Jones Beene wrote:
1) the one which requires a very expensive feedstock (deuterium) and leaves
some radioactive transmutation products, including tritium - or
2) the one which requires only water and (apparently) leaves no radioactive
footprint
Not to rain on anyone's timely parade (60 Minute's worth) but how can this
comparison not be raised at this stage of the game?
The reason is obvious to me: BLP has not been as widely replicated.
It is not as certain.
Besides, the differences are minor. The drawbacks to CF that you cite
are not terribly important. The radioactivity can easily be
contained. At worst, it is analogous to comparing three technologies:
1. An electric typewriter, circa 1980 (conventional energy sources)
2. A personal computer circa 1980 (cold fusion)
3. A personal computer today (BLP effect)
The improvement from #1 to #2 is tremendous. The jump from #2 to #3
is minor in comparison. Mostly a lot of MS Windows hooey.
- Jed
