On Aug 11, 2007, at 8:17 PM, Phil Henshaw wrote: > ... > Of the three main energy sources, fossil, nuclear, and competition for > land, which would you recommend for providing exponential increases of > energy forever, without consequences?
I'm a (modified) nuke kinda guy. By modified, I mean the new sub-critical nuclear reactors which use accelerator technologies to create a dual energy reactor. The safety is obvious: if either device fails, the total system simply goes sub- critical. But the wonderful gain is that they use "spent" reactor wastes to considerably increase their yield, thus emptying the caverns full of nuclear waste. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf35.html http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1999/venneri.htm Heck, you can even get a book on it on amazon! http://tinyurl.com/25nztp But the trouble is that most folks are terrified of the word Nuclear. (George can't even say it!) But its possibly the most useful of our current high tech energy systems. And the US could be a technology leader in the field if we'd just try. But I think Italy is getting their first, followed by France. Naturally there needs to be a LOT of diversity in energy production. But sub critical systems offer a lot if we can rid ourselves of the political correct disease. -- Owen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
