Hi Terry,
I don't quite get your point...Is there an implied irony because all options are the same?
Best,
Jeff
> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 23:03:20 +0800
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Status of "design" re Japanese nuclear crisis? Reply to Fil
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Hi Jeffrey,
> As designers looking at the three main sources of energy for electricity
> supply for countries, it seems there is a choice:
>
> Option A
> . High risk of toxicity and damage to environment for 10,000 years or
> more
> . Toxic to populace
> . Cancer risks to populace
> . Risk of terrorist attack and war
> . High potential for personal damage if exposed to fuel
> . Political tensions in terms of access to resources for creating
> energy
> Option B
> . High risk of toxicity and damage to environment for 10,000 years or
> more
> . Toxic to populace
> . Cancer risks to populace
> . Risk of terrorist attack and war
> . High potential for personal damage if exposed to fuel
> . Political tensions in terms of access to resources for creating
> energy
> Option C
> . High risk of toxicity and damage to environment for 10,000 years or
> more
> . Toxic to populace
> . Cancer risks to populace
> . Risk of terrorist attack and war
> . High potential for personal damage if exposed to fuel
> . Political tensions in terms of access to resources for creating
> energy
>
> Countries with access to all three resources have choice, and having that
> choice gives some international security.
> Some countries, such as Japan, have negligible resources so their choices
> are highly limited, especially in terms of avoiding being highly controlled
> by others.
> Some countries such as Germany have good access to all three resources,
> except one choice results in another country having some control over
> Germany .
>
> It's easy to understand how and why a country might choose to use
> nuclear-generated electricity for many reasons other than financial.
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of jeffrey
> chan
> Sent: Saturday, 19 March 2011 10:57 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Status of "design" re Japanese nuclear crisis? Reply to Fil
>
> Dear Fil,
> Typical 'permanent' and consolidated storage such as the Yucca Mt Proposal
> do not get built and used because no one wants this in their backyard. We
> can all bet that even if the political base of the final location is weak,
> there will be strong opposition--an injustice in one part of the world has
> the capacity to resonate throughout the entire globe, says Habermas!
> Furthermore, I don't think insofar as nuclear wastes are concerned, applying
> the kind of cost-benefit analysis (i.e., harvesting residual energy by
> decay) is even the way to think about this issue. After all, energy gained
> through radioactive decay is simply not the same as energy gained from
> burning organic fuel: the psychology of perception is vastly different. Just
> like recycling our waste-water under water conservation policies in any arid
> locale, the first battle has to be a psychological; and this entails a
> deontological battle of conviction over simple utilitarianism. Similar logic
> applies to medical isotopes.
> I agree with the previous participant's comment that to rely on nuclear
> energy in view of rising prices of fossil fuels is an extremely short term
> measure that has large future unknowable and unknown repercussions. It looks
> like it is the market that is driving us to nuclear energy, and this drive
> is usually and erroneously--perhaps deceptively--couched in arguments of
> energy shortage. If we as a civilization is driven about by the things we
> have designed for the allocation of resources, then we have indeed lost
> control and all talk of design and the designer is no longer valid or
> relevant.
> Finally, if we look at where are the places where nuclear plants are being
> proposed, the correlation between rocketing population growth and a seeming
> consensus to build them are quite telling. As a species, are we contend to
> allow the paradox of rising populations diminish the probability of
> populations down the road? A paradox indeed--and a frightening one. This is
> one technology that we know how to build and harness, but we have no good
> theory or practice of containment. I always thought we would have by now
> invented robots and improvisatory measures to fight nuclear fires. The
> helicopters dumping water and boric acid fire-fighting tell me that we don't
> yet have very accountable measures in place. Until we have accountable
> measures, it is the responsibility of a designing species to forestall any
> further development of something that is patently harmful and unknowable
> with long lasting undesirable consequences.
> Jeffrey Chan
>
> > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:27:02 -0400
> > From: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Status of "design" re Japanese nuclear crisis? Reply to
> Norman - a Fukushima solution by Germany
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > It depends on the technology used.
> > For instance, IF the Yucca Mountain repository ever gets built & used, the
> > stored waste will generate enough heat to keep the ambient temperature at
> > around 200C. You can boil water with that kind of heat. Which you can
> use
> > to run turbines that generate electricity. And that heat source will be
> > available for thousands of years. Wouldn't it be good to find a use for
> > that nuclear waste?
> > Also, if we used thorium based reactors, then we wouldn't get as much
> waste,
> > and much of the nuclear byproduct would be highly-valued "medical
> isotopes."
> >
> > That said, I would not advocate to "depend on Nuclear energy for hundreds
> of
> > years." It's a temporary measure, and, I think, a very good one.
> >
> > See my blog posting:
> > http://filsalustri.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/rethinking-nuclear/
> >
> > Cheers.
> > Fil
> >
> > On 18 March 2011 13:27, Rob Curedale <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > I wonder how many spent fuel rods we will have to dispose of if we
> depend
> > > on
> > > Nuclear energy for hundreds of years. It seems like lazy short term
> > > thinking
> > > again.
> > >
> > > Rob Curedale
> > >
> > > .....................................................................
> > >
> > > email: [log in to unmask]
> > > url: www.curedale.com
> > > address: PO Box 1153 Topanga CA 90290 USA
> > > skype: rob.curedale
> > > profile: http://tiny.cc/92p9t
> > > twitter: @designresearch
> > >
> > > .....................................................................
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
> > Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
> > Ryerson University
> > 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
> > M5B 2K3, Canada
> > Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
> > Fax: 416/979-5265
> > Email: [log in to unmask]
> > http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
>
|