On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:43:47 -0500, John H. wrote:


Chuck, I cannot understand why the folks talking the most about
mankind's contribution to global warming are the same ones fighting the
use of nuclear energy. Ah yes, there is a waste problem. But, it is
minimal, given the recycling technology, compared to the advantages of
nuclear energy.

Caltech physics professor David Goodstein has stated that

“ ... you would have to build 10,000 of the largest power plants that are feasible by engineering
standards in order to replace the 10 terawatts of fossil fuel we're burning today ... that's a staggering
amount and if you did that, the known reserves of uranium would last for 10 to 20 years at that burn
rate. So, it's at best a bridging technology ... You can use the rest of the uranium to breed plutonium 239
then we'd have at least 100 times as much fuel to use. But that means you're making plutonium, which
is an extremely dangerous thing to do in the dangerous world that we live in. �

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory



Perhaps this is one of the reasons many folks think the liberals are
'crