Re: Nova/Frontline

[GlennACarlson@aol.com]

An option to combat global warming?  Is this just hearing what we want to 
hear?  

According to the program (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/beyond/), "If we 
look at the estimates of the available uranium ore around the world, at cost 
effective prices, and we ask the question, if we were to burn it in 
light-water reactors (conventional nuclear reactors used in the United States 
and Western Europe), how long would the reserves of uranium last if we were 
to extract energy at the rate of ten terawatts [which equals the current 
total energy consumption of all humankind]?  Well, it turns out that you only 
have about ten years of U-235 power from all of the cost-effective uranium 
reserves."

Unless we go with breeders, it sounds like nuclear is at best a short-term 
solution.  And, considering how long it takes to build even one nuclear 
plant, it's probably not even that.  

Glenn A. Carlson, P.E.
glennacarlson@aol.com

<< Subj:     RE:Nova/Frontline
 Date:  4/19/2000 1:02:14 PM Central Daylight Time
 From:  Kjell.Johansen@wepco.com (Johansen.Kjell)

 Having followed the global warming issue since the 70s I was gratified to
 hear nuclear recognized as an option to combat global warming by most of the
 interviewees, Greenpeace notwithstanding. 

[snip]

 Kjell Johansen
 Wisconsin Electric Power Company
 231 W. Michigan
 Milwaukee, WI 53217
 kjell.johansen@wepco.com
  >>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html