hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg) (09/12/85)
Well, it appears that the Honourable Members have received the message
about demonstrating our ownership of the Great White North. For those of
you who have not read the Mop and Pail or equivalent, we will be building a
Class 8 icebreaker (i.e., one which can break 8' of new ice) at a cost of
about half a billion dollars. In the five years that this will take, we
will draw straight baselines and hold naval exercises (but only during the
summer, since we have NO naval icebreakers).
These are all good things, and not even the Loyal Opposition had any valid
complaints to make. However, it still leaves us without a meaningful
military presence in the arctic. While (presumably stationary) listening
stations will be established at "choke points", we won't be able to do
anything about what we hear. One COAST GUARD (not CF) icebreaker will not
be able to get to noisemakers in time, and couldn't do anything if it did
get there. No, this is not a reversal of my earlier statements: I believe
that our flag-waving ships should be minimally armed, not unarmed. And I
can see no way of arming an icebreaker (and a civilian one at that) to take
on subs under the ice that would not be hopelessly high-tech.
The answer would seem to be a fleet of diesel subs as small as is
consistent with extended underwater operation. I retract an earlier
statement: they should NOT be attended by icebreaker mother ships, as the
cost and speed of movement disadvantages would be too great. Rather, they
should operate out of perhaps two or three strategically placed bases.
For a wild guess, a fleet of four could be built for the cost of our Polar
8 vessel. (Please - I did NOT say in lieu of!) This figure was pulled out of
the air, and assumes small, low-tech vessels. I will see if I can back it
up. The one obvious special arctic requirement is the ability to cut a
snorkel-hole through thick ice, presumably with a steam- or hot-water jet.
Any comments on a better or cheaper way of doing the job, or even a
question as to whether it needs doing?
--
John Hogg
Computer Systems Research Institute, UofT
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!hogghenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/12/85)
> ... I > can see no way of arming an icebreaker (and a civilian one at that) to take > on subs under the ice that would not be hopelessly high-tech. In fact, there is no way, high-tech or not. The fact is that the nuclear submarine is the only viable antisubmarine weapon in the Arctic, and even it is less effective there than elsewhere. Aircraft cannot get sensors or weapons through the ice. Surface ships face severe limitations on mobility and sensor/weapon effectiveness. And diesel/electric subs... that deserves a longer discussion. For operation under the ice, the key fact is that surfacing is difficult and must be infrequent, and surface movement is impossible. Unfortunately, diesel/electric subs necessarily spend most of their time at the surface, either surfaced or snorkelling. Their underwater cruising speed is a slow walk, and their underwater range is extremely short. This is not just a matter of propulsion, although that problem is bad enough; the long-term life-support systems used by nuclear subs rely heavily on ample electric power, and diesel/electric subs cannot afford them. Diesel/electric subs are utterly tied to the surface, and that means that they are virtually immobile in the Arctic, especially in winter. It won't work, John. Also, existing diesel/electric subs are small and cheap largely because they are designed as "offensive" subs, primarily charged with attacking surface ships. Surface ships are vastly easier to find and attack than submarines. Giving a diesel/electric sub the long-range sensors and weapons needed for antisubmarine combat drastically increases its size and cost. It's still cheaper than a nuclear sub, but the difference is more like a factor of 2 than an order of magnitude. Small, low-tech subs are simply ineffective as antisubmarine forces. Nuclear submarines are very expensive, which is one reason why they are not more widespread. Another reason is that the few nations which build them have shown no inclination whatever to export them. Maybe we could convince Britain to sell us some; I'm unsure about the US. Note that we'd need a number of them. The rule of thumb for missile subs is that you need *five* of them to keep *one* continuously on patrol, because the others are in port or in transit to/from the patrol areas. (The British Polaris fleet only has four, thanks to an economy drive late in its construction, and has real problems maintaining continuous patrol.) It wouldn't be as bad in this case, since geography is on our side, but having a sub in the right place to respond to a contact report would still require a substantial fleet. Submarines are, in any case, dubious as a way of responding to listening- post reports. A listening post is