coming and going....

[Judy]

Thank you for your work on the list, Scott. We probably couldn't even appreciate all the work you've done for us. Thanks for taking it on, Fred, and be strict! You guys are nuts. Judy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Judson D. Jones]

--- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "Eric L. Green" wrote: As long as the nuclear power plants are sited in

> geologically stable areas, they are as safe as any other method of > generating power. >

What were the geological isssues contributing to TMI and Chernobyl?

[Lujo Bauer]

> My conclusion: We're far better off building more nuclear power plants if > we want to make H2 from water and electricity. The waste problems with > nuclear power plants are solvable (most wastes can be reprocessed and used > as fuel for breeder reactors), and nuclear power plants do not of course > generate any CO2. As long as the nuclear power plants are sited in > geologically stable areas, they are as safe as any other method of > generating power.

The Chinese are close to deploying a new generation of pebble-bed reactors ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor%5d) which don't have the same failure modes as convetional reactors that use rods. In particular, again, if I remember correctly, they rely on some inert gas instead of steam for powering turbines, dramatically lessening the danger of anything blowing up. In addition, a "catastrophic" failure (i.e., a reactor running out of control) results in the radioactive fuel cooling down rather than overheating -- in other words, in the absence of control the principles behind the reactor cause it to shut down. It's pretty amazing stuff. With the amount of time and money that's being thrown at research there these days, I wouldn't be surprised if we'll all have to learn Mandarin in 20 years. -Lujo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]