Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ptanner who wrote (55134)	9/14/2001 6:35:30 AM
From: Bill Jackson	Respond to of 275872

PT, Too many japanese monster movies and then there was "THEM" has conditioned the US public to a hysterical state regarding nuke power. Part of it might be property value mediated. With modern high voltage DC transmission tech you can have the plants 500 miles or more away the service area, even 500 miles out to sea, but that would take quite a floating barge, but it is quite doable. Probably they will have to try some freezing in the dark before they change their minds. The fact that coal plants emit more radiation the nukes from traces of uranium in coal is quite correct, however it is long lived stuff, unlike nuke escape stuff. Bill

To: ptanner who wrote (55134)	9/14/2001 7:44:28 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Dear PT: Actually, a HTGCFBR (High Temperature Gas Cooled Fast Breeder Reactor) has four major advantages. One, the high temperature gas, usually helium, allows for small high efficiency gas turbine generators rather than the giant steam turbines used in Pressurized Water Reactors. Two, the waste heat can be used to heat a large city area, like Menomonee Valley Power heating the downtown here in Milwaukee. Three, safety, as the reactor could be shut down merely by flooding the core with water. Four, it generates more fissionable material than it uses, thus, multiplying the large uranium deposits in this country (the largest in the world IIRC). Currently, even with the large amount of safety measures (vastly more than necessary as if the WTC or Pentagon were built to those standards, even a Galaxy class cargo plane filled with highly explosive cargo, could not bring down either building), nuclear power is less than coal fired power on a cents per KWH base load basis. Nuclear power can be used to generate hydrogen gas which can even substitute for NG in heating and oil in transportation (ships, planes, trains, autos and trucks). All without any greenhouse gas emissions. Pete

To: ptanner who wrote (55134)	9/14/2001 10:14:51 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

ptanner RE..The use of standardized and highly tested designs (high temperature gas reactors, for example, which cannot meltdown - they just get very hot in full failure mode) would certainly streamline the process. However, the site permitting process (NIMBY) would be very burdensome. The sites that were approved but not built might be more readily developed. <<<<<<< The plant Exelon hope to build is a HTGR based on pebble bed technology; which Exelon hopes to site on one of its existing plants. There would also need to be a clear commitment to handling of the high volume of low-level radioactive waste and the relatively modest amount of extremely hazardous material. Has Yucca mountain been resolved yet? <<<<<< The EPA just approved the site in Yucca Mtns. Should be built in about ten yrs. A typical coal fire plant emits more radiation and vastly greater impacts in general to the environment than a nuclear plant but the subject of risk is extremely subjective. I would much rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal plant. The coal plant, with its pollution, reduces your air quality every day. That would only happen under extreme and rare circumstances, with a nuclear plant. And it is likely, a permanent better solution will be found eventually with wastes; while I can't foresee a solution for all of the air pollution.