unlikely to have continuous contact with a presumed-hostile submarine; not even the huge hydrophone networks the US has build in the Atlantic can do that. The most that can be managed is brief contacts sufficient to point to the right area... *if* you can get antisubmarine forces there *quickly*. The standard approach to this in more normal environments is aircraft, not submarines. Even nuclear subs, whose underwater cruising speed is (literally) an order of magnitude higher than that of diesel/electric subs, are not really fast enough for this. My conclusion is that we basically cannot afford an antisubmarine force that would be effective in the Arctic, and we should not waste money building an ineffective one. We should concentrate on *monitoring* subs in the Arctic, and doing something about them once they either surface or leave the icecap area. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (09/13/85)
In article <5952@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> ... I >> can see no way of arming an icebreaker (and a civilian one at that) to take >> on subs under the ice that would not be hopelessly high-tech. > >In fact, there is no way, high-tech or not. > Quite right! There is no way an icebreaker is going to take on nuclear subs in the artic. Launching smart torpedoes *might* score a hit if a nuclear sub was encountered, but the subs would have no difficulty knowing where the ice breaker was, and they are much faster! The ice breaker would simply never see them. However, subs are not the only threat to our claim to the artic. We need something there to chase out the surface craft that are there expressly to challenge our claim, and we need teeth in those waters. Not large teeth, but very sharp! >Nuclear submarines are very expensive, which is one reason why they are >not more widespread. Another reason is that the few nations which build >them have shown no inclination whatever to export them. Maybe we could >convince Britain to sell us some; I'm unsure about the US. > Why not let the Americans use their own subs in the area? If we give them permission, then it is no threat to us. They are the ones who are really worried about the Soviets in the arctic anyway. I rather expect that both Soviets & Americans have been into the area with their subs in a big way for many years now. It hasn't hurt us at all, because they're not talking about it. The major threat is that one of them might break down and pollute the water. > >My conclusion is that we basically cannot afford an antisubmarine force >that would be effective in the Arctic, and we should not waste money >building an ineffective one. We should concentrate on *monitoring* subs >in the Arctic, and doing something about them once they either surface or >leave the icecap area. Exactly so! -- Cheers, Fred Williams, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!fred BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 318
jbtubman@water.UUCP (Jim Tubman [LPAIG]) (09/13/85)
In article <5952@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >Nuclear submarines are very expensive, which is one reason why they are >not more widespread. Another reason is that the few nations which build >them have shown no inclination whatever to export them. Maybe we could >convince Britain to sell us some; I'm unsure about the US. Our nuclear industry doesn't seem to be doing so well these days; perhaps getting them to work on a project to produce a reactor for propulsion might help the industry *and* make a useful contribution to the Arctic sovereignty problem. Just a thought. Jim Tubman University of Waterloo
shindman@utcs.uucp (Paul Shindman) (09/13/85)
Has Canada ever spent $500 million on a boat before? Until I see
some verrrrrrrrry convincing detailed info on this ice-breaker
I will remain opposed to the feds sinking 1/2 billion bucks into
this.
There is just no way that we need a white elephant to patrol the
north. It'll be invisible in the snow so nobody will notice our
so called presence anyway. The technology for such a ship is
still not developed, and I can see $500 million expanding to fill
that never-ending deficit.
One of the minor reasons the LNG (liquid natural gas) deal with
the Japanese fell through was that the technology for transporting
cold things through cold water isn't really there. The technology
of big boats bashing ice in the arctic full is also not that
well established. One of the main problems involves the fracture
mechanics of big lumps of steel with a hot engine room travelling
through -3C water and -40C air. The LNG project would have gone
a long way to improving the technology, but Dome and the other
partners apparently did not have their act together.
Wow...$500 million for one ship to crack ice cubes. (I hope I got
this wrong...maybe it's 5 ships?) What about the special ports that
will probably be built for it to berth in, the support facilities it
will need, and I bet the cost doubles to $1 billion for a single boat.
Egads.
