> On Aug 18, 10:08 am, dlzc
cox.net> wrote:>> Dear Rod Speed:
>>
>> On Aug 18, 8:44 am, "Rod Speed"
gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Good hopes for Solar Energy.
>>>> Too many hopes, I'm afraid. But then when there
>>>> is so much less solar than their needs to be... the
>>>> push needs to be big.
>>
>>> You havent established that there does need to be
>>> much more solar.
>>
>> We need non-fossil fueled power, from renewable sources, so that none
>> of us are held hostage to other countries. Uranium is a
>> non-renewable source, regardless of activation of other isotopes..
>> eventually you have no further activation available.
>>
>> Why trade South Amercia and the Middle East for Australia and China?
>> They might enjoy the cash influx, but not the meddling and corruption
>> that come with it.
>>
>> We need a balanced set of power sources. Besides, the Sun is a local
>> fusion power source. Seems a shame to ignore it entirely.
>>
>>> Nukes make a hell of a lot more sense and have
>>> been used for half a century now.
>>
>> And their waste is not being recycled for the value they hold, but
>> sit instead rotting away their containments. Nuclear power has not
>> been fully developed until we quit entirely ignoring its waste.
>> Coal-fired plants dump a lot of radioactivity into the atmosphere,
>> but their collected ash is a product, as is sulfur collected from
>> their smokestacks.
>>
>> If we can recycle nuclear weapons, why can't we recycle waste materials?
>> To say nothing of the waste created when areas are mined... because I
>> am sure solar will have similar mining requirements, just in different places.
> David hit on something important.
Nope.
> The "problems" with nuclear energy are most one of policy.
> We SHOULD recycle the "waste".
Only if doing that makes sense.
> We should develop new ways of splitting atoms and garnering fuel.
What we have works fine.
> The Chinese have a pilot plant to mine that coal ash since it has higher
> concentrations of uranium than some uranium mines (yes folks, coal is
> the one of the biggest sources for uranium in the environment today).
No news.
> And we don't have to use uranium *at all*. We can use thorium which is
> 4 times as abundant. It takes only ONE TON of Th to power a 1GW
> reactor for a year. It's also a proven technology. We need to start switching
> over to thorium so that in 50 year we can have the "Thorium Economy".
The main advantage there is that is cant be used to make bombs with.
