" From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx> " " Joe Fulton wrote: " " > Well, it's not the nuclear reactors that make people " > nervous really, it's the nuclear waste created, " > transported and stored. " " Yup; what I fear about them is 99% due to cheapskate cost-cutters " running them, taking chances, lowest-cost, no future vision. Blasphemy: " they should be nationalized (France...) and have a 100 or 250 year plan. " No business could ever have that sort of vision. no politician ever could either, and i wouldn't trust a bureaucracy of pointy-headed civil servants to safely operate the sort of nuke plants we have now. hanford had just completed work on an inherently failsafe plant - which relied on basic physics and not a control system - when they were shut down by pres. clinton for cost saving reasons. give him credit - he almost had the budget balanced when the oilmen took over. " > Passive solar is gaining/will gain popularity rapidly " > [...] Those economics make sense right now, " > at PRESENT utility rates. No inflation of utility " > rates was invorporated into the proposal. " " (But inflation will probably be present in reality :-) here's another idea: solar power satellites. they were shown to be cost effective when first researched/proposed, about 3 decades ago. the good news: i hear the pentagon is very interested in sps tech, so we may see practical development despite wishy-washy politics and contrary business interests. " From: Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx " " " As for waste, I read recently that is another one of our gov'ments F'ups " They decided that waste could not be re-refined to capture the leftover " uranium and other goodies as that could be used to make bombs. So they " banned it, I believe this is some international pact. " >From what I read recently a large amount of the "waste" can be recycled, " greatly reducing the quantity of waste, but we aren't allowed. To top it " off, if we refined it we could draw in the leftover wast from other " countries that are re-refining it to make bomb grade goodies. " Seems silly, not allowed to refine radioctive waste because it can make " bombs or whatever. " gee it could be used for that purpose the first time around too, " couldn't it? the nub of the problem is that we're regulatorily stuck with first-gen nuke tech, the equivalent of curved-dash oldsmobiles - or at least, what curved-dash oldses would look like after nhtsa got through with them. american nuke plants can only burn 1-3% of the fissionable material in their fuel. this is comparable to filling up your car's tank, driving two miles, then dumping it [and paying for hazardous waste disposal] and filling up again. and again, two miles later. and again, two miles after that... reprocessing would be an economic start, but it's a dangerous process and involves transportation of extremely hazardous materials... but there's more than one way to eliminate nuclear waste. there are paper designs for plants [so-called 'slow breeders'] that would emit no high-level waste, only lead, the ultimate fission product. some of them can even run on thorium, which with its longer half-life is many [10-1000?] times more plentiful than uranium. india, sitting on 1/3 of the world's known thorium, is working on some. the lead is radioactive [it's just been in a reactor!] but at a low level and it 'cools off' relatively quickly too. if we had such plants, some estimates suggest we could power our entire grid for the next 5 centuries on uranium [and 'waste'] we've already mined and stockpiled. ________________________________________________________________________ Andrew Hay the genius nature internet rambler is to see what all have seen adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and think what none thought _______________________________________________ Amc-list mailing list Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list