--
-----------------
Paul Shindman, U of T Computing Services, Toronto (416) 978-6878
USENET: {ihnp4|decvax}!utcs!shindman
BITNET: paulie at utoronto IP SHARP MAIL: uoftjimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (09/15/85)
In article <820@water.UUCP> jbtubman@water.UUCP (Jim Tubman [LPAIG]) writes: >In article <5952@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >>Nuclear submarines are very expensive, which is one reason why they are >>not more widespread. Another reason is that the few nations which build >>them have shown no inclination whatever to export them. Maybe we could >>convince Britain to sell us some; I'm unsure about the US. > >Our nuclear industry doesn't seem to be doing so well these days; perhaps >getting them to work on a project to produce a reactor for propulsion might >help the industry *and* make a useful contribution to the Arctic sovereignty >problem. > >Just a thought. > > Jim Tubman > University of Waterloo One thing that I've wondered about for a while now. Are Nuclear subs safe? Does anybody here know whether they have the problems that nuclear power plants have had? Don't they suffer from radiation problems (being small and not having the design freedom for almost infinite concrete baffles)? I don't know. I haven't heard *anything* about this. Cheers! -- Jim O. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/15/85)
> Our nuclear industry doesn't seem to be doing so well these days; perhaps > getting them to work on a project to produce a reactor for propulsion might > help the industry *and* make a useful contribution to the Arctic sovereignty > problem. I think we could do it -- dammit, we've been in this business longer than the British, they built their first A-bomb with Canadian plutonium! -- but it's not so clear that it is worthwhile. It would make sense only if it was to lead to a substantial production order for nuclear submarines, which we probably cannot afford. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/15/85)
> One thing that I've wondered about for a while now. Are Nuclear > subs safe? Does anybody here know whether they have the problems that > nuclear power plants have had? Don't they suffer from radiation problems > (being small and not having the design freedom for almost infinite > concrete baffles)? Done well, as with the US nuclear-sub program (and probably the British one as well), they are safer than nuclear power plants. Not because of any technical consideration, but because crew training and quality control are better. The US Navy operates the world's biggest nuclear fleet, with more reactors than the entire US nuclear-power industry, and has *never* had a serious accident or radiation leak. The Soviet nuclear fleet is a slightly different story. If you are ever offered a tour of a Soviet nuclear sub, decline. Or at least insist on wearing a dosimeter, and get it checked afterward. At risk of opening an inappropriate debate, I feel compelled to point out that even commercial nuclear power plants are the safest way of generating large amounts of power yet devised. All power-generation methods kill, by industrial accidents if nothing else, and the deaths/gigawatt-hour value is consistently lower for nuclear plants than for anything else. They also release less radioactive material into the atmosphere than most coal-burning power plants, and the waste from a nuclear plant is less dangerous than the arsenic-laden muck that comes out of a coal-burning plant's stack scrubbers. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (09/16/85)
In article <5960@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >Done well, as with the US nuclear-sub program (and probably the British one >as well), they are safer than nuclear power plants. Not because of any >technical consideration, but because crew training and quality control are >better. The US Navy operates the world's biggest nuclear fleet, with more >reactors than the entire US nuclear-power industry, and has *never* had a >serious accident or radiation leak. > You could be right, Henry. But it is also possible that they have never had a serious accident *reported*. I doubt that the training and quality control are better. I rather expect that standard land based nuclear power plants have quality assurance programs second to none and the training should be tops. (This doesn't mean I think it adequate, however.) Having said this, I will now state that I don't think there would be a direct danger in Canada having nuclear subs in the arctic. In fact it may make the area much safer, since if we were effectively patrolling the area, the Soviets & Americans would have to keep out or face bad publicity at best. The real problem with nuclear reacors on subs is the same problem as with nuclear reactors on land; *waste materials*! I don't believe that products from coal burning power plants are more dangerous. If I am wrong on this count, then I can at least state that they will not remain that dangerous for thousands of years. High grade radio- active wastes do! They will be around, and still be deadly, long after Canada, the US, and the USSR are long forgotten. Also note that we have been storing the nuclear wastes for about 40 years now. Already we have many cases of leaking dump sites, *AFTER ONLY FORTY YEARS*. What will it be like later? If we were to stop producing nuclear materials today, and not bury any more waste materials, then the current "supply" once leaked out into the environment is sufficient to destroy the genetic pool of all the higher life forms on Earth. At least that's what I heard on TV the other week - I haven't checked it myself, but I don't doubt it. So I don't support any nuclear activity that produces wastes, and spent fuel from nuclear reactors is exactly that. To locate nuclear subs uncer artic ice, there must be other ways. True visibility is impaired, acoustics is not much better due the continual grinding of the ice. Magnetics is short range, only. But accoustics can be improved by use of signal processing techniques. We could drop mines that respond to the accoustical, (and other), properties of nuclear subs. Then all we do is warn people to keep out. The system is automatic & self policing. If the sub goes through, it get blown up. This is effective and *cheap*! -- Cheers, Fred Williams, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!fred BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 318
