What technological advance has caused more harm than good?

[KarenH]

Originally Posted by Beth Sweet

Escalators. I mean, I get the purpose of elevators, those who are in wheelchairs, those who have strollers etc need a way to get up and down, but stairs that walk for you? I mean, come on, how lazy can we get?

I hope you never have to experience what I had to go through at FIRST regionals this year.

In recent months, something has gone wrong with my joints. I can walk OK, but I can't do stairs very well. Many people with heart disease and other medical conditions find themselves in this situation. Elevators are often not big enough to accommodate all such people attending a large event.

It was great having escalators in Atlanta. It would have been nice to have them at the two regionals my team played in. I don't like being unable to move freely from the pits to the stands and back.

Anyway, you didn't mention one of the evils of escalators: tempting the non-lazy to run UP the down escalators. I'll spare you the videos...

[Mike]

Originally Posted by whakojacko

i somewhat agree. However, nuclear weapons have also added stability to the world because large-scale nations are less willing to fight knowing that it might end up with the whole world in ashes. You could really argue either way.

That's true, and it was even more so true before this new era of terrorism. But now, nuclear is becoming so (relatively) common that all it takes is one terrorist group to get one missile and the whole world is in ashes.

[GeorgeTheEng]

Originally Posted by MikeWasHere05

That's true, and it was even more so true before this new era of terrorism. But now, nuclear is becoming so (relatively) common that all it takes is one terrorist group to get one missile and the whole world is in ashes.

I'd contend though that if it were utilized more, Nuclean Power would be a real benefit to the planet. It's cleaner and fairly safe (when people are not cheap and/or lax). Unfortunately you don't really have the ability to have the power without the potential for weapons.

The same could be said for gunpowder and similar explosives. If you don't want to limit yourself to modern technology, I'd place gunpower as more harmful then nuclear. Look at the number of people killed over time by guns, bombs, rockets, missiles, etc which are all based off the an explosive in some respects (i.e. gun powder). But also look at all the benefits. We would not have modern mining, or many tunnels, or roads and railroads through some tough terrain with out gunpowder and other explosives.

There is a moral question that engineers and inventors really have to deal with... Are the benefits worth the potential harm?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by GeorgeTheEng

I'd contend though that if it were utilized more, Nuclean Power would be a real benefit to the planet. It's cleaner and fairly safe (when people are not cheap and/or lax). Unfortunately you don't really have the ability to have the power without the potential for weapons.

George,
I have to disagree. The amount of radioactive waste that is building up in holding pens is getting bigger everyday. We need to look at the fact that this material needs watching for thousands of years or we need a better way of safely disposing of it. (quite frankly, I would think that grinding it up, mixing it with the tailings of uranium mining and sticking it back down in the hole it came from would work better than what we are currently doing.) The breeder reactors that France is so fond of are another source of fear in many repsects. The fact that they produce additional radioactive material as a product of operation and that sodium is used as the primary coolant scares me.

[GeorgeTheEng]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

George,
I have to disagree. The amount of radioactive waste that is building up in holding pens is getting bigger everyday. We need to look at the fact that this material needs watching for thousands of years or we need a better way of safely disposing of it. (quite frankly, I would think that grinding it up, mixing it with the tailings of uranium mining and sticking it back down in the hole it came from would work better than what we are currently doing.) The breeder reactors that France is so fond of are another source of fear in many repsects. The fact that they produce additional radioactive material as a product of operation and that sodium is used as the primary coolant scares me.

I'll buy that. I think if you look at it from a perspective of the energy produced vs the waste product created it is cleaner. But Nuclear waste does take a LOT LOT longer to get rid of. How do they run nuclear reactors in closed systems such as submarines and aircraft carriers. I don't think those produce a whole lot of waste (but I could be wrong - on the whole subject really).

I think the problem, esp with the any power generation technology, is that it seems to cause some kind of harm somewhere. Coal produces smog, strip mines, and health problems for miners. Oil produces oil spills, and carbon monozide. Even Hydroelectric can be a problem if it the dam destroys and ecosystem or floods some archilogical site (or potential site). Wind? The commercial wind farms could be considered an eyesore and they might effect birds flying by. Solar may be ok. (But it might help heat up the earth too, who knows?)

I think it's easy to find problems with technological advances. Almost as easy as it is to find benefits. The issue is recognizing, or theorizing, the problems before hand and minmizing them. And weighing the benefits against the problems.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by GeorgeTheEng

I'll buy that. I think if you look at it from a perspective of the energy produced vs the waste product created it is cleaner. But Nuclear waste does take a LOT LOT longer to get rid of. How do they run nuclear reactors in closed systems such as submarines and aircraft carriers. I don't think those produce a whole lot of waste (but I could be wrong - on the whole subject really).

I think the problem, esp with the any power generation technology, is that it seems to cause some kind of harm somewhere. Coal produces smog, strip mines, and health problems for miners. Oil produces oil spills, and carbon monozide. Even Hydroelectric can be a problem if it the dam destroys and ecosystem or floods some archilogical site (or potential site). Wind? The commercial wind farms could be considered an eyesore and they might effect birds flying by. Solar may be ok. (But it might help heat up the earth too, who knows?)

I think it's easy to find problems with technological advances. Almost as easy as it is to find benefits. The issue is recognizing, or theorizing, the problems before hand and minmizing them. And weighing the benefits against the problems.

There is no "perfect" energy generator. Like Newton said, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." What we are trying to find is the lesser of the evils. What technology will let us produce the most energy with the least amount of harmful byproduct?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

George,
I am under the impression that ship board nuclear generators succumb to the same problems land based reactors do. The core material reaches a point where there is a diminishing return on the amount of energy produced vs. the energy left and the core gets swapped out. At some point the reactors need to be refurbed or replaced. Perhaps someone on the east coast has a better answer.
Alan,
I was under the impression that all French breeders were liquid sodium cooled. If there is but one left, then they must have seen the light and decommisioned. It seems to me that there may have been as many as seven at one time. Do you have any info on the French system at present? I am going to check and see what I find.

ed. My fault for not keeping up on this, but it appears that most countries have abandoned breeder reactor programs, France included. The one remaining online is the Phenix as outlined by Alan while thier second remaining breeder reactor is undergoing rebuild. All others have been decommissioned. The rather large sodium fire in a Japanese reactor in 1995 made many operators take a second look at breeders and many have revised their programs. In the articles I read online, Russia seems to be still working on breeder research as other governments like Germany, close down plans for breeder production. 90 percent of French electric energy is generated by nuclear plants according to a Feb 2005 article.

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by MikeWasHere05

What technology will let us produce the most energy with the least amount of harmful byproduct?

A perpetual motion machine.

Get right on that. I already have mine designed.

[GeorgeTheEng]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

A perpetual motion machine.

Get right on that. I already have mine designed.

In the immortal words of Homer Simpson...

"in this [forum] we obey the laws of thermodynamics"

Doesn't Nuclear Fusion provide the best ratio of energy to harmful byproduct? (it produces water doesn't it?) Of course we'd need to produce in such a way that it creates more energy then it uses.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by GeorgeTheEng

I'd contend though that if it were utilized more, Nuclean Power would be a real benefit to the planet. It's cleaner and fairly safe (when people are not cheap and/or lax).

Indeed, an article in this month's MIT Technology Review by Stewart Brand, a prominent environmentalist, does a good job of explaining why nuclear power shouldn't be ignored as an alternative to fossil fuel-burning power plants. Many environmental experts are now saying that the problems of waste storage/disposal and proliferation issues should be addressed rather than rejecting nuclear power outright.

The regulatory issues need to be worked on as well -- as long as it's essentially forbidden to do anything with the radwaste except sequester it, nobody will be able to come up with a better solution. The most promising technology is "forced transmutation", but the only available place to do experiments on it is the French Phenix breeder reactor, which is reaching the end of its useful life and should be decommissioned in the next few years.

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

The breeder reactors that France is so fond of are another source of fear in many repsects. The fact that they produce additional radioactive material as a product of operation and that sodium is used as the primary coolant scares me.

The last time I checked, there was only one sodium-cooled breeder reactor operating in France, and it's being kept in operation mostly because it's the only source of the kind of fast neutrons that can transmute long-lived radwaste into less problematic elements -- it's the one I mentioned before. Besides the Phenix, all of France's nuclear power plants use pressurized-water reactors.