You write, "...A 757 at 500 mph could probably dive right through the
containment building and explode the core all over the place causing the
evacuation of millions and radioactive contamination for hundreds of miles.
Hitting 4 of them at once would have done
a half a trillion dollars in damage."
A debate on energy supply would benefit more if it were based on fact and
not on assumptions and preconceived ideas. Unless you can show convincingly
that a 757 @ 500 mph can penetrate a concrete containment enclosure around a
nuclear reactor, your statement is little more than scare mongering and
that's the last thing we need, especially in this time of crisis. CANDUs
and PWRs have concrete enclosures, not flimsy metal structures like that
surrounding the RBMK reactors at Chornobyl. Could a 747, 757, or 767
penetrate a concrete shell around a PWR or CANDU? I don't know but I aim to
Fusion reactors are no solution to our energy problems. Even after throwing
billions of dollars into research on fusion, there is little to show for.
Wishing for fusion reactors will not materialize them, no matter how tight
we close our eyes and wish. In addition, contrary to popular opinion,
fusion reactors generate lots of radioactive waste.
If no fission reactors, then what? "Curse the darkness?"
From: George Hammond [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday October 03, 2001 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: USGS estimate of oil supply
Vandergraaf, Chuck wrote:
> In discussing uranium supplies a couple of weeks ago at a conference in
> Austria, one comment was that, even though uranium resources also obey the
> Hubbert curve, in practice the world's uranium supplies are "infinite."
> argument is based on the fact that there is a low, but not insignificant
> uranium concentration in seawater and that the energy requirements of
> extracting this uranium is less than the energy that can be generated from
> it. Thus, splitting uranium recovered from seawater has a net positive
> energy balance. Extracting uranium from seawater is chemically not that
> difficult as the Japanese have shown.
> As I have mentioned before, uranium is not the answer to all our energy
> problems, but it can be part of the solution.
All I can say is thank God that the US didn't
have 2,000 online fission reactors boiling away when
the terrorists decided to use airliners as flying
bombs. A 757 at 500 mph could probably dive right
through the containment building and explode the
core all over the place causing the evacuation of
millions and radioactive contamination for hundreds
of miles. Hitting 4 of them at once would have done
a half a trillion dollars in damage.
Obviously what with the onset of a Third World
revolution that will probably continue unabated for
the next 30 years, I would think the last thing we
should be thinking of is producing hundreds of tons
of Plutonium or U235. The entire US Army couldn't
protect it from terrorist attack or theft.
The idea is absurd. Why didn't Bush put the 1.3
trillion dollars over 10 years into Fusion instead
of a tax cut for people who don't need it. That at
least would have produced a solution to this oil
crisis mess without getting us into WWIII ?
-- Be sure to visit my website below ----------------------------------------------------------- George Hammond, M.S. Physics Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html -----------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 03 2001 - 19:27:05 EDT