Hakan wrote: > Once somewhat involved in the design and building of the last > reactors in Sweden, I am not a starch opponent of nuclear > one pass power. It is the enrichment of several passes and the > massive amount of enriched material it results in, that make > me a very strong opponent to nuclear power. Without several > passes, we only have fuel for 60 years more and it will be > better to not use it at all, than produce a world that have so > much enriched material that it will be impossible to control. > I worked for several years for the federal government agency that regulated nuclear energy in Canada. I am rather ambivalent about nuclear energy vs. fossil fuels as a result. However, the idea of the U.S. starting an agressive campaign of building light-water reactors gives me chills. It won't be cheap power, we've proven that already, and Yucca Mountain notwithstanding, still have not resolved long-term radioactive waste storage. This is the same government that could not remember to budget for Afghanistan reconstruction just one year after the commitment, but we should trust them with long-term treatment of radioactive waste? <snip>
Darryl McMahon ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/O10svD/Me7FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
