----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 9:12 PM Subject: Re: SCOUTED: nuclear waste storage in Nevada L3
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 6:06 PM > Subject: Re: SCOUTED: nuclear waste storage in Nevada L3 > > > > > > Finally, lets consider the alternatives for the next 100 years. The > > > real alternatives are natural gas, oil, and coal. We can argue why > > > alternative energy sources don't work, but the fact of the matter is > > > that they cannot be counted on. Its my strong opinion that they don't > > > work because they require technologies that are very difficult to mass > > > produces at reasonable expense. I've given long arguments on this in > > > the past, and will probably be likely to do so again if temped with a > > > rebuttal. :-) > > > > Arguing that no one can find a way to mass produce something cheaply in > > the future is an argument that will be surely proven wrong eventually. > > Well, I reread my post to see if I argued that and I'm very grateful to see > that I didn't. What I argued is that alternatives cannot be counted on and > that I didn't think it would happen in the next 100 years. I do think it > can eventually happen, but that the physics underlying things like solar and > thermal and wind energy shows that it is a tremendously hard problem. > > > Rebutt if you want, but I think you will have a hard time with > > this argument. There are so many examples of things that seemed > > impossible to produce cheaply in the past that we now mass produce > > cheaply. I've learned never to underestimate the ingenuity of engineers > > and capitalists. > > But, at the same time, we are not magicians. There are times when the > physics continually shows that its a very difficult problem. An example of > this is space flight. I chatted with a customer who was with NASA in the > good old days. He was the guy who signed off on the Saturn I tests, as I > thought I mentioned. > > He mentioned an old boy who was very bright and was given the chore of > developing cheap boosters by Wernher Von Braun back in the late 60s/early > 70s. After years of fervently pursuing that, he concluded that it was > impossible for the time being. > > If you look at boost costs, they have not dropped. Private companies have > come an gone trying. My view is that the fundamentals of throwing things > into orbit keep it expensive. My friends who were in the business guess > that NASA bureaucracy adds a factor of 2, but that's about it. BTW, it is > private enterprise that designs and builds the rockets, the government just > pays for it. > > Lets now go to aircraft. 30 years ago, supersonic travel was the next step. > It still isn't economically feasible. There are fundamental reasons of > physics involved in that. Capitalism and innovative engineering cannot > overcome basic physics. So, supersonic transport is extremely expensive, > even after massive government subsidies. Indeed, I'd argue that the > difficulties in making either space or supersonic transport economical > dictate governmental involvement, not the reverse. > When it comes down to it both Space and Supersonic Transport are energy problems. If energy were 10 times more abundant and available, and were 10 times cheaper, a lot of the problems would disappear. But rockets and jets are not going to get 10 times more powerful anytime soon. xponent New Applications Maru rob
