Eugene Leitl writes:
> Strange to hear similiar sentiments on two unrelated lists (pigdog & FoRK).
> I wonder what makes a person a nukehead, I don't see too many of these.
I've got no strong feelings on nuclear power either way -- except
cold fusion, I'm completely in favor of that. :)
The recent, "strange" flurry of such sentiments is driven by the need for
a quick fix for the electricity problems in California. We're facing 2-3
*years* of spot shortages and rolling blackouts.
I shudder to think of the chaos when the air conditioners in office
buildings and worksites need to be fired up this summer.
> A nuke drive is optimized to do one thing: propulsion. You'd have to get the
> sub into a drydock, and interface a watertight generator to it, then
> dump it back into the sea, so it can frolick in sufficient coolant.
> I don't think trying to operate a nuke in a drydock only cooled by
> water pumps is a good idea.
> Hence the whole plan is a herring of a rather luxuriant rouge.
> Moreover, a properly operated coal (or, better, natural gas) plant
> is cleaner than a nuke plant, integrated over entire input/output and
Can't argue with that. Can we drop a few new coal or natural gas plants
down along the bayshore freeway, SimCity-style, by this May?
- Gordon, dreaming of fuel cells, flywheels, and a California-owned
Russian-surplus floating nuclear energy fleet...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:19:03 PDT