Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 20:55:19 GMT, Pete C. wrote:

Nuke is of course the most maligned "green" power source. Maligned of
course by the ignorant and/or paranoid. The only routine emission from a
proper nuke plant is waste heat.

Yup.

The fuel source, while non-renewable is long lived and while it is
hazardous, it started out hazardous to begin with when it was in the
ground and when you're done extracting energy from it you put it back in
the ground.

And into a controlled, planned, long-term secure and stable environment.

A modest number of current generation nuke plants could replace all of
the current polluting fossil fuel fired power plants in short order.
Essentially every argument against nuclear power has been thoroughly
debunked.

The perfect proof of that is to look at how the pro-nuke people talk
about it, vs. how the anti-nuke folks do. The pro-nuke use actual
facts, science, explainations of how no, pebble-bed reactors have
nothing at all to do with the technology that was caused to fail at
Chernobyl, and so on. The anti-nuke people go for the emotionalism and
rhetoric - they want you to "feel" about it, rather than to "think"
about it.

Nuclear power plants have far less environmental impact than virtually
all of the renewable energy sources. They don't require acres and acres
of solar collectors, they don't dam up rivers, they don't dot the
hillsides with wind turbines, they don't require acres and acres of land
to grow fuel crops, etc.

Nuke plants driving the grid, charging electric cars, would be a great
solution for many drivers to consider. If it was available. Instead
we're polluting the air and consuming more oil.

Indeed nuclear power plants could be readily built underground (higher
construction cost of course) so they take up almost no surface land and
this of course also makes them pretty much 100% immune to terrorist
attack since terrorists lack the weapons technology to attack an
underground target.

Somehow I don't think a reactor vessel would be particularly impressed
by an airplane crashing into it. This isn't a soft target, after all.
The terrorists know this; they're evil, they're not _stupid_. So even
that risk is, I think, overstated.

I find it ironic as hell (as in, really annoying also) that the people
who are anti-nuke, cause us to continue giving money for oil, to
countries where people don't like us, so that we can finance their next
attack on us. If we'd go nuke, we can tell certain parts of the world
that we're not giving them any more money. They can drink their oil and
eat their sand, good luck with that.




We have the technology TODAY to be free of this whole mess. This isn't
some pipe dream, it's ready to go TODAY. Build it. In my back yard.

I've got 65 acres that I'd be happy to lease for an underground nuke
plant. I'd use the funds from the lease to build a nice house (and shop)
for myself on top of it and retire to full time HSMing.

Pete C.


Dave Hinz