From: Brian D Williams (talon57@well.com)
Date: Tue May 29 2001 - 08:31:33 MDT
>From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
>The answer should include using existing sources that we shunted
>aside for often silly reasons. Yes, I'm talking about nuclear
>power. There are many alternate nuclear plant designs that
>overcome many of the downsides (although these were vastly
>overplayed) of conventional nuclear power generation plants.
>But in todays climate you can't get them built and operational
>or built without so many beyond all reason constraints and
>layers of redundant backups as to make them utterly
>uneconomical.
>Stupid operational and governmental policies aside (Chernobyl),
>nuclear power is far and away safer and more able to fulfill our
>energy needs now and for the reasonably forseeable future.
I agree that there are nuclear fission plant designs that are far
more effective/safer than previously. However the first problem
that needs to be solved is the issue of disposal of the byproducts.
The obvious answer is that states that use Nuclear power should
handle their own byproducts.
>Conservation is a ridiculous "answer". It is not workable.
I am against entropy in all it's forms, waste being one of them.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
Adler Planetarium www.adlerplanetarium.org
Life Extension Foundation, www.lef.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:49 MST