cavwesSince somebody mentioned fusion power, I'm moved to reply. I
worked at the Fusion Research Center at UT from 1981 to 1995. I had
been there some six months before I figured out that magnetic fusion
energy (tokamaks) was not the way to go. That is the sort of device
that may or may not be built in France.
Back in the years around 1990, many tens of millions of dollars
were spent designing ITER, the International Toroidal Experimental
Reactor, I think that stood for. That was meant to be the first
fusion reactor that would actually produce net energy on a sort of
continuous basis (maybe for a whole twenty minutes at a time). The
estimated cost was around $10 billion. It was to be a joint American/
European/Japanese/Russian project. However, the US government shortly
came to its senses and started cutting its fusion research budget,
and the Russians went broke. Currently, there are hopes to build a
device informally known as "ITER light," mostly with European and
Japanese money. Years were spent in fighting over the site, which is
now set to be in France. However, neither the money nor a detailed
engineering design actually exist yet. I expect it will come in at
$10 billion, considering inflation. It is hoped that scientific
advances since the original design will make the smaller device as
likely to accomplish its goal.
AND these designs are just for a proof-of-principle device. _If_
it is built and _if_ it works, it will prove that it is possible to
obtain energy that way. But it will not at all be a prototype power
plant, just a potential source of heat. Can you imagine a power
company ordering an incredibly high-tech $10 billion radioactive heat
source? You could probably reproduce the first fission pile for $20
million today, and look what power plants based on that principle
actually cost. The notion that a fusion power plant is safer may not
be very convincing once one knows it would have to have an inventory
of goodness knows how many megacuries of ratioactive tritium for
fuel. (The only fusion reaction even remotely feasible today is
between deuterium and tritium). And components of the machine
amounting to thousands of tons will become radioactive due to neutron
bombardment and have to be periodically replaced. Once the safety and
environmental types sink their teeth into it, I doubt it would be a
hit with the sort of politicians who haven't got the balls to bury
radioative waste in that mountain. (Ten thousand years, hah! Invest
$1 now at 2% after inflation and you'd have more than enough money to
buy out Nevada in ten thousand years if that became necessary.)
New coal-burning power plants are coming on-line worldwide at a
rate of one a week. While some of them are replacing older plants,
this suggests that building nuclear plants at the rate of two or more
a month or finding equivalents in other energy sources would be
barely enough to keep up with _increases_ in demand, much less lead
to any reduction in CO2 emissions. To stop global warming, we'd have
to reduce the current consumption of fossil fuel to something well
below half of current levels. (Increases of CO2 in the atmosphere
were noticable by 1950.) Five percent wind energy or 20 percent
better fuel economy won't cut it, although feeble half-measures like
that or the much-touted Kyoto deal might delay things by a few years.
So what?
Pending some sort of breakthrough, fission power is the only
thing today that is competitive with burning coal, gas, and oil. At
some point after fifty years or so, oil and gas might really become
too scarce and expensive to burn. Unfortunately (from the point of
view of warming), there's plenty of coal for 200 to 500 years....
Meanwhile, if it gives you warm fuzzy feelings, drive a hybrid or
use flourescent lights. Warm fuzzy feelings is about all it will
accomplish. (Well, maybe x degrees of warming would be put off from
2100 to 2125 if everybody else did likewise.) For an even warmer
feeling, don't use your AC next summer. I'm not at all "green" in the
usual sense, but my house doesn't even _have_ AC.
--Bill Mixon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
