Re: OT: Gravity explained
- From: John Larkin <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:28:12 -0800
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:51:18 +1300, Terry Given <my_name@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
No nuke plants - OK, the economics are dubious, and the messes are
astonishingly hard to dispose of.
The difficulty is political, not physical. A nice hole in the ground,
or an ocean-floor subduction zone, will work. And breeder reactors
make sense to reduce the volume of waste and create more fuel, with
the impedimants again being mostly political.
John
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: Gravity explained
- From: Terry Given
- Re: OT: Gravity explained
- References:
- OT: Gravity explained
- From: default
- Re: OT: Gravity explained
- From: Rich the Philosophizer
- Re: OT: Gravity explained
- From: John Larkin
- Re: OT: Gravity explained
- From: YD
- Re: OT: Gravity explained
- From: John Larkin
- Re: OT: Gravity explained
- From: Terry Given
- Re: OT: Gravity explained
- From: John Larkin
- Re: OT: Gravity explained
- From: Terry Given
- Re: OT: Gravity explained
- From: John Larkin
- Re: OT: Gravity explained
- From: Terry Given
- OT: Gravity explained
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Gravity explained
- Next by Date: Re: Multisim 8 question - negative voltages?
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: Gravity explained
- Next by thread: Re: OT: Gravity explained
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|