From: Ifrit (cp005g@mail.rochester.edu)
Date: Fri Jun 01 2001 - 11:42:39 MDT
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Eugene Leitl wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, S.J. Van Sickle wrote:
> > Cheaper and safer? Such as?
> As a stopgap measure, coal, oil and methane, as microinstallations.
> Meanwhile, getting non-Carnot processes running with fuel reformers up to
> speed, then phasing out fossils with hydrogen/photovoltaics, both
> terrestrial and using photovoltaics sats (launched from Luna, and
> microwaving power down to rectenna grids on ground via phased array
> integrated into panels).
How would this be cheaper? And it's safety relies on the producers
following the steps as listed without straying...the same would be
applicable to the safety of nuclear power.
Besides, (this hopefully not applying to too many on the list), people
still believe that a nuclear power plant will go up in a mushroom cloud
annihilating all life around for miles. This can't happen in a power
plant. Worst case scenario would be a meltdown which can be quite easily
prevented given intelligent engineers, and even afterwards can be
contained much better than Chernobyl was.
In the U.S. thus far, there have been 0 nuclear power related deaths.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:53 MST