On May 4, 6:56*am, Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote innews:OJSdncaczd3ICELWnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@earthlink. com:

to move goods and people we require a lot of oil. Then, too, we do
so because we can. Like medical care, we can afford it, so we do it.

If we had a better, more efficient rail road system, we could move goods by
rail. *Electrified, nuclear powered rail. *It's a human choice we made to
put roads in, and as so many choices, some were right, and some were wrong.

Maybe now we can go back and put in really safe nuclear reactors ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

I have been going on about this for the last 40 years. Two of my three
daughters work at nuclear power stations, one even teaches operational
safety procedures. But as long as the NIMBY's keep their heads up
their asses and refuse to look at the whole potential objectively, it
will be an uphill battle. Somehow, they think it involves little
Nagasaki's in bottles.
It is the most endurable, safe methods we know of. That is, in base-
load applications. Peak generation still needs to be addressed and so
far I ike the advances in cogens. Natural Gas that is.
Other sources such as wind and solar are great solutions, again
cyclic, but the NIMBY's are already bitching because some windmill
knocked a spotted owl out of the sky.... but they will drive their
Prius chemical petrie dishes along God's highway.
Nuclear for base load generation in part for a new railway network,
and nuclear for making hydrogen for automotive fuel cells.