Public Trust & Dreams

[Russ Johnson <rujohnso@nmsu.edu>]

OK, 33 to 35% efficient. I stand corrected. The figure I gave comes from

around 1978 in a U.S. News and World report I read. My fault for not

questioning the sources a little more, and this is from memory. So,

disregard my numbers! Don't get me wrong here. Right now, I agree that

nuclear generation is the only way to have a chance in keeping up with

the high demand power needs of cities. But I maintain my earlier

statement of the waste issue being a concern.



Yes indeed, coal power is no solution either. Apart from the air

pollution and open pit excavation issues, that is a finite resource.

Plus, solar by itself won't solve it (your peak demand issue is noted).

What comes to mind however is my observation that right after Jimmy

Carter left office, a good bit of the experimental work on solar

collectors and wind power generators here in the desert southwest also

disappeared with the lack of federal funding. Although it continues in

California, I just don't see it much elsewhere.



OK, I'm getting way off track here. This is not an alternative energy

forum. I don't work at a power reactor, so take my opinions with a grain

of salt, and I hope I didn't seriously offend anyone with my statements.

Just an opinion. Thanks for setting me straight on the reactor issue!



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/