Re: King Tut's Nukes (back by popular demand)

From: wmbjk (wmbjk_at_REMOVE_THIScitlink.net)
Date: 08/15/04 

Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 18:26:33 GMT

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 11:58:40 -0400, "Tim O'Flaherty"
<pinwheels_Fudge_@gwi.net> wrote:

>
>"wmbjk" <wmbjk@REMOVE_THIScitlink.net> wrote in message
>
>
>
> Here's a clue Karl - if
>> anyone is building power for the poor, they'll be doing it (by
>> necessity) at an efficiency level appropriate for the situation. They
>> won't be supplying millions of battery packs any more than they'll be
>> supplying nukes.
>
>They will be doing it as described in issue 97 Oct. Nov. 2003 of Homepower
>mag. in an article entitled: Solar Electricity in the Nicaragua Hills
>
>A 50 watt PV panel made with salvaged cells, a Solom 8.8x 10A charge
>controller and a 12v 70AH lead acid battery feeding power to 12v compact
>fluorescent lights in a community health clinic. Not a big deal in the
>scale of our lifestyles but a significant improvement for the residents of
>Las Pintadas, and just a start I'm sure.

Yeah, but those guys might not have thought of including a whiz-bang
renewkable in their decision making process. If they had, the board
meeting might go like this -

PP (practical person): OK, we have an outline for basic power systems,
work starts tomorrow. All in favor, say aye.

TVR (tunnel-visioned renewkable): Not so fast... there's no sense in
going small scale, let's use a nuke instead.

PP: That would be too expensive. We have a limited budget.

TVR: Then we should concentrate on comparing the death rates of each
technology, to see which is best.

PP: Why? Our budget is for some thousands, not some billions.

TVR: Then we need to get a new budget.

PP: No, we need to do something more constructive than yapping about
getting a new budget. I'll be talking to floor tile instead.

TVR: Fine, since we have to get all constructive and everything,
<sniff> I'll go back on Usenet for further recommendations.

Wayne

Quantcast