation of
#>small scale solar, wind, and biomass energy sources. It does not seem
#>to me that he is arguing that the materials science of photovoltaics
#>is simpler and less technological than reactor enegineering.

   Having been around fluidized beds, I can assure you that they are not
   "low tech" nor are they particularly unsophisticated nor are they even
   easy to use without "esoteric" skills.  I believe the same has already
   been said regarding photovoltaics and the like.  (or did you have
   another way to produce and/or burn fluidized coal?)

   I can think of fewer hi-tech fields that are easier to understand than
   a few neutrons splitting atoms and generating heat (okay, so I'm a
   nuclear engineer =).  Is centralizing any industry with an element of
   danger (i.e. energy-production) to use a limited number of specialists
   worse than letting everyone go gangbusters on some wiz-bang toy that
   is professed to generate significant/adequate amounts of energy?
   You know, electrons from photovoltaics are just as nasty and invisible
   as radiation with the added benefit of being associated with various
   carcinogens and toxic resins.  This is an improvement?

   What is the difference between generating the power and selling the
   tools to make the power if both are beyond the understanding of the
   end user?  Are we to be limited in the number of toys/machines we have 
   access to by the intelligence of the person using them or the person 
   dictating the level of technology (i.e. which is "good" and which is 
   "bad")?  If so, we might as well take back 97% of the cars on the road
   as well as 99.999% of the TVs and VCRs, and you can forget about most
   of the petro-plastics, synthetic fabrics, and airplanes, much less
   computers.
   
   I have the feeling that Mr. Lovins wants to eliminate mass-production
   and put manufacturing back into the homes.  It also sounds like he
   has a severe complex against technology he doesn't think he understands.
   I would consider both regressive.
-- 
---
   Jerry W. Miller                   #   "Opinions?  Of course they
   millerj@gn.ecn.purdue.edu         #    are mine, do YOU want them?"
   Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
Newsgroups: sci.energy