Re: [asa] Re: Renewable energy

From: John Burgeson (ASA member) <hossradbourne@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Mar 31 2009 - 09:51:57 EDT

On 3/30/09, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> Hi Burgy,/
>
> If one is strictly speaking of RENEWABLE energy then nuclear is excluded
> because it's not a renewable resource.
>
What I have seen in several places, Murray, is that the above may not
be true. It seems to be true of plants built on past technology -- but
there are other nuclear technologies (breeder? ) (fast neutron?)
(thorium?) etc. that use fuel at a rate that could last 1000s of
years. Joe Schuster, in his book BEYOND FOSSIL FOOLS, makes this
argument -- he has a web site which goes into detail. Strictly
speaking, the energy sources proposed for these are at least as
renewable as fusion technology.

I don't claim to have sorted all this stuff out. Yet. My recent
article in the Bugle (www.burgy.50megs.com/what/htm) assumed nucular
was not a renewable. I may have to write a retraction.

Burgy

Burgy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 31 09:52:29 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 31 2009 - 09:52:29 EDT