Re: Solar, not nuclear

Bsically it's back 1910 for you, huh? No, the US can use 500 new
reactors NOW. The world could use 6,000 or so. What's too much for
you? At the end of the day, nuclear power is cheapest, from mining to
disposal of the little waste that is produced in we close the fuel
cycle, like the French have.

Why 'reduce concumption'? I'm all for more efficiency, who isn't? But
that's different than reducing consumption. Why reduced 'consumption'
when we can expand it at not ecological costs?

David Walters

On Jan 28, 7:07 pm, "VistaKing" <BushIsATrai...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
VistaKing wrote:
250,000 reactors for 15 billion at U.S. rates of consumption 1998.
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
US rates of consumption are no basis for intelligent planning. Yes, U.S. rates of consumption will have to be vastly reduced. This is
very self evident once one sees the reactor counts required. As such they
form a good basis to start from. A nice impossible to achieve benchmark.

Yet AmeriKKKans who are chipper to promote Nuclear Power as the solution to
all the worlds energy problems, just dont' seem capable of grasping the
magnitude of the problem.

How many reactor facilities are you willing to tollerate in the world? 10
times current levels? 100 times? 500 times?

Can't stomach 500 times the current number where Iran, North Korea, Syria
and Lebanon each have 500? Then you had better start talking about very
serious reductions in energy consumption on the order of 75 to 90 percent.
Or put your bets on as yet unproven technologies like Fusion. Or start
getting serious about PV, Wind, Geothermal, and wave power.

.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Suggested filter rules for the flood of 2007-08-07 01:30 GMT
    ... join Peter Pearson at Supernews. ... If you'll organize Aslan's reactor with circuits, ... answer the consumption. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Combined Cycle Combustion/Plasma Rocket?
    ... > High speed impact does that nicely ... No, it does not, metals deforms under impact, ceramics break up, Neither ... Nuclear power gives us more speed and operates further from the sun than ... > on both civil and military reactor systems. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Global warming: caveats and musings?
    ... Although not new, the whole book contains a list of failure modes, summaries of deliberate tests on small models to let them blow up (including one photograph of a reactor blowing up), and two appendices. ... B-52 SAC bomber crash close to a BWR ... The author is not a left-wing-commie-pinko-luddite but a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, was employed by the Atomic Energy Commission for six years and by industry for research and development of nuclear power. ...
    (sci.research.careers)
  • Re: Global Warming in the comics?
    ... A reactor like Chernobyl will never be ... I had to deal with a planned hazmat/nuclear waste ... that was destroying our planet lately. ... The problem is that in the case of nuclear power the problems are ...
    (rec.arts.comics.strips)
  • Re: Nuclear Power
    ... Nuclear power as opposed to hydrogen. ... is of a greater quantity than uranium. ... To get weapons grade plutonium the uranium fuel must be used for a relatively short period of time and then removed for processing, otherwise it ends up with too much of the undesirable isotopes of plutonium. ... With pressurized or boiling water reactors, this is impractical as you would have to constantly be shutting down and opening up the reactor vessel to change fuel. ...
    (sci.energy)