Just wondering..

[Cedric Chang-2]

>
> On Feb 29, 2008, at 11:59 PM, Paul Hutchinson wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: piclist-bounces@... On Behalf Of James Newton
>> Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 8:01 PM
>>
>> Byron Jeff Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 15:24
>>> 1) At the efficiency levels that solar converts to electricity,
>>> it takes more energy to create solar panels than they produce.
>>
>> Ahhh... Huh? Could you provide a reference or supporting data for  
>> that
>> assertion? If it takes more energy to make a solar panel than it  
>> will ever
>> produce, wouldn't the cost of the panel exceed the value of the
>> electricity
>> produced? Why would anyone produce a panel if that were the case?  
>> Wouldn't
>> the power to make it cost them more than the panel is worth?
>
> I've never encountered good data that proves or disproves the  
> proposition
> that it takes more energy to make them than they can produce.  
> However, it is
> plausible because of the substantial discounts on electricity  
> prices for
> industry, see:
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html
>
> To use California as an example, average residential power costs 14.26
> (Cents per kilowatthour) while industry pays only 9.75. If the  
> manufacturer
> is in another state, like say the Iowa Thin Film Co. now known as
> http://www.powerfilmsolar.com/, they'd only pay 4.45. Also some,  
> possibly
> much, of the energy used in the manufacturing operation will come  
> from less
> expensive fossil fuel sources further lowering the total cost of  
> energy
> (e.g. natural gas fired kilns and ovens).
>
> Whether or not solar panel production uses more energy than the  
> panels will
> produce, the panels certainly allow the transfer of industries cheaper
> energy prices over to residential customers who typically get paid  
> for the
> solar generated power at the residential rate. If you where only  
> paid the
> industrial rate for the power you generate would the payback period  
> exceed
> the life span?

Paul Hutch

Paul , your ideas look really interesting.  I could not follow the  
logic.  Could you summarize it for me ?  I do apologize.
CC

>
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

>
> On Mar 1, 2008, at 9:53 AM, Bob Axtell wrote:
>
> AppTech said:
>>> I believe that energy costs will actually fall over time
>>>
>>
>> I do too. But I also believe that we may have to wait until
>> Lunar Helium 3 fusion power comes on line in a widespread
>> manner for this to happen.
>>
>> "Power so cheap it won't need to be metered".
>>
>> "It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy
>> in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter, will
>> know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as
>> matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas
>> and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger
>> and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far
>> longer than ours as disease yields and man comes to
>> understand what causes him to age."
>> Lewis L. Strauss
>> Speech to the National Association of Science Writers, New
>> York City September 16th, 1954.
>>
>>
>>
> Yes. This quote was made in a 3-page advertisement in Scientific  
> American in
> 1955. I carried it with me for years. Alas I finally lost it. and I  
> have
> been very
> suspicious of Scientific American ever since...
>
> The truth is that nuclear power is the MOST costly of all power
> generation methods.
> The US government has never admitted the true costs, because it would
> probably
> cause a taxpayer revolt. The original purpose of nuclear power was to
> provide a
> reliable  source of plutonium from spent fuel rods. Where do you think
> the USA _GOT_
> its warheads?
>
> After 9/11, the price went up dramatically. Now, no airplane is  
> allowed
> to overfly a
> nuke plant. Seriously armed guards are EVERYWHERE. Visitors must  
> have prior
> permission to even pickup a worker's paycheck. Unused radioactive
> material is
> stored ONSITE, an open invitation to evil-doers of all flavors. It  
> goes
> on and on.
>
> But solar concentration plants have problems too. The sun doesn't  
> shine
> at night, so
> energy must be shared between different generation methods, by  
> moving it
> over the
> power grid. But here in the USA, our "power grid" is a joke; it is
> overloaded now, so
> no new power can move over it. Third-world countries have better power
> grids than
> we have. One workable idea is to drop the power grid entirely, and
> pipeline hydrogen
> gas (cracked by excess electricity) between cites, and burn it at  
> night
> (as well as sell it
> to hydrogen-powered cars). But such planning takes competent political
> oversight, and
> here in the colonies, our politicians are much too stupid for  the  
> task.
>
> Here's the vision of a few Arizona engineers:
>
> 1. Establish a huge solar concentrator, with a 10-mile  area of  
> sunlight
> concentrators.
> Several turbine plants would generate electricity but only to crack
> water into hydrogen
> and oxygen immediately. The hydrogen will be pipelined to various
> generating plants in
> the USA, who will store the H2 then generate electricity locally on a
> 24/hr basis; in
> essence, the hydrogen would replace natural gas in the burners,
> generating no carbon
> dioxide.
>
> 2.  The hydrogen will also be delivered to hydrogen "filling stations"
> across the USA
> for use in clean-burning cars and trucks. Hydrogen burns with 0 (ZERO)
> smog emissions
> and creates just WATER as a waste product. No more adding CO2 to the
> atmosphere.
>
> 3. Oxygen can be sold to vendors  who will further clean it to be used
> in commercial
> or medical processes.
>
> A plant of this size can supply the needs of the entire USA from one
> site. No new nukes,
> no use of petroleum to generate electricity anymore. The headaches of
> the past are ended.
>
> If we don't do this, Mexico will.
>
> --Bob A