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/16/85)
> ... I doubt that the [US Navy nuclear-reactor] training > and quality control are better. You're letting your biases show, Fred. The general air of mismanagement and bungling of the US military is not universal. The Navy nuclear program is one of the few areas that *are* well run. They train their technicians much more thoroughly than commercial reactor technicians, and are extremely fussy about quality control on reactor systems, even when said fussiness shows up in the price tag. > I rather expect that standard land > based nuclear power plants have quality assurance programs second to > none and the training should be tops. In a word, it ain't so. Commercial power plants, by and large, spend as little on operator training and quality assurance as they can -- they're in business to make a profit, dontcha know? :-[ The Three Mile Island incident would not have been one-tenth as serious if the stupid operators had simply kept their hands off and let the automatic machinery do its job! > ... I don't believe > that products from coal burning power plants are more dangerous. If > I am wrong on this count, then I can at least state that they will > not remain that dangerous for thousands of years. High grade radio- > active wastes do! ... The arsenic compounds and other chemical toxins in stack-scrubber sludge are composed of stable elements; they will be around *forever*!!! The decay of high-grade reactor wastes is a feature, not a bug. As to how dangerous the various compounds are, this depends on the details of the comparison, but that stack-scrubber stuff is *nasty*; you don't want it buried anywhere near where you get your water from. The overriding fact of waste disposal, though, is that the quantities involved are enormously different: reactor wastes come by the ton, stack-scrubber sludge comes by the thousands of tons. It is far easier to give a few tons of radioactive waste special treatment than it is to give thousands of tons of toxic sludge special treatment. Almost any comment you can make about reactor wastes is worse for coal-power wastes, once you factor in the difference in quantity. > We could drop mines that respond to the accoustical, (and other), > properties of nuclear subs. Then all we do is warn people to keep out. > The system is automatic & self policing. If the sub goes through, it > get blown up. This is effective and *cheap*! "Drop" mines? Much of the area we are talking about has year-round ice. For that matter, except in relatively deep areas, the ice generally scrapes the bottom on occasion (this is a very serious concern for underwater oil and gas pipelines, by the way). This means that the mines may get moved at random. This is especially bad news when international waters are nearby, because mining international waters except in wartime is a big no-no, practically an act of war. And don't forget that mines, while individually cheap, have to be deployed in horrendous numbers to deny a large area to the opposition. They don't last forever, either. And let us not forget the cynical military comment that "nobody ever got promoted for commanding a mine". This is not a trival issue when we have to work with real people and real organizations. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
dennis@utecfc.UUCP (Dennis Ferguson) (09/17/85)
In article <2182@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes: > > The real problem with nuclear reacors on subs is the same problem >as with nuclear reactors on land; *waste materials*! I don't believe >that products from coal burning power plants are more dangerous. If >I am wrong on this count, then I can at least state that they will >not remain that dangerous for thousands of years. High grade radio- >active wastes do! They will be around, and still be deadly, long after >Canada, the US, and the USSR are long forgotten. > > Also note that we have been storing the nuclear wastes for about >40 years now. Already we have many cases of leaking dump sites, >*AFTER ONLY FORTY YEARS*. To deal with the above out of order: While I am aware of some relatively minor problems with uranium mine mill tailings, I have not heard of any problems being encountered with the storage of nuclear waste in Canada (the U.S. I don't know about, I'd be interested in any specific information you might have). I do know without a doubt that there are no leaking dump sites containing wastes from Canadian reactors in commercial power generating stations since there are no dump sites for this waste, period. The waste created by all Candu reactors is stored at the generating station in a big swimming pool, waiting for someone to figure out what to do with it. The point is, though, that there has yet to be, to my knowledge, a case of serious environmental damage attributable to Canadian nuclear power production. I wish the same could be said of the waste products of burning coal. For starters, coal-fired generating stations, particularly those burning Eastern North American coal (i.e. in Ontario and most of the Eastern and Mid Western states), emit tremendous quantities of sulphur dioxide into the air, most of which returns to