Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!umcp-cs!prometheus!pmk From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci,net.physics Subject: Re: breeder reactors - final comments. Message-ID: <236@prometheus.UUCP> Date: Sat, 6-Sep-86 07:06:47 EDT Article-I.D.: promethe.236 Posted: Sat Sep 6 07:06:47 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 6-Sep-86 20:48:41 EDT References: <517@meccts.UUCP> Reply-To: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 Lines: 68 Xref: mnetor net.politics:9477 net.sci:1289 net.physics:2905 In article <517@meccts.UUCP> mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) writes: > >The very worst case explosion possible in a fast breeder would be >equivalent to a few hundred pounds of TNT. We can build containment >structures, as was done at Fermi I, to contain this force. We can't >build a structure to contain a force of 20,000 tons of exploding TNT. >As can be seen, the major problem in equating the two is one of scale. > >By analogy, a pellet gun and an AK-47 assault rifle are both guns. Yet >it is much easier to protect yourself from one of them. For this reason >we don't generally consider them equal. It certainly isn't misleading >to distinguish between them - it would seem the only honest thing to do. It should be noted that in this analogy the pellet material is frozen HCN and the bullet is a copper-jacketed steel! >Also if nuclear fusion is ever made feasible, it will work by releasing >energy through the same process used in hydrogen bombs. Yet >I doubt whether most people would describe a fusion plant as >getting its energy through setting off H-Bombs. Probably not by inertial confinement. > > Closing thoughts on energy policy. >People who study the issue of energy policy realize that in order >to make responsible decisions, the different options must >be compared to each other. This is done by comparing them against >the criteria and goals of the problem. Most people would say that >one of the most important goals is safety. > >Because of its importance, this is an issue that must be solved >by scientific inquiry. Over the years many studys have been >done of the health costs of mining, transportation, routine operation, >waste disposal and effects of catastrophic accidents of the different >energy sources available. Of our available choices today, the >authoritative evidence seems to show that nuclear fission is >the safest available. In a world where "conventional" wars and terrorism are not that rare in regions where nuclear plants operate, it is foolish not to include the nuclear radiation catastrophe resulting from a deliberate and well planned attack, as part of the overall energy technology safety considerations. The big problem we face is that in some ways we are a technologically "undeveloping" nation. If technological downturn continues to hold true, nuclear safety is going to become a very substantial problem. All the rah-rah bullshit in the world isn't going to stop it. Another result is that the greatest option for mankind is not one we will develop, namely, fusion energy. Our government only fully sup- ports the most backward and obsolete of fusion concepts that are inher- ently incapable of being developed into commercial fusion generators. The making of "quick paper profits" has the minds, hearts and souls of the investment bankers, and private investment in truly innovative technology is DEAD. Unfortunately, there is no standing still. The decay is already all too evident. $$$$$ SNIFF SNIFF $$$$$ Replace those clogged nuclear reactors & coal burners with PLASMAK(TM) Fusion Power Generators +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+