[Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221

[william.mattheis at navy.mil (Mattheis, William G CIV)]

On 30 Jan Adam Bridge wrote:


"I don't believe I'll see even scientific break-even in fusion plant in
my life-time let alone a full-scale fusion plant. I'm still a friend
of fission plants - the new technologies are vastly safer than designs
of 30-40 years ago - but I think nuclear in the United States is dead.
People are afraid of anything technical and the anti-nuclear forces
shout LOUDLY even if they are shouting FUD most of the time (at best.)"


Adam you may well be correct about fusion, but we have made enormous strides 
in my short lifetime so I continue to beleive.  I agree about fission power. 
 It is clear, the required resources are abundant and safe.  New 
reprocessing technologies not only make this resource more valuable, but 
also help deal with the spent fuel issues.  Unfortunately, I also agree with 
your sense of difficulty in winning public acceptance.  I guess the huge 
volumes of acid rain and other pollutants from coal fired power plants are 
less frightening than nuclear issue, but they should not be.

I think small turbines in cars would make a nice hybrid without any 
superconductor requirements.  Use the turbine to drive a generator to power 
electric drive with high efficiency batteries as a "buffer" between the 
generator and electric drive.  Batteries provide levels of current required 
for acceleration and other high demand situations [steep grades, etc.] and 
direct drive from generator for sustaining velocity as when cruising the 
freeway at speed.

Anyway, great exchanging thoughts.  I think that in our capitalist economy, 
dollars will dictate the power source we will use in the future, i.e., the 
cheapest alternative will prevail.  Now, if we find a way to charge the full 
cost of systems to include cleaning up environmental impact, then the 
"cheapest alternative" may not be hydorcarbon based.

Bill