And what is wrong with that ?  Hooray !  What is the cost breakdown  
for this scheme ?  What are the dangers ? Any ?
cc


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Chris Smolinski]

>Chris Smolinski wrote:
>>>  1. Establish a huge solar concentrator, with a 10-mile  area of sunlight
>>>  concentrators.
>>>    
>>
>>  The environmentalists will tie this up in the court system for
>>  decades. Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.
>>
>>  
>Nope, got that one covered. This would be in the middle of an Indian
>Reservation, where the
>land is worthless, and almost nothing grows. No trees to hug, I'm
>afraid. (Most of AZ is Indian
>Reservation. I guess you didn't know.) The Indians will provide a very
>reasonable lease.

That's an interesting point/idea - since Indian
Reservations are in theory sovereign, are they
exempt from EPA/environmental nonsense?

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

>
> On Mar 1, 2008, at 6:52 AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>
> Apptech wrote:
>
>> Next add the true costs of any indemnities offered against  
>> prosecution or
>> liability. These are easily priced by estimating what price the  
>> market
>> insurers would charge for them. if no insurers would front up at any
>> cost it's not a viable industry - or so the market forces people  
>> would
>> tell me. Why wouldn't I choose to believe them in this case ?
>
> I always get a strange feeling when the same people who just a few  
> minutes
> ago told me that the superiority of the capitalist system lies in  
> trusting
> the wisdom of "the masses" (whose actions determine the price of  
> everything
> in such a system) are now telling me that it's the stupidity of  
> "the [same]
> masses" that prevents the superior solution of the problem of the day.
>
> I guess you can't have it both ways. If you think it's because of the
> stupidity of "the masses" that the superior solution of our energy  
> problems
> isn't viable and you think this should be changed, then I think  
> this has
> consequences that go far beyond energy policy.
>
> Gerhard

If I was talking about capitalism, I guess I would say that the  
wisdom of it stems from many personal choices.  The stupidity of the  
masses comes from "mob rule" ( aka democracy ).  When I shop at the  
store, I am not told what to buy. ( Capitalism proving many  
individual, free choices )  When I go to build a house ; I am told by  
the mob where I can build, what materials I can use, what  
construction methods I can use, how many people can live in  
it , ...... Most of these rules are in place so mini-dictators can  
get their jollies.  This is when the "stupidity of the masses is  
apparent."  Mob rule also perpetuates " the tragedy of the commons"  
since mob rule creates "commons" with abandon.  I can discourse more  
on this if you wish.  So rather than "have it two ways", I would  
argue you conflate individual choice with mob rule.
cc


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

>>
>> On Feb 29, 2008, at 11:02 PM, Apptech wrote:
>>
>>> Please tell me what you mean by rebate ?  Do you mean the
>>> manufacturer sold it for less, or taxpayers paid for part
>>> of your
>>> system ?  If taxpayers ponied up money, then the real the
>>> cost of the
>>> system must be the total cost , not the amount you paid.
>>
>> There's a logical error there.

