I agree that fission power *can* be an
environmentally sound source of energy
production. It certainly can be much less
harmful to the environment than hydropower-
dams in Washington state have devastated the
salmon, and elsewhere have destroyed many
habitats. Dams also eventually silt up and
become useless. (check out the book Cadillac Desert by Mark Reisner)
It is important however to have heavy
regulation by a citizen-responsible
branch of the goverment- past regulation has been lax, and energy companies have been very irresponsible (check out the movie China Syndrome- screenplay was written by a nuclear engineer) Also, the cost
of waste disposal has to be part of the cost
of energy production. Nuclear waste is a huge issue, but I don't think people realize that most nuclear waste comes from weapons production (in the U.S.).
As to the cause of Chernobyl, I think a couple of factors heavily contributed to that disaster: 1) unsafe reactor design- graphite moderator based reactor for both weapons fuel and power production, 2) poor funding- demoralized workforce, poor training, etc (Chernobyl Disaster).
The problem with fusion is not that it's not economical, it's that we don't have a working fusion powerplant. What we need (at least in the U.S.) is agressive funding for fusion power. I don't think the oil companies are too keen on this-
and currently they seem to have even more influence (i.e. Prez G.W. Bush).
Despite all of the failed attempts to produce the "ultimate" electronic book, I still think that the replacement of books by an electronic equivalent is absolutely inevitable. The convenience of traditional books has probably been greatly underestimated by more than a few futurists, but all this does is raise the bar.
Probably important factors in ubiquitious acceptance of electronic media:
readability
battery lifetime
weight
heat
connectivity
content rights
It could take more than five years, who knows, but technology has always worked wonders to solve problems.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that fission power *can* be an environmentally sound source of energy production. It certainly can be much less harmful to the environment than hydropower- dams in Washington state have devastated the salmon, and elsewhere have destroyed many habitats. Dams also eventually silt up and become useless. (check out the book Cadillac Desert by Mark Reisner)
It is important however to have heavy regulation by a citizen-responsible branch of the goverment- past regulation has been lax, and energy companies have been very irresponsible (check out the movie China Syndrome- screenplay was written by a nuclear engineer) Also, the cost of waste disposal has to be part of the cost of energy production. Nuclear waste is a huge issue, but I don't think people realize that most nuclear waste comes from weapons production (in the U.S.).
As to the cause of Chernobyl, I think a couple of factors heavily contributed to that disaster: 1) unsafe reactor design- graphite moderator based reactor for both weapons fuel and power production, 2) poor funding- demoralized workforce, poor training, etc (Chernobyl Disaster). The problem with fusion is not that it's not economical, it's that we don't have a working fusion powerplant. What we need (at least in the U.S.) is agressive funding for fusion power. I don't think the oil companies are too keen on this- and currently they seem to have even more influence (i.e. Prez G.W. Bush).
Despite all of the failed attempts to produce the "ultimate" electronic book, I still think that the replacement of books by an electronic equivalent is absolutely inevitable. The convenience of traditional books has probably been greatly underestimated by more than a few futurists, but all this does is raise the bar.
Probably important factors in ubiquitious acceptance of electronic media:
readability
battery lifetime
weight
heat
connectivity
content rights
It could take more than five years, who knows, but technology has always worked wonders to solve problems.