"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
Robatoy wrote:
Interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/ga...pagewanted=all
I think that if you check many of stones and concretes are to some degree
radio active, and as said before would fail the criteria for a nuclear
power plant.

This is one reason why we should reevaluate government regulation to make
it easier to build nuclear power plants. Nuclear energy is the one and
only clean energy. A nuclear plant can be built on a finite amount of
land. The energy output can be double or tripled in the same space.
(Based on the original design of the Shearon Harris plant.)

Forgetting the obvious benefits of a clean cheap energy source of energy,
the facilities can provide large of lakes and recreational facilities.
(Again the Shearon Harris plant as an example)


Isn't one of the problems with that design the "lake"or cooling pond? If I
remember right the water in the pond is "hot" when compared to other bodies
of water in the area. This could lead to such enviormental disasters as:
ducks not wanting to fly south in the winter, open water fishing in winter,
larger fish then in other bodies of water. When there was a proposed plant
being built near Louisville Ky the tree huggers were saying that the river
temp would be 5 to 10 degrees higher then normal in the Ohio river. They
were right the water at the plant was supposed to be up to 5 degrees higher
then normal but by the time it hit Louisville 30 miles down stream it would
be 2 degrees or less higher then normal, according to the engineers. The
plant was never finished, converted to a coal fired plant and then never
finished or used.