us as acid rain. Already the most environmentally sensitive part of the eastern continent, the Canadian Shield, has sustained massive damage. The number of lakes which no longer support life is in the thousands, and will soon number in the tens of thousands if the situation does not improve. The PH of the soil is also dropping, to the point where, in some areas, the forests are thinning. What is the value of a lake, or a forest? How many billions of dollars of environmental damage has already been caused, in no small measure, by power production from coal? What will happen when the problem extends further south to the farm lands of southern Ontario and Quebec? The inevitable consequences should we continue on like this are not pleasant to think about. Of greater long term impact is the production of carbon dioxide by combustion processes and, as such, coal-fired power plants are major producers. The effect of an increase in the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is to raise the temperature of the planet by making reducing the reradiation of heat back into space. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has already increased drastically from preindustrial days (I think 100%), much of this in the last 30 years. I have read a number of opinions concerning the effect on polar ice of a 5 degree rise in the world's average temperature, with estimates of the increase in sea level ranging from 30 to 250 feet. Look at a map and see what would be gone, in Toronto we're 1000 miles from the ocean but only 260 feet above sea level. And this within between thirty and not more than seventy years at the present rate of increase. Not to mention the effect on the land that is left. A 5 degree average temperature rise would probably make Canada quite a bit more pleasant, but would not be so nice for countries nearer the equator, some of which have large populations and a fragile agricultural economy at best even now. Yes, if we reduce our reliance on coal for power production the situation will worsen at a lesser rate, and maybe if we eliminate this altogether (along with INCO and cars and ...) and wait long enough the forests and lakes will recover from the damage already caused. And certainly even if we shut down all nuclear reactors tomorrow we will still be stuck with caretaking large quantities of waste already produced for the next fifty thousand years or so, and be faced with a finite *probability* that a major disaster involving this waste will occur. But I see no signs of our reducing coal usage in any way, in fact just the opposite. Every time construction of a new nuclear reactor is halted, whether by public pressure or by cost or whatever, we simply replace the power which would have been generated over the 30 year life of that reactor by another coal-fired station belching more crud into the atmosphere. The way things are going now, given the record of the nuclear industry versus the already proven damage in great measure due to coal power generation, I'd be willing to bet you that the coal kills most of us long before the nuclear waste does. Don't get me wrong, I have *alot* less faith in the people that run nuclear reactors than you seem to, and the future prospects scare me. I just don't think we should stop building them while there's a coal-fired plant left to be replaced. Better to take a chance on nuclear power than to face the certainties associated with coal. --- Dennis Ferguson ...!utcsri!utecfc!dennis
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (09/17/85)
. . . > > To locate nuclear subs uncer artic ice, there must be other ways. > True visibility is impaired, acoustics is not much better due the > continual grinding of the ice. Magnetics is short range, only. > But accoustics can be improved by use of signal processing techniques. > We could drop mines that respond to the accoustical, (and other), ^^^^^ > properties of nuclear subs. Then all we do is warn people to keep out. > The system is automatic & self policing. If the sub goes through, it > get blown up. This is effective and *cheap*! > > -- > Cheers, Fred Williams, > UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!fred > BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 318 I think that mines are an excellent idea. Although it would be kind of nice to have our own class8 icebreaker (and it would provide a lot of jobs to canadians as well as increasing our knowhow) we could put an awful lot of smart mines in the arctic for a lot less money. This would also seem to be slightly less likely to produce an unfortunate conflict; we just deposit the mines and announce that we have done so in accordance with our claims to sovereignity. This seems a lot more feasible than chasing soviet/us subs or waiting for the US to send another ship through that we then have to confront. -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (09/17/85)
In article <5965@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >You're letting your biases show, Fred. The general air of mismanagement >and bungling of the US military is not universal. I meant no slight on the US military, they have enough problems. I did think that people would be careful when building nuclear power plants whoever they were. I forgot that humans seem to have this tremendous capacity for stupidity, you could be right. But I don't think we should get involved with nuclear plants at all, exactly because we have this tremendous capacity for stupidity! >... The Three Mile Island The Three Mile Island >incident would not have been one-tenth as serious if the stupid operators >had simply kept their hands off and let the automatic machinery do its job! Good point if it is true! >The arsenic compounds and other chemical toxins in stack-scrubber sludge >are composed of stable elements; they will