On Tuesday 11 September 2007 05:41:27 Sandwich Maker wrote: > more efficient approaches that have near-total consumption of the > fissionable load, with safety 'baked in', are on the drawing boards. > these even largely solve the disposal problem by leaving little or > nothing but lead to dispose of. you can bet japan will build them > sooner or later. india is getting interested... Supporting my point that with longer-term considerations -- beyond simple profit -- it would be a lot better. Corporations need to make profit. Countries with long-term plans try to build or influence their environment in the long term. I'm not saying I want the US gov't to do the same; but the American system has some really serious failures in this sort of area. > how about solar power satellites, constructed in space from lunar-mined > material? the startup costs are about as staggering as you can > imagine, but once you could pop one out it'd be a self-sustaining > industry. i've been re-reading gerard o'neill's 'the high frontier'. > some of his economics is hopelessly optimistic, but still... Whereever the materials would come from, it does seem like a good idea. Who's got the vision to start on it though? Vastly reducing consumption is A#1. It's been burdened with the "conservation" label which industry has made out as 'freezing in the dark'. Nonsense. It means smart design, a tremendous growth industry America would be/is fantastic at. _______________________________________________ Amc-list mailing list Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list