mwm@ea.UUCP (04/25/84)
#R:azure:-271100:ea:10100039:000:2684 ea!mwm Apr 25 12:02:00 1984 /***** ea:net.politics / pyuxa!wetcw / 5:06 am Apr 22, 1984 */ Then, after 5 or 6 years of invironmental impact studies, government agency paperwork, and planning, I will begin construction (good for 3 or 4 more years). Then, after at least 8 years, I should be able to produce electricity. IF some other cheaper method has not come along to make my plant obsolete the day it opens. T. C. Wheeler /* ---------- */ TC Wheeler has underestimated the time it takes to get a plant on line. According to Petr Beckman (once more, _The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear_), the lead time to get a multi-mega-watt generator is something like 10 years. So, unless you are foolish enough to order your generator *before* you have government approval for the plant, the lead time is nearly 15 years. Comments from the same source suggest that the realistic lead time to get a large plant going, from first decision to build, is over 20 years. That lead time is the kicker in these arguments. For instance, if you start a plant now, you can feel sure that it won't be obsolete the day it opens. New technology just doesn't come up to snuff that fast (remember, they have to live with that same 20 year lead time). If you think conservation will carry us through to 2005 on what we have now, even with a 30% reserve, I think you're deluding yourself. Either that, or this country will have real economic problems (unsupported claim, obviously). So, don't you all go rushing out to find newer, better ways of generating power. We could all freeze while you're getting it on line (probably somewhere beyond 2050). We have to start building the power plants of the 21st century soon. I have as yet to see a power plant that I would care to leave close to, one way or another. Fussion would be great, but it isn't here yet. Solar would be great, if it were reliable. Nukes and coal are both dirty. Wind, geothermal, and hydrodynamic are ok for restricted areas. Wind and geothermal have not (to my knowledge) been tested in large-scale applications (if you know of any, let me know). Hydrodynamic is the industry where we have a clear record of some nasty accidents (does the Johnston (sp?) flood mean anything to you?). Anybody got any others? If not, the best (usable!) alternative seems to be nukes. Pretty lousy, but you takes what you can get. <mike P.S. I think, the correct long-term solution is to move heavy industry into LEO. Then the "soft" sources should be able to provide what's left. But even a concerted national effort wouldn't have the first power plant (current works seems to suggest a solar-powered steam plant!) working for 20-30 years. No win there, either.