John Francis wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 11:50:01AM -0500, graywolf wrote: >> Reads like that is a very early post WWII weapons grade breeder reactor >> not a modern power plant. Actually coal fired steam power plants are the >> most environmentally unfriendly and dangerous ones, on second thought >> maybe Kerosun type heaters are... > > I remember a wonderful science fiction story (from, IIRC, the anthology > "Great Science Fiction By Scientists") entitled "On the Feasibility of > Coal-Driven Power Stations". The scenario was set well in the future, > and the story was set in the form of a study report on whether or not > large deposits of coal still untapped could be used for power generation. > > The conclusion was that the plan was infeasible; there was no way to > reduce the emission of carcinogens (and other undesirable byproducts) > to an acceptable level, and in any case the risk of a catastrophic > explosion or other such failure in the entire process (from mine to > power station) was orders of magnitude worse than safe nuclear power. > >
That's certainly true. Coal dust is nasty... -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
