OrionWorks wrote:
Remember Kennedy's challenge to put a man on the moon and return him
safely back to earth before the end of the decade?
Not to quibble with this fine example of technological derring-do, but the
Manhattan Project is closer to the physical scale of operations we require.
The Apollo project required little physical infrastructure, and not many
people, whereas the Manhattan project required the construction of entire
cities, and at its peak it consumed something like 10% of all U.S.
electricity, as I recall. The weapons program used 5,100 factories, and
before it finished in the 1970s, it produced 820 million kilograms of
nuclear waste, and 1.5 billion cubic meters of contaminated water and solid
material (96% water) (see "Linking Legacies," p. 7, p. 80).
By the way, I do not think it would be a good idea for the US to embark on
a Federally funded Manhattan Project scale energy project. Given the
present administration's competence, its attitude toward energy, and the
recently passed energy bill, I am afraid any large-scale project would be
misguided, and the money would be wasted. The only energy project Bush has
endorsed is the hydrogen automobile, which he wants to schedule 40 years
from now. This is a bad idea! I favor the free market development of things
like plug-in hybrid automobiles; or the accelerated installation of 100,000
wind turbines and Sterling Energy gadgets. Some support from government
would be welcome, but I doubt we will see any. The best energy policy would
be to put a $1/per gallon emergency wartime tax on gasoline, but there is
no chance this administration would do that.
- Jed
- RE: Off topic - US climate loonies Jed Rothwell
-