No way.  Public subsidies are always theft and are always immoral.  
( One of my few axioms ) I will never be convinced that theft can be  
justified by semantics. This is a moral distinction and if you do not  
dig my morals, at least say so and do not ascribe it to some logical  
error.   cc

> Perhaps
>
> "If taxpayers ponied up money, then the real the cost of the
> system may lie somewhere between the real cost and the
> amount you paid, but may be even less than that range"
>
> ie your "must" assumed that the subsidy was arbitrary or
> capricious or pork-belly or similar. It can be and is
> argued, and the point is moot, that the subsidies in whole
> or in part reflect the value to 'the people' of you sourcing
> energy locally. At some level the opportunity cost of being
> able to delay installing new large scale generation plant
> may merit encouraging such investment. This also may reflect
> reductions in distribution infrastructure. Also, progress in
> developing more efficient mass solar, wind, wave or whatever
> alternative systems on larger scales may result in
> efficiencies if large plant upgrades can be delayed until
> higher efficincy / lower cost solutions are available. Like
> 'death from passive smoking' such gains or losses may be
> measured in incremental statistical effect rather than being
> able to point to a given power station that was installed
> year later with higher tech gear than could otherwise have
> been the case.
>
> Now, all the above may in practice be rubbish, or close
> enough to rubbish as not to matter. And may not. But the
> point is that it' easy to say 'subsidies are a direct and
> unproductive cost to the consumer'. Inarguably some are and
> many may be. But some do reflect real world actualities.
> Some factors are moderately intangible such as relief from
> dependance on "foreigh oil"  and attendant improvements in
> "national security" and "national pride" and ... .
>
> Agree?
>
>> I believe that energy costs will actually fall over time
>
> I do too. But I also believe that we may have to wait until
> Lunar Helium 3 fusion power comes on line in a widespread
> manner for this to happen.
>
> "Power so cheap it won't need to be metered".
>
> "It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy
> in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter, will
> know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as
> matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas
> and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger
> and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far
> longer than ours as disease yields and man comes to
> understand what causes him to age."
> Lewis L. Strauss
> Speech to the National Association of Science Writers, New
> York City September 16th, 1954.
>
>
>
>             Russell
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
>

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[mikecreid]

As to wind power, I have a fun April's Fools Day memo in mind.  Maybe a
fellow Piclist member can help with this joke.

I would like to prepare a press release or memo that states that after
exhaustive research, some official sounding organization has found proof
that at the present rate of construction of windmills around the world for
energy production, that within a few years we will slow down the rotation of
the earth due to all the friction against the wind, etc., etc., and that our
days will be getting longer.  By 2025 we will be adding 1/2 hour or
something like that to each day.

I'm sure we could write something that would get picked up by some newswire
and we could all have a few laughs.

An takers?

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[M. Adam Davis-2]

On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Bob Axtell <engineer@...> wrote:
> A nuclear generation plant and a concentrated solar
> generation plant have two main
> differences: (1) during the night, no electricity can be generated at
> the solar plant; and (2) no hazardous
> waste is generated, EVER.

Depends on your definition of hazardous waste.  Something has to be
pumped through the turbines, and it isn't going to be pure water
(liquid sodium in some plants, IIRC).  The mirrors will also be washed
off with something strong than water.  The turbines must be maintained
with a variety of petrochemicals, the transformers sealed in cooling
oils, etc.  Even in the 'closed' systems there's filtering and
maintenance that results in wastage.

Environmentally friendly solutions may be found for those, and even if
not they aren't quite the ecological disaster spent nuclear waste is,
however it's quite a stretch to say that there is never any hazardous
waste.

-Adam
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[ivp]

> As to wind power, I have a fun April's Fools Day memo in mind.
> Maybe a fellow Piclist member can help with this joke

> the present rate of construction of windmills around the world

> I'm sure we could write something that would get picked up by
> some newswire and we could all have a few laughs.

