At 05:01 PM 11/27/2002, you wrote:
While CO2 is definitely cleaner, it's STILL a greenhouse gas (actually, THE major one). Now, if you could just get it to spit out limestone...You could run your car on organic garbage and all that would come out would be CO2 and H2O.
But remember, the GOVERNMENT's objections to these "better" reactors is that they don't make plutonium for bombs. No plutonium, you don't get to build a nuke plant in this country (or most others). The electricity has always been a side benefit from the big reactors, a way to get them paid for.Regarding heavy water, aside from being hardly necessary for making plutonium, it happens to be useful in making reactors that can't melt down (CANDU I believe?) and reactors that run on cheaper and more common fuels like thorium, which produces U233 and ultimately no plutonium, which means the objections to reprocessing will likely go away and we can get 200x more energy out of the same amount of fuel. The current objections to nuclear power are really objections to current nuclear policy.
----------
Jerry Durand
Durand Interstellar, Inc.
219 Oak Wood Way
Los Gatos, California 95032-2523 USA
tel: +1 408 356-3886
fax: +1 408 356-4659
web: www.interstellar.com
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
