[I am not sure whether the first message in this series reached this
discussion group, but anyway . . .]
Here is an example of the idiotic analysis described in the American
Scientist review:
Second is the large amount of oil needed to mine and process nuclear fuel
and to build and maintain nuclear plants. And the third, formidable
objection Kunstler makes is that "Atomic fission is useful for producing
electricity, but most of America's energy needs are for things that
electricity can't do very well, if at all. For instance, you can't fly
airplanes on electric power from nuclear reactors"although, as he notes,
the U.S. military has tried.
Even if Kunstler does not understand how energy works, you would think that
someone at the American Scientist would understand that nuclear fission can
produce unlimited amounts of liquid chemical fuel, and that airplanes can
fly more efficiently, more safely and at a greater range with hydrogen fuel
than with conventional petroleum fuel. Of course it would cost a great deal
of money to build ~200 more nuclear power plants and designed a new fleet
of aircraft, but once we pay the up-front price and accomplish these tasks,
air transportation will be cheaper than it is today.
- Jed