Properly presented, that would not be hard to get on the news
services. Good grief, a NZ politician got caught with the old
"ban di-hydrogen oxide" sting lately

You know what else is slowing the Earth down ? Tall buildings.
The higher they go and the more of them there are, more weight
is out from the centre. Conservation of momentum, just like a
figure skater

When the World Trade Centre buildings came down, the world
sped up a little. Whenever a poorly-built 3rd World apartment
block falls down, whenever a factory chimney is demolished, we
all face the increase risk of being spun off into space. Don't plant
climbing plants. Ground covers please. Sit, don't stand. Better still,
lie down with a loved one. And we need more basements

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[ivp]

> I still remember a book put out by one of them that claimed
> that the electricity produced by nuclear power plants was
> itself radioactive

And some people still believe that electricity drips of off wires

A ready and willing market for the unscrupulous

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

Resetting swallowed OT tag.

>>>> If taxpayers ponied up money, then the real the cost of
>>>> the
>>>> system must be the total cost , not the amount you
>>>> paid.

>>> There's a logical error there. ...

> No way.  Public subsidies are always theft and are always
> immoral.
> ( One of my few axioms ) I will never be convinced that
> theft can be
> justified by semantics. This is a moral distinction and if
> you do not
> dig my morals, at least say so and do not ascribe it to
> some logical
> error.   cc

Sure sounds like a troll to me.
I'll bite :-).

It's axiomatic that axioms, while having a role in
codifying empirical observation, also carry the attendant
risk of obscuring the full panoply of the rich tapestry of
reality. [How am I doing so far?][It's rubbish ...].

>> Perhaps
>> "If taxpayers ponied up money, then the real the cost of
>> the
>> system may lie somewhere between the real cost and the
>> amount you paid, but may be even less than that range"

Given that I gave an incomplete list of exemplars of why
this *might* be the case in this specific instance, but you
rejected them all on the basis that this was a moral
distinction then you have locked yourself within a
'religious' mindset which is logically unaddressable.

So, while further attempt at dialogue is therefore
necessarily certain to be vain I will yet pursue this aim a
little longer.
[How am i ...?] :-).

Which of the following points, synopsized from my prior
text,  allow of none other than moral distinctions?

- Value of sourcing energy locally.

- Opportunity cost of being able to delay installing new
large scale generation plant

- Reductions in distribution infrastructure. Also,

- Progress in developing more efficient alternative systems
result in efficiencies if large plant upgrades can be
delayed until higher efficiency / lower cost solutions are
available.

If the answer is, "All, by definition", then it's going to
be a very long row that we are hoeing, or a very short one.

If you define a deed as eg "theft" because you want to,
without even implicit reference to the underlying
principles, the result may be pleasing to you but is liable
to be not overly useful in discussion with others. eg if
someone walks into a 7/11, presents a gun, takes the the
till (cash register, ...?) contents and leaves, one would
normally label that as theft. It may be that in a very few
cases it represents part of a more complex process which we
are seeing only the sharp point of. If however, you (or I)
label a  process as theft which a significant percentage of
others do not label as theft then your insistence that your
label is correct may give you a warm fuzzy glow but is
liable to do little to assist in related dialog. If all
state payments are spending stolen gains, all tax is theft,
the government are usurpers and ursine arms are the order of
the day then there is little useful that may be said than
"hear hear" </Filter=C.Chang>.

So, by all means, insist that " ... Public subsidies are
always theft and are always immoral. ... ". If trolling and
flame bait and having fun with people is the aim then you
may be well served - or you may just get silly responses
like this one. But don't expect a useful discussion on
energy alternatives or the future of energy provisioning to
result.




        Russell


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Gerhard Fiedler]

Chris Smolinski wrote:

>> I always get a strange feeling when the same people who just a few
>> minutes ago told me that the superiority of the capitalist system lies
>> in trusting the wisdom of "the masses" (whose actions determine the
>> price of everything in such a system) are now telling me that it's the
>> stupidity of "the [same] masses" that prevents the superior solution of
>> the problem of the day.

