>From Cook,
... > As Jones pointed out—they should have and should now “think small and modular > “. Several years ago I recall reading a Kiplinger Forecast that stated there are smaller modular oriented nuclear power designs in the works. I seem to recall Toshiba may be one of the principal participants. See: http://www.toshiba.com/tane/ I think one of the on-going plans was to retrofit and update designs originally configured to power nuclear submarines. Apparently the assumption was that there would be profits to be made constructing smaller modular nuclear power plants for locations in remote areas of the planet. As an example, I think they stated a modular plant based up in remote parts of Canada located near the huge tar oil sands would be put to use in liquefying the crude oil. I gather the assumption was that using a small modular nuclear plant to generate sufficient amounts of heat would be cheaper and perhaps more environmentally friendly as compared to burning a lot of oil to generate the necessary heat. As I understand the situation, the process burns up a lot of oil in order to get the tar sufficiently liquefied for transport. I think one of the biggest complaints, besides the fact that the tar is filled with loads of impurities (a matter Al Gore incessantly harped about), is the obvious fact that the process belches out a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. I wonder how these modular designs are proceeding. I wonder if they are still considered economically viable in remote areas. At first glance, it does seem to be a sensible alternative. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
