Re: Fusion energy was: SNOW JOB

>From: KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de (K.H.Ranitzsch)
>Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
>To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
>Subject: Re: Fusion energy was: SNOW JOB
>Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 08:29:56 +0100
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@hotmail.com>
> > >As an illustration: The effect Nuclear weapons is measured in
Megatons,
> > >that is a million (10^6) tons of conventitional explosives. In fact
the
>ratio,
> > >in energy output is more like a billionfold (10^9) , because you
only
>need
> > >kilos, not tons, of nuclear material.
>
> > Either way, it still means my point was valid, that a smart
high-tech
>force
> > will take along hydrogen conversion equipment or have a built-in
>conversion
> > capacity to prevent a loss of fuel supply.
>
>You still don't seem to have understood what the difference in energy 
>output
>implies.
>
*snip*

Done now? Fell better?

Good.

All along, my point has been that FGP will be efficient enough that the 
"Oops, we're out of fuel" scenario probably won't be an issue in any but
the 
most extreme cases.  My intention was not to agree that fuel WOULD run
out, 
rather it was to show that if it DID, it would be rather simple to
replace.  
I think we're in agreement that FGP will be efficient and reliable.

If by implying that forces might want to take along fuel conversion
gear, I 
offended your scientific sensibilities, I apologize.  However, there was
no 
need to take such a condescending tone.  I DO understand just how 
significant operable fusion power would be for energy efficiency.  I
simply 
understood that it was beside my point.

2B^2

_________________________________________________________________