On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Nuclear fission has a lot of critics, and rightly so ... but all of the > problems of fission derive from trying to control a multi-ton critical mass > of explosively enriched U in a steam pressurized reactor. Even with that > major design problem, the French have demonstrated to the rest of the World > that fission can make economic sense. > > Even with Fukushima still smoldering, we must consider that an improved > version of nuclear fission can make great economic sense. This is > especially true for countries without much oil. When the electric car goes > into mass production at lower cost (soon) off-peak recharging is a feature > which makes fission more economically viable in the 'big picture'. > > A "new and improved" version of fission means ditching enrichment, going > subcritical, going small and modular and with direct conversion of heat to > electricity. It is easily possible that fission can be made preferable to > hot fusion in every way, and less costly than any other option including > coal and cold fusion, if Pd is required. I hear they're getting energy out of windmills and solar panels too, these days.
