Re: Global warming, population, nuclear power

I'm not a real doofus, but I play one at a national laboratory. (
Wed, 30 Apr 1997 16:41:30 -0500

> Which makes nuclear power look very attractive. Sure the waste is a bummer,
> but so is global warming.

Attractive indeed. But we've been squandering that resource. I found it
intensely frustrating when the Integral Fast Reactor research at Argonne was
canned, at a point where the shutdown cost as much as finishing the project.
It held so much promise: it was extremely safe (loss of the control system
would make the reactor shut down, not melt down), and would reprocess all the
existing spent fuel, plus whatever plutonium you'd care to shovel at it. It
was quite efficient, processing a large fraction of the fuel, unlike current
reactors. Ukraine would have a market for their stuff besides selling to rogue
states. The advantages were most impressive.

The single disadvantage, as far as I can tell, is that it was politically
incorrect. (You'd think it had DEC or VMS or Fuzzy Zoeller written all over
it.) So the Clinton administration, with the aid and comfort of Congress,
killed it. Your tax dollars at work.


A nuclear-free zone is like a day without sunshine.