Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Tue, 21 Sep 2004
pebble bed nuke
The September issue of Wired has a very interesting article on pebble-bed nuclear reactors. I have no idea if the theory behind these is good, but if it is, then it seems like a technology that lots of countries ought to be investigating. Here in the U.S. we have nuke fear. I still remember Three Mile Island from my childhood (we lived at the other end of Pennsylvania, but we still saw/heard a lot about it). When I was at MIT, I didn't know a single person in Course 22 (or NukeE) that wasn't also in ROTC or headed for a career involving nuclear propulsion. Of course, there weren't that many people in Course 22 anyway.
[00:19] |
[misc] |
# |
TB |
F |
G |
6 Comments |
Very, very interesting. I'm very interested to see what the revolution in energy production will be, for I'm of the mind that we will need one in order to sustain the increasingly rapid pace of global development and energy consumption.
Posted by Doug at Tue Sep 21 09:51:51 2004
Posted by Doug at Tue Sep 21 09:51:51 2004
The article addresses a narrow definition of "safety". There is also security (e.g. "dirty" bombs, anyone?) And there is waste management in general... do we really know what "capable of storing 1 million years" requires of us politically, not to mention scientifically?
Finally, does the ability to produce more energy for more cars, roads, tractors, etc. resolve any of the more significant energy issues such as where and how we will grow enough food without the continued over-fertilization, over-pesticide, and over-erosion of top soil?
This seems like a good project for nuclear scientists to work on, but is far from a practical solution to energy production, let alone even remotely addressing the bigger question of energy use.
Posted by Patrick Logan at Tue Sep 21 10:33:20 2004
Finally, does the ability to produce more energy for more cars, roads, tractors, etc. resolve any of the more significant energy issues such as where and how we will grow enough food without the continued over-fertilization, over-pesticide, and over-erosion of top soil?
This seems like a good project for nuclear scientists to work on, but is far from a practical solution to energy production, let alone even remotely addressing the bigger question of energy use.
Posted by Patrick Logan at Tue Sep 21 10:33:20 2004
It would be nice to see research focused on changing our energy consumption habits before concluding that we have a crisis that can only be addressed by atomic or other unpalatable means.
Of course, the political will do this simply is not there.
Unbridled consumerism driven and fed by manufacturers is the way of the western world. Who cares if we use far more than our share of energy, lets just make sure we continue the pattern or else there will be hell to pay at the polls.
Posted by Mike Watkins at Tue Sep 21 13:25:03 2004
Of course, the political will do this simply is not there.
Unbridled consumerism driven and fed by manufacturers is the way of the western world. Who cares if we use far more than our share of energy, lets just make sure we continue the pattern or else there will be hell to pay at the polls.
Posted by Mike Watkins at Tue Sep 21 13:25:03 2004
The way I see it, everybody has to do their part.
We need to come up with ways to conserve energy and we also need to find other ways to produce energy. Most countries have written off nuclear power as a possible solution. I found it interesting that the Chinese are looking at nuclear power at all. Even so, the article shows that these new reactors won't be enough for China's needs, and they aren't even going to really be available for another 10 years (assuming no snags).
No technology is going to solve the human problems with energy and food consumption.
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Sep 21 13:39:15 2004
We need to come up with ways to conserve energy and we also need to find other ways to produce energy. Most countries have written off nuclear power as a possible solution. I found it interesting that the Chinese are looking at nuclear power at all. Even so, the article shows that these new reactors won't be enough for China's needs, and they aren't even going to really be available for another 10 years (assuming no snags).
No technology is going to solve the human problems with energy and food consumption.
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Sep 21 13:39:15 2004
The article addresses a narrow definition of "safety". There is also security (e.g. "dirty" bombs, anyone?) And there is waste management in general... do we really know what "capable of storing 1 million years" requires of us politically, not to mention scientifically?
Finally, does the ability to produce more energy for more cars, roads, tractors, etc. resolve any of the more significant energy issues such as where and how we will grow enough food without the continued over-fertilization, over-pesticide, and over-erosion of top soil?
This seems like a good project for nuclear scientists to work on, but is far from a practical solution to energy production, let alone even remotely addressing the bigger question of energy use.
Posted by Patrick Logan at Tue Sep 21 16:49:02 2004
Finally, does the ability to produce more energy for more cars, roads, tractors, etc. resolve any of the more significant energy issues such as where and how we will grow enough food without the continued over-fertilization, over-pesticide, and over-erosion of top soil?
This seems like a good project for nuclear scientists to work on, but is far from a practical solution to energy production, let alone even remotely addressing the bigger question of energy use.
Posted by Patrick Logan at Tue Sep 21 16:49:02 2004
Sorry about that dup... accidently refreshed an old tab.
Posted by Patrick Logan at Tue Sep 21 16:50:33 2004
Posted by Patrick Logan at Tue Sep 21 16:50:33 2004
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog:
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are:
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => _emphasized text_
<b> => *bold text*
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are:
<a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>, <br/>, <p>, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => _emphasized text_
<b> => *bold text*
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.sauria.com/blog/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