Let's have a look at the "scientific" content of the response...

> The anti-nuclear movement

Is there something like "the" anti-nuke movement? This expression implies
that there is one single (exactly one) identifiable coherent movement.

> has at the core

The movement implicitly claimed to exist above is now claimed to be
centrally controlled, by having a core.

> a small group of scientifically illiterate people

This part even claims to know the people who control the one single
movement and the quality and quantity of their scientific education.

> who oppose nuclear power for ideological reasons.

And the respondent not only knows the scientific (non) credentials of these
controllers of the movement, but also their motivations.

> Through a well financed

Apparently not only are the education and motivation of this core group
known to the respondent, but also its balance sheet.

> dis-information campaign,

And besides of this all, he is aware of the majority of publications of
this one single group, and has -- of course -- the qualification to judge
the factual content against objective reality.

> they've been able to convince the general public

This seems to imply that, excepting the respondent (and possibly a small
group of other superior beings), the general public is dumb enough to
believe these imposters. (Again, I think the consequences of this go way
beyond energy policy. We, the general public, should probably just lie our
future into the hands of this select group and not question any further.
It's obvious that they "just know" their facts.)

> that nuclear energy is dangerous.

Which it definitely is not. Not at all, and never has been.

All these statements on the side of the author are pure, easily provable
objective fact, in alignment with the (not postulated, but real) impersonal
reality and no emotion or ideology is involved.

I'm not sure whether to add a :) or a :( here... neither seems to be
adequate, yet something seems to be needed... maybe a few tears?

Gerhard

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Gerhard Fiedler]

Cedric Chang wrote:

>> I always get a strange feeling when the same people who just a few
>> minutes ago told me that the superiority of the capitalist system lies
>> in trusting the wisdom of "the masses" (whose actions determine the
>> price of everything in such a system) are now telling me that it's the
>> stupidity of "the [same] masses" that prevents the superior solution of
>> the problem of the day.
>>
>> I guess you can't have it both ways. If you think it's because of the
>> stupidity of "the masses" that the superior solution of our energy
>> problems isn't viable and you think this should be changed, then I
>> think this has consequences that go far beyond energy policy.
>
> If I was talking about capitalism, I guess I would say that the wisdom
> of it stems from many personal choices.  The stupidity of the masses
> comes from "mob rule" ( aka democracy ).  When I shop at the store, I am
> not told what to buy. ( Capitalism proving many individual, free choices
> )  When I go to build a house ; I am told by the mob where I can build,
> what materials I can use, what construction methods I can use, how many
> people can live in it , ...... Most of these rules are in place so
> mini-dictators can get their jollies.  

It's the same people that go to the store and buy things that decided to
support the structure that regulates where and how you can build. It's
(approximately) the same decision process that leads to one that also
controls the other. Capitalism requires a set of rules and keepers of the
rules, you just happen to think that the rules should be different. And of
course you classify as "mob" the "others"... :)

> So rather than "have it two ways", I would argue you conflate individual
> choice with mob rule.

>From where I stand, both look like ideological illusions, way off (my)
reality.

Gerhard

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

Dear Rustle

Mock me if you will sir.  I serve religious axioms, some of which are  
the following:
1) All theft at gun-point is immoral.
2) The theft of the ability for a person to pursue happiness in his  
or her own way is particularly heinous.
3) The greatest good for the greatest number is achieved by  
maximizing personal freedom.
4) Any heaven or hell to be experienced will be experienced now, in  
this plane of existence.

I love the study of science and economics and they exist in a dance  
with morality.  Whatever your morality , you can hardly divorce it  
from your decisions about how to apply science and economics.

Done

BTW   I put nearly all your URL references and your comments in a  
special file that I use all the time.

cc
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Wouter van Ooijen]

> But you are happy for your offspring to be exposed to coal
> fired generating plant exaust and coal ash (which is radioactive)?

No, I am not.

> Or to live with less electricity and therefore less of a
> technological advantage?

yes, and no.

> Or to be more dependant on foreign oil?

