On 4/15/2011 2:21, Invisible wrote:
> Nuclear power works in theory. In practise, if you make even the tiniest
> mistake, just once, everything is ruined forever.

It's possible (in theory) to build a plant where such isn't the case. It's 
just that afaik nobody is doing that, because nobody has already done it.

The problem with nuclear is it looked like you could make it safe, so people 
built plants, and then the plants were either built shoddily, wore out, 
weren't managed according to design, etc, and had a problem. Now even tho we 
have much better designs, nobody is willing to try out something that may 
have unexpected problems, having already been burned once.

 > Harnessing the [...] sun [...]. This stuff doesn't grow on trees.

Well, technically...

> People have tried to make cars that run on electricity rather than fossil
> fuels. But that just means that you burn the fuel at the power plant rather
> than in the car.

The advantage is it's far more efficient to generate the power centrally and 
distribute it than it is to generate it locally. You'll get 1/10th the cost 
of running an electric car as running a petroleum car. (I.e., filling up the 
tank on a pure electric car costs about the same as a gallon of gas.)

> when they do. Yes, they're more efficient, but this really looks to me like
> people passing a law before the technology is ready.

I think the idea is more to drive up the demand in order to get people to 
invest in the research for making them better.

> My personal theory is that mankind will actually do nothing, and come to an
> abrupt end. Either we will poison ourselves to death, or there will be a
> global thermonuclear war as people fight over the last few drops of precious
> oil. Either way, everybody dies.
>
> The only comfort is that I probably won't be alive to see it...


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message