Dear T.Love & the group,
It was nice to follow this thread and a lot of good points have been raised and
discussed.
We know that necessity is mother of Invention...Humans have been adopting to the
worst conditions either natural or those brought about by political forces to
survive and adding that new tool and knowledge. N power's other side is Nuclear
Fusion which is yet to reach critical conditions to be successful. If we can
crack it , sure it will provide the so called Eco-friendly energy and make our
planet as secure as Sun ( of course even sun will burn down one day!) ...In 50
years we may have it powering everything from Cars to homes to industry all with
a micro plant to supply ripple free power! Solar and Bio molecules would said
to bring additional relief. A world consortium should work on it to have right
to all...not to be patented ...for Plant earth is home for all of us
irrespective of race, cast or creed...
Let's hope and let's work for it.
Guruprasad.K.Rao
Bengaluru
________________________________
From: Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sun, March 20, 2011 8:33:20 PM
Subject: Re: Status of "design" re Japanese nuclear crisis? Reply to Fil
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/
|
