OFF TOPIC< SPEECH BY ONE OF MY HEROS>

Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:39 pm   

Ok, one of my personal Heros is a real SOB, makes Thompson look like a
leftie wimp... But this is very interesting how well he saw into the
future... He served his country well.

Some lunchtime Rickover for you:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2724

Steve

Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:39 pm   

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 08:39:28 -0800 (PST), osr_at_uakron.edu wrote:


It's a "keeper"... access to a PDF version is at the bottom of the
page.

Thanks, Steve!

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:39 pm   

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 08:39:28 -0800 (PST), osr_at_uakron.edu wrote:


A seriously smart gentleman. Would not tolerate a prevaricator or
bullshit artist. Only met him once, during my nuc interview. Fortunately
(or unfortunately?) he didn't visit anywhere I was stationed while I was
there. Too damned bad he's not still around today.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:25 pm   

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:28:46 -0800 (PST), osr_at_uakron.edu wrote:


Had to do with some... "youthful transgressions." I was honest about the
fsck-ups and didn't try to make excuses. Guess that was what he was
looking for.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:28 pm   

On Feb 8, 12:13 pm, Rich Webb <bbew...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:

Was your interview "interesting", care to share?

Steve

Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:03 am   

<osr_at_uakron.edu> wrote in message
news:2ab3d1f3-548d-451f-8f2f-9ad60ae45b49_at_b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

This is exactly what so many "greenies" have been saying for many years,
and so often the "conservative" factions choose to belittle their
observations and insist on "business as usual" while denying what to me is
an obvious reality. I have been concerned about environmental issues since
at least 1970, when I attended a conference on ecology and stewardship of
the earth at a Lutheran camp called Holden Village in the beautiful Cascade
mountains of WA state. I joined the Sierra Club in 1975, initially because
I enjoyed hiking, backpacking, and other outings, but also because I
believed in their concerns about the future and the reckless destruction of
natural resources in the name of progress and profit.

There are many ostriches who refuse to see the reality and instead choose
to gouge a few more years of making money from a doomed economy based on
lifestyles of conspicuous and wasteful consumption. It is not about whether
or not humans are responsible for global warming and catastrophic climate
change, but the efforts to reduce our contribution to this phenomenon will
at the same time forestall the inevitable reversal of the standard of
living for the majority of the population. And a dwindling minority who
continue to embrace their lavish lifestyles will eventually be deprived of
their power to continue.

Eventually, and probably in the lifetimes of most of us, we will see either
a voluntary shift to a cooperative way of life that is sustainable and fair
for the majority, or else suffer a cataclysmic event such as war among
nations or within nations among their people who will have become polarized
and frustrated to the point of violence.

Paul

Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:41 am   

osr @uakron.edu wrote:

His comments on Christianity's eradication of slavery
for a millennium
and the re-emergence of that custom in the New World
are something Americans too easily overlook.

No mention of geothermal, which is now a large component
of e.g. Iceland's energy infrastructure.
No mention of the Desert Southwest as a giant solar field.
He didn't anticipate the concept of
growing biomass as scrub on crappy land
or growing brine-tolerant biomass plants in e.g. Eritrea.

As he was a Pacific sailor,
I would have expected him to have noted Easter Island
as a stark example of depleted resources.

He projected the USA's population growth about right.
His algorithm seriously underestimated
the worldwide ability to make babies.

He mentions "automotive" as inefficient
when compared to railroads
but doesn't specifically mention trucking.
Now I'm wondering what proportion was shipped by rail in 1957.

....and, as always,
the elephant in the room never seems to get mentioned:
When "depleted" nuclear fuel is removed from a reactor,
only 1 percent of its energy has been extracted.
That "spent" fuel now sits for decades
within a half-mile of where it was used,
"guarded" by lowest-bidder guys who sleep on the job.

Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:50 am   

"JeffM" <jeffm__at_email.com> wrote in message
news:c8467f7b-15c5-4ca1-bc9d-85b164612e9b_at_i42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

Being 1957, they didn't know what to do with it. The hope was that, by the
80's or so, people would have decided on something. Funny how that worked
out.

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:57 am   

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:28:46 -0800 (PST), osr_at_uakron.edu wrote:



Well, he suckceeded in becoming a nuke, or as he called it, a 'nuc'.

Wed Feb 10, 2010 6:04 am   

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:41:30 -0800 (PST), JeffM <jeffm__at_email.com> wrote:



ONLY if you include its entire half life. The part we use as a
controlled, high output source is spent. The remainder, though it could
still produce work, does not keep our reactor designs running optimally,
and the change out of media is a scheduled thing.


Not always. Some of it is very deep in a vault.


So much total horseshit.

Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:13 am   

"Archimedes' Lever" <OneBigLever_at_InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote in message
news:hsb4n51an1pa0h93rd6q8vpqc3nfdb48a5_at_4ax.com...

Wrong as usual. What causes the fuel to get "spent" is neutron-absorbing
waste. After reprocessing, 99% of the fuel is once again available for use,
with an extraordinary reduction in waste volume (i.e. 100x).

This assumes that all the fuel is burnable, which is true for 100% U235
(HEU) reactors (military), plutonium (I don't think anyone burns pure Pu),
or Th232/U238 breeder reactors, but not true of the far more important PWR
(3% enriched, doesn't burn U238) or CANDU (ca. 0.7%, i.e. natural U) types,
which can only burn the stuff once without enrichment.

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms