<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Weekend Science and Tech</title>
	<link>http://morewhat.com/wordpress/weekend-science-and-tech-2/</link>
	<description>To build consensus on issues</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 12:14:53 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Stanford Matthews</title>
		<link>http://morewhat.com/wordpress/weekend-science-and-tech-2/#comment-1746</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:43:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://morewhat.com/wordpress/weekend-science-and-tech-2/#comment-1746</guid>
					<description>Are you suggesting nuclear power for 'hybrid' vehicles?  Just kidding.  Interesting segue but the article is merely about fuel cells for hybrid vehicles and simlar apps.  I'm abivalent on nuclear fission but probably won't live long enough to observe commercially viable nuclear fusion.  And this is an inadequate reply to your comment only because I do not have the time to devote to this today and always feel obligated to reply quickly to comments.
I did a quick search on pebble reactors to play devil's advocate and found a report I cannot confirm indicating a pebble reactor accident in Germany shortly after Chernobyl that dispersed radiation up to two kilometers from the reactor.  Even if true, that was over 20 years ago and it is likely the technology has improved since.
Oil is too valuable to burn?  Use it only for non-fuel applications?
Gotta go.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are you suggesting nuclear power for &#8216;hybrid&#8217; vehicles?  Just kidding.  Interesting segue but the article is merely about fuel cells for hybrid vehicles and simlar apps.  I&#8217;m abivalent on nuclear fission but probably won&#8217;t live long enough to observe commercially viable nuclear fusion.  And this is an inadequate reply to your comment only because I do not have the time to devote to this today and always feel obligated to reply quickly to comments.<br />
I did a quick search on pebble reactors to play devil&#8217;s advocate and found a report I cannot confirm indicating a pebble reactor accident in Germany shortly after Chernobyl that dispersed radiation up to two kilometers from the reactor.  Even if true, that was over 20 years ago and it is likely the technology has improved since.<br />
Oil is too valuable to burn?  Use it only for non-fuel applications?<br />
Gotta go.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: David</title>
		<link>http://morewhat.com/wordpress/weekend-science-and-tech-2/#comment-1726</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2007 03:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://morewhat.com/wordpress/weekend-science-and-tech-2/#comment-1726</guid>
					<description>Interesting. Of course, no matter what catalyst they use, folks who produce hydrogen will still need some sort of power in the process. TANSTAFL. Hydrogen as a fuel is essentially just energy transfer. There are (and won't be, unless we can harvest the stuff from space--lots of it there, just WIDELY dispersed) no hydrogen wells.

Which brings me back to... nuclear power. A great, environmentally-friendly, safe and efficient way to produce electricity (what?!? the eco-freaks have obscured the safety, efficiency and essential &quot;greenness&quot; of nuclear power too effectively with their lies? It figures... ). Heck, with the eco-freaks bottled up, it'd even be extremely inexpensive. MIT already has plans (in the public domain, I think--could be wrong about that) for &lt;i&gt;modular&lt;/i&gt;--suitable for near assembly line production--pebble bed reactors--super safe, fairly efficient, LOW tech, etc. 

And talk about fuel! What the HECK ought we to do with all the decomissioined nuclear bombs/missles?

Oh, nuclear waste? It's a SOLVED &quot;problem&quot; (and well-known to be solved).. 1.) re-refine and reuse. 2.) When no longer re-refineable and reusable, encase in glass and drop into a subduction zone (to be naturally recycled in the nuclear-rich interior of the earth). 

With abundant electrical power, alternative fuels for transportation (including but not limited to many different forms of electrical power) are relatively simple engineering problems. 

oil? Far too valuable to burn. Dependence on foreign oil? That's another issue, largely ameliorated with abundant electricity--which is NOT an engineering problem but a political one. Shut the Luddites out of the process (heck, build them a rock garden on the moon and give them all one-way tickets), build nuclear power plants out the wazoo, problem solved. We can MAKE our own oil (a plant 45 miles from where I type these words has been doing it for several years), cheaper than we can import it. And even cheaper with abundant electricity.

BTW, I've been fiddling with diagrams and drawings, thinking about slapping a hybrid electric together--typical battery power for around town and a trailer/generator for on the road (or for power outages here at the house, like our ice storm this year). If I can ever get my other projects off my plate... *heh*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting. Of course, no matter what catalyst they use, folks who produce hydrogen will still need some sort of power in the process. TANSTAFL. Hydrogen as a fuel is essentially just energy transfer. There are (and won&#8217;t be, unless we can harvest the stuff from space&#8211;lots of it there, just WIDELY dispersed) no hydrogen wells.</p>
<p>Which brings me back to&#8230; nuclear power. A great, environmentally-friendly, safe and efficient way to produce electricity (what?!? the eco-freaks have obscured the safety, efficiency and essential &#8220;greenness&#8221; of nuclear power too effectively with their lies? It figures&#8230; ). Heck, with the eco-freaks bottled up, it&#8217;d even be extremely inexpensive. MIT already has plans (in the public domain, I think&#8211;could be wrong about that) for <i>modular</i>&#8211;suitable for near assembly line production&#8211;pebble bed reactors&#8211;super safe, fairly efficient, LOW tech, etc. </p>
<p>And talk about fuel! What the HECK ought we to do with all the decomissioined nuclear bombs/missles?</p>
<p>Oh, nuclear waste? It&#8217;s a SOLVED &#8220;problem&#8221; (and well-known to be solved).. 1.) re-refine and reuse. 2.) When no longer re-refineable and reusable, encase in glass and drop into a subduction zone (to be naturally recycled in the nuclear-rich interior of the earth). </p>
<p>With abundant electrical power, alternative fuels for transportation (including but not limited to many different forms of electrical power) are relatively simple engineering problems. </p>
<p>oil? Far too valuable to burn. Dependence on foreign oil? That&#8217;s another issue, largely ameliorated with abundant electricity&#8211;which is NOT an engineering problem but a political one. Shut the Luddites out of the process (heck, build them a rock garden on the moon and give them all one-way tickets), build nuclear power plants out the wazoo, problem solved. We can MAKE our own oil (a plant 45 miles from where I type these words has been doing it for several years), cheaper than we can import it. And even cheaper with abundant electricity.</p>
<p>BTW, I&#8217;ve been fiddling with diagrams and drawings, thinking about slapping a hybrid electric together&#8211;typical battery power for around town and a trailer/generator for on the road (or for power outages here at the house, like our ice storm this year). If I can ever get my other projects off my plate&#8230; *heh*
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