I dunno what 'foreign' oil is, we have no 'local' (or 'resident') oil
here.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
 

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Wouter van Ooijen]

> Yes, the health of my children is important also, which is why I want
> us to continue to maintain the current level of technology,

That fine with me, provided that you keep the muck you create in your
own backyard, and not just diring your own lifetime.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
 

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Wouter van Ooijen]

> Depends on your definition of hazardous waste.  Something has
> to be pumped through the turbines, and it isn't going to be
> pure water (liquid sodium in some plants, IIRC).

Nooooo! Liquid sodium is used as primary coolant in fast breeder
reactors, but it is definitely not what it passing through the turbines!


Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
 

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Wouter van Ooijen]

> By "nuke waste" I mean spent fuel rods from a fission reactor.

OK with me, but the term is not familiar to me.

> So in both cases, it is an issue
> of *quantity* not *quality*. All issues of quantity can be
> solved with dilution.

Juk, that's the opinion of a person that does not shrink back from
polluting my backyard because he wants to spend more energy than he is
entitled to (entitled, of course, by me :) ).

(Actually, in both cases it is also an issue of quality. For the aussies
the amount of some UV wavelengths, for waste/natural the amounts of
A/B/G radiation and the energy levels of each. For waste/natural also
the chemical properties of the suff, Iodine might be a troublesome
element because it can concentrate in certain body parts, and plutonium
because it is also chemically a poison.)

For the record: this discussion is of course a nice excercise in typing,
but I don't have the opinion it will changes anyone's opinion, do you (=
not just James, but everyone in this discussion).

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
 

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Wouter van Ooijen]

> The anti-nuclear movement has at the core a small group of
> scientifically illiterate people who oppose nuclear power for
> ideological reasons. Through a well financed dis-information
> campaign, they've been able to convince the general public that
> nuclear energy is dangerous. I still remember a book put out by one
> of them that claimed that the electricity produced by nuclear power
> plants was itself radioactive.

What exactly does this piece of text try to argue? There are dummies
that aro opposed to nuclear energy, and they write stupid texts. I did
not read those texts, but I don't doubt they exist. I know both people
of the above type (stupid anti-N.E. people) people of the other three
combinations of anti/pro and stupid/clever. So what?

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
 

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Gerhard Fiedler]

Cedric Chang wrote:

> 1) All theft at gun-point is immoral.

I'm sure you're not in numerous company with this axiom in its extremes.
(Axioms are axioms because they are /always/ true, even in the most
far-fetched consequences.) I think it's easy to construct a situation that
would be considered "theft at gun-point" but not immoral by many if not
most. (For example, I wouldn't call it immoral to steal a few liters of
water, whether at gun-point or not,  from someone who has a whole see in
the desert if they for mere arbitrarity didn't let me buy them and I hadn't
any other means to keep myself alive.)

> 2) The theft of the ability for a person to pursue happiness in his  
> or her own way is particularly heinous.

/Everything/ you do potentially limits my (and everybody else's) pursuit of
happiness. I can define my happiness in a way that everything you do not
only potentially but actually limits my happiness. So while it may be a
moral axiom for you to be able to pursue your happiness, you have to make
concessions if you feel that I should have the same right. And bingo...
we're exactly where we are now: a (large) bunch of people seeking
happiness. Calling the others a "mob" and what they do "mob rule" the
moment one doesn't like how they seek their happiness doesn't really do
justice to this axiom.

> 3) The greatest good for the greatest number is achieved by  
> maximizing personal freedom.

It's good you call this an axiom. That's what it is.

> I love the study of science and economics and they exist in a dance with
> morality.  Whatever your morality , you can hardly divorce it from your
> decisions about how to apply science and economics.

Yes. It is an illusion to think that there is "value-free science".

Gerhard

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

I can see that this thread is going to get stamped on before
I get the time to reply to any key points, so I'll just pose
one query at this stage.

I'm mystified as to why Cedric should label his position as
"Crybaby moralist", as this seems to make it even harder
than it is already for him to argue his case?



            Russell.

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist