Biscuit141

OT: So whats a good career to get started in right now?

PaulW

You could make an entire career out of it

JimR

of retirements as well. Another reason there's lots of opportunity there.

PaulW

I am still one of the youngest guys in it...and I'm 41, came in just as construction stopped.

ohbw

<center><img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/84266/nukehead.jpg"></center><p>Kidding, kidding -- nuclear power is hysterically maligned and makes a lot of sense, especially in a world choking on greenhouse gases.

However, if you were to go into the wind, solar, or tidal power industries, you would meet many more women like this:

<img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/84266/465746.jpg">

(There, I believe my work is done. As Winston Churchill said, "Appeal to their crotchital regions, and their hearts and minds will follow." At least I think that was Winston Churchill. It may have been Barry White.)

Zaphod A8

So you say I should switch to wind, solar, or tidal power huh?

ohbw

<center><img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/84266/scout.jpg"></center><p>I met Scout here at an alternative power conference. Alternative power conferences are always held in a sunny meadow next to a stream in the summertime, and are staffed by girls like Scout. Lots of them.

But don't let that sway you.<ul><li><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6378161.stm">Ban the bulb!</a></li></ul>

skiracer

for electric generation is Fission reactors.

(For those knowledgable, please correct me if my facts are off.)

There isn't enough wind and solar power economically (both in pure $ and total life cycle energy cost) available to meet all of our growing electric energy needs. Nuclear Fusion is still unfortunately a pipe dream. Continuing to burn coal and natural gas to produce electricity in the long run is suicidal. The continued spewing of CO2, not to mention mercury and radioactive radon released from coal, is severely detrimental to the environment and human/animal health. The ONLY items holding back the development of fission reactors are (in order of difficulty):

1. Public opinion. The Chernobyl disaster (an engineering nightmare) and Three Mile Island (what it really proved is how SAFE Nuclear power really is) stick in peoples' minds.

2. Long term storage of the "spent" fuel. I put spent in quotes because current reactors only consume about 2%-5% of the available energy in the fuel. That is why it takes so long for "spent" fuel to degrade. There is research being done that could potentially allow the use of all but 1-2% of the available energy in the fuel throughout is life cycle. If that were to occur, the half-life of the spent fuel would only be around 100 years- easily contained compared to the current half-life of our spent fuel of 10,000+ years.

3. In order to allow for the re-processing and life cycle changes required to get the most out of the fuel, the construction and operation of fast neutron reactors would be necessary. (As far as I know, all of the current commercial nuclear power plants in the US are water cooled slow-neutron reactors). This is a political concern because these reactors can produce weapons grade plutonium.

All of these obstacles can be overcome, but not without difficulty. The biggest problem is to convince the uneducated masses that it really is safe, if done properly.

End of Rant.......

ryoung

And it'll be a very long time before we need to find a replacement.<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/politics/msgs/111270.phtml">Not the End of the Oil Age</a></li></ul>

BrianC72gt

<center><img src="http://atomicmag.com/atomic_girl/images/atomic_girl_2003_winter.jpg"></center><p>AtomicGirl spokesperson Sandra has some views on stuff and things...I guess