Skip to main content

One Vote For Science

By Eric McErlain
Over at Potential Energy, Gia Milinovich is striking a blow against Luddism:
Investing in advanced technologies creates far more money than is spent. Queen Isabella and Spain reaped untold fortunes from her investment into Columbus’ journeys. All mankind has continued to benefit from the scientific and technological knowledge gained from the six Moon landings. Why does anyone in their right mind believe that scrimping and saving our energy is a ‘long term’ solution?

If we look at nuclear power as our first step to becoming a space-faring species (I mean, we’re not going to get to Mars using hydro-electric-power, are we?), then to me the idea of spending time and money on developing and building wind farms seems ludicrous. Almost as ridiculous as someone in the 19th Century saying that we shouldn’t develop steam engines for industry and should instead make more efficient water wheels. Actually, not ‘almost’, it’s more ridiculous than that because we have the advantage of hindsight, we can see very clearly that, throughout history, taking the ‘Science’ route has advanced civilisation time and time again. And that believing in power, beauty or perfection of ‘Nature’, that ‘Nature’ knows best, has only ever hindered our development.
Read the rest right now.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Such a refreshing antidote to the misanthropic ideologies of the environmentalists and perfectly reflects my own thinking. Either we 'settle down' to a energy scrimping lifestyle waiting for some natural disaster to finish us off or we head into space(or the Moon and Mars, at any rate). We may be the only intelligent life in the universe - reason enough to aim for the stars!
June 19, 2006 at 11:59 PM
Anonymous said…
I don't think we'll ever colonize space - the energy requirements are just too great (read Charlie Stross's essay here).

The most that I see happening is some workers temporarily travelling to Mars or the Asteroid Belt* in order to control resource-extraction robots.

*Not the Moon, as it's close enough that the robots could be controlled directly from Earth.

The idea of space colonization was the creation of Technocracy - the third modernist ideology of the 20th century (after Communism and Fascism). Space colonization is to Technocracy what Lebensraum is to Nazism or what World Revolution is to Communism.
June 30, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more