be around *forever*!!!... Forever is a long time, but I can allow that they can be a nuisance for quite a while. I was just talking with Chris Lewis, (who, by the way, says he will probably unsubscribe), and he mentioned that the US kills 30000 people a year, in fact I think he posted it recently, also. This due to stack scrubber waste. So, OK guys I agree that something should be done about this also, but I don't think that the solution is nuclear power. Hydro power, and solar power are reasonably clean, although, just about anything we do on a massive scale is going to impact on the environment. The best solution that I can see is to reduce our demands for energy and make significant changes to our lifestyles. If we cannot get enough energy to support ourselves without doing major damage to the planet, then the planet will simply not support our numbers! So the best thing we can do is use birth control until there are not enough of us to do major damage. Yes I realise that there is about as much chance of this happening as Reagan declaring unilateral disarmament, but the Chinese are vigorously enforcing the one child family, a move that I applaud as being one of the most intelligent I have seen yet. -- Cheers, Fred Williams, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!fred BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 318
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (09/17/85)
In article <40@utecfc.UUCP> dennis@utecfc.UUCP (Dennis Ferguson) writes: >While I am aware of some relatively minor problems with uranium mine >mill tailings, I have not heard of any problems being encountered with >the storage of nuclear waste in Canada (the U.S. I don't know about, I'd >be interested in any specific information you might have). I was of coarse not referring only to Canada. This is a problem that faces all of humanity without regards for national boundries. We can make mistakes right here in Canada just as easily as anybody. The fact that we don't have major problems now is probably because we aren't as active in the nuclear industry as other nations. Give it time, our mistakes will eventually catch up with us. By the way there have been some rather dangerous close calls with Canadian reactors, Chalk River for one, I forget the date. >... The waste created by >all Candu reactors is stored at the generating station in a big swimming >pool, waiting for someone to figure out what to do with it. This is part of the problem. What do we do with it? Will future generations be likely to thank us for these little "gifts"? >I wish the same could be said of the waste products of burning coal. For >starters, coal-fired generating stations, particularly those burning Eastern >North American coal (i.e. in Ontario and most of the Eastern and Mid Western >states), emit tremendous quantities of sulphur dioxide into the air, most >of which returns to us as acid rain. Already the most environmentally >sensitive part of the eastern continent, the Canadian Shield, has sustained >massive damage. The number of lakes which no longer support life is >in the thousands, and will soon number in the tens of thousands if the >situation does not improve. The PH of the soil is also dropping, to the >point where, in some areas, the forests are thinning. What is the value >of a lake, or a forest? How many billions of dollars of environmental >damage has already been caused, in no small measure, by power production >from coal? What will happen when the problem extends further south to >the farm lands of southern Ontario and Quebec? The inevitable consequences >should we continue on like this are not pleasant to think about. > I agree! This is definately one of our biggest problems!!! It cannot even be fought by adding lime to the forest environment because neutralizing the acid only creates salt which is no good either. The problem has to be solved at the source! Eliminate the cause. Your other comments, which I am editing for brevity's sake, are all quite valid. The raising of the Earth's temperature, and sea levels would create problems of a magnitude that we have never dreamed of. The current famine in Africa will seem trivial by comarison. All in all, the future doesn't look bright for planet Earth. Did someone say that we are the most intelligent species?? How come all this is our fault??(:-(> -- Cheers, Fred Williams, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!fred BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 318
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/17/85)
> ... But I don't > think we should get involved with nuclear plants at all, exactly > because we have this tremendous capacity for stupidity! By the same argument, there are many other things we should not get involved with. Surely airliners are too dangerous to be allowed. > > ...The Three Mile Island > >incident would not have been one-tenth as serious if the stupid operators > >had simply kept their hands off and let the automatic machinery do its job! > > Good point if it is true! Consult any good technical discussion of the TMI incident for verification. The one in IEEE Spectrum was excellent. > >The arsenic compounds and other chemical toxins in stack-scrubber sludge > >are composed of stable elements; they will be around *forever*!!!... > > Forever is a long time, but I can allow that they can be a nuisance > for quite a while... They're about as close to permanent as one can get: stable compounds of stable elements. > ... Hydro power, and solar power are reasonably clean, Hydro power does ecological damage of its own, although it's localized. Solar power plants alter the heat balance of the Earth, since they absorb solar energy that would otherwise mostly go back out into space. Lesser effects, but not zero. Neither one is terribly safe, since industrial accidents happen everywhere (especially with things like solar power, where the power source is dispersed enough to need lots and lots of equipment for useful power output). I won't :-) even mention dam failures. > ... just about anything we do on a massive scale is going to > impact on the environment. Precisely. So we come down to comparing amounts of damage, rather than claiming that method X has impact and method Y has none. Guess which method of large-scale power generation has the least impact? (Look at the *numbers*, not the hysteria.) -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (09/18/85)
