If everything is taken into consideration, the carbon footprint of nukes is
really very high, much higher than the alternate forms of energy such as wind,
solar, hydroelectric and even some thermal sources. France is paying dearly for
its nukes. One of the innovative sources of energy that is being installed in
Europe is slow moving hydro-turbines placed in riverbeds.
cheers, Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Holmes <rob...@holmesacosta.com>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Gates discussing new nuclear reactor with China - Yahoo!
News
Yeah, greenest only if you ignore the environmental/human/dollar costs of
getting the uranium out of the ground and then you forget about that whole
messy decommissioning component (which usually relies on the assumption that
national government must ultimately underwrite/pick up the tab and is therefore
free)—R
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Owen Densmore <o...@backspaces.net> wrote:
>From the "I Like Nukes" department we have new designs that look interesting:
http://news.yahoo.com/gates-discussing-nuclear-reactor-china-124722465.html
They run on depleted uranium and apparently are safer.
Ironically, nukes are apparently the greenest critters around too.
-- Owen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
