Re: [asa] Energy futures

From: Lawrence Johnston <johnston@uidaho.edu>
Date: Mon Mar 16 2009 - 11:08:48 EDT

John - I think you shud change your words "Fusion" into "Fission".
Best regards,
Larry Johnston

===========================================================

Lawrence H. Johnston home: 917 E. 8th st.

professor of physics, emeritus Moscow, Id 83843

University of Idaho (208) 882-2765

Fellow of the American Physical Society Website:

<http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/%7Ejohnston/HOMEPA%7E1.HTM>

 

John Burgeson (ASA member) wrote:
> I just posted on my website an article I wrote for the Rico Bugle on
> what the energy picture will look like in 2100. It is at
>
> www.burgy.50megs.c0m/what.htm
>
> I am not altogether pleased with the article; I think I may be
> discounting nuclear energy too far.
>
> Friedman has a good piece in today's NYT on the prospects for fusion energy at
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/opinion/15friedman.html?th&emc=th
>
> What I understand about nuclear plants is that they come in four flavores:
>
> 1, Fusion Light nuclear (present day). Seasoned technology. Uses too
> much uranium to suffice for the long haul.
>
> 2. Fusion Fast neutron (still under development). Solves the "running
> out of uranium" problem.
>
> 3. Fusion Thorium. (a possibility but needs a lot of development).
> Also solves the uranium problem.
>
> 4. Fusion. (always 20 years away). Friedman thinks there is enough of
> a possibility for this one to pursue it with more funding.
>
> Solutions 2, 3 and 4 have the capability of "solving" the world's
> energy problems eventually.
>
> That's my understanding to date. Comments appreciated.
>
> jb
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Mar 16 11:09:33 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 16 2009 - 11:09:33 EDT