In article <5975@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >Precisely. So we come down to comparing amounts of damage, rather than >claiming that method X has impact and method Y has none. Guess which >method of large-scale power generation has the least impact? (Look at >the *numbers*, not the hysteria.) Large solar arrays probably have the least impact. But this is only a guess. We are not really looking only for the least impact, but also one that is below a level that we can consider as unacceptable. Like I said before, No way may be totally feasable. Then the only conclusion we can come to is that there is too many of us. The planet will not support us! Hence we have to reduce our population and embark upon moderate scale power generation. Before our decision is made for us, and we are reduced in population by means beyond our control. -- Cheers, Fred Williams, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!fred BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 318
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/18/85)
> Large solar arrays probably have the least impact. But this is > only a guess... I doubt it, when you consider manufacturing processes (they have to be built, and they don't last forever), heat balance (the right place to put a solar array is in the desert, where most sunlight is normally radiated back out into space), storage systems (since the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day every day), and the truly immense areas needed to produce large amounts of power. Actually, solar power satellites solve most of these problems; they might compete with nuclear for minimum impact. > We are not really looking only for the least impact, > but also one that is below a level that we can consider as unacceptable. > Like I said before, No way may be totally feasable. True, although it does look like low-impact methods (power satellites, nuclear reactors) are within the acceptable level. > Then the only > conclusion we can come to is that there is too many of us. The planet > will not support us! Hence we have to reduce our population and > embark upon moderate scale power generation. Before our decision is > made for us, and we are reduced in population by means beyond our > control. The only feasible ways to reduce the population of Earth in any sort of hurry are a major nuclear war or a Third-World famine so drastic that it would probably result in a major war. We are stuck with the problem for the moment. And the only really effective way to halt population growth is to industrialize the Third World, so that the resulting economic changes will slow their growth the same way it slowed ours. So our near- term power needs will grow, not shrink. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (09/19/85)
In article <5982@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: In response to my: >> We are not really looking only for the least impact, >> but also one that is below a level that we can consider as unacceptable. >> Like I said before, No way may be totally feasable. > >True, although it does look like low-impact methods (power satellites, >nuclear reactors) are within the acceptable level. > Power Satellites!?!? If you think I've been ranting about Nukes, you ought to hear me on Power Satellites!!! The plans I've heard about all call for large solar arrays in space with conversion of the power to micro-waves which are then beamed to earth. Typically we're talking about 4 times the power output of Niagra Falls. Do you trust that such a station would *NEVER* loose stability and start slashing the hemisphere willy-nilly with this microwave beam? Before you start up again, yes I do know that there are some neat safegards against this that can be employed, but all engineering systems can eventually go wrong. Furthermore, Do you know that this can also be used as an offensive weapon by whoever controls it? All this from a technology that has had enough problems learning how to sheild a microwave oven!!! Give me a break! >> Then the only >> conclusion we can come to is that there is too many of us. The planet >> will not support us! Hence we have to reduce our population and >> embark upon moderate scale power generation. Before our decision is >> made for us, and we are reduced in population by means beyond our >> control. > >The only feasible ways to reduce the population of Earth in any sort of >hurry are a major nuclear war or a Third-World famine so drastic that it >would probably result in a major war. We are stuck with the problem >for the moment. And the only really effective way to halt population >growth is to industrialize the Third World, so that the resulting economic >changes will slow their growth the same way it slowed ours. So our near- >term power needs will grow, not shrink. You'll have to read more carefully, Henry. Remember, you can't watch my lips on the net. I did advocate birth control, the Chinese are using the concept of the one child family quite well. It would not take too many generations to bring us to accepable levels. -- Cheers, Fred Williams, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!fred BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 318