-------------------------------------------- On Tue, 10/21/14, Bruce Johnson <xxxxxx@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU> wrote: Subject: Re: [TML] Fusion by 2025? To: "xxxxxx@simplelists.com" <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 9:18 AM On Oct 21, 2014, at 2:02 AM, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote: > > A lot of people really are really, really scared of *anything* that's 'nuclear'… yeah, but those haven’t been the people in charge of allocating this funding. Those people HAVE done a good job blaming it all on the hippies. The reason nuclear power isn’t a big thing right now has far, far less to do with the dirty smelly anti-nuke hippies than the guys in the bank offices with the green visors. Fission plants are a hella lot more expensive to build, run, maintain and (eventually) decommission than they were sold as. Believe me, if nuclear power plants were profitable, all the DSANH’s in the world would have not been enough to stop the profit machines. You’ll notice they didn’t really slow down building little ones for submarines. That’s because in that context, nuclear power made economic sense. The reason we only built one nuke-powered carrier was because it’s cheaper to build, use and maintain conventional ones not because we thought that nukes were evil. -- Bruce Johnson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'Anti-nuke' sentiment is a prime motivating force for many, many individuals. And, since it's not 'dirty smelly hippies' any more but everyday folks w/ a 'hangup' (just like the 'anti-vaccine' folks) they do have influence & have influenced officials, both elected & appointed. In europe it's part of the mainstream Left. And they also have a lot of influence. Just look at germany's decision to prematurely dump all their plants. Makes no sense at all except that in a ideological sense. I remember hearing Obama's first Sec of Energy talking about how nuke power was necessary as a 'bridge' to a 'Green Future'. When asked about the 'anti-nukes' he said, with a smile, something like "They'll just have to get over it"<sic> Well he never got anything going at all & now he's gone, isn't he? As far as the naval ships go, they are perfect examples of the practicality of nuke power. And still, the 'anti-nukes' managed to kill the nuke powered surface escorts. I saw Adm Rickover himself, on PBS, state that the main problem w/ nuke power plants was that the mistake was made of scaling up existing sub designs rather than coming up w/ a new design. (He suggested that 'pods' of the smaller sub designs would've made more sense) You can't get anymore 'right from the horse's mouth than that'. As far as 'total costs' go, that is a figure that is infinitely mutable depending upon an individuals politico/ideological beliefs & other prejudices. Heck, I used to get involved w/ that sort of thing myself in my last job. First it was decided what was wanted & then the figures were 'adjusted' to make it the most 'economical' so that we could dance it past the board of governors. Until that is, IBM 'pushed back' when a friend of one of their executives was elected to the Board. The exec convinced his friend that, no matter what, IBM would be the cheapest mainframe. Fortunately, IBM had already conned the School Board of the largest local district into going w/ them. Their 'solution' turned out to be so expensive that the local district could only move about 1/2 their apps over to the new system. Hence, for about 10 years they had to run two separate systems w/ two separate maint contracts. As the old saying goes, "You tell me what you want & I'll make the numbers support it"! =========================================================================================
