# Re: Re: Summary A

```>> Let do a quick calculation about the acceleration needed:
>> v=x*t  a=v*t --> a=v^2/x = 1E16/100 = 1E14 m/s^2
>
>Ouch, 10 trillion G's!!!!

Don't worry, you aren't in these containers. What may be a problem though,
is that the containers cannot resist such forces and thus will break down
during acceleration (Imagine several kilograms of debris breaking up while
moving 1/3 c in a very narrow tube).

>A complex issue.  Can you tollerate electronics no better than 10 year old
>ones?  Thats a 100 fold decrease in capacity?

The capacity will come to an end, and if not, how fast should processors be?
We can savely assume that in 20 years every one will have a supercomputer of
today with several Gbytes of memory. But do we need that much? I know I'm on
a hot issue here, 20 years ago no one did see the need for computers either.
But now that we know what we can do with computers we can make a better
estimation of what we need as a minimum. I've read that the Space Shuttle
has less than
1 Mb of memory (256 Kb?) so that would give us a idea of what we need and
what we want.

>Actually not is the plant is designed well.  Here in the U.S. we had a powe
>plant called three mile Island (bet you heard of it) where the operators were
>runing it at full power with ot coolant, they even overroad all the emergency
>anti-melt down system as they tried to engage.  The plant was designed so
>well it showed no effects of its melt down.  The operators didn't even notice
>it happening!  Without laboratory equipment you couldn't even detect an
>effect outside the are. No significat radiation increasde (I.e. it always
>radiated less than a runing coal plant).  Of course the reactor core was
>ruined  (anyone for 4 billion \$'s worth of radioative slag welded to the
>insdide of a reactor case imbeddxed in 10 feet of concrete?).

I didn't know they where thAt save, nice to know though.
Here in Holland we have some guy who is turning an old nuclear reactor plant
in a recreation palace.

>You probably meen fusion.  Maybe eventually, but in the present political
>climate not a chance.  Renewable  produces to little power and has too many
>health and safty problems.  Utilities here are figuring on natural gas fueled
>fuel cells as the next big wave in power plants.  Probably the basic power
>for the next 40 years or more.

Yes, I meant fusion. What kind of health problems does renewable energy
have? Are solar-panels also dangerous?
I've an idea and wonder if I'm the first one to think of it: Make a deep
hole (several kilometres) and use the heat difference between down there and
up here to make some energy.

>Well I was just telling Dave LIT needed to get more high profile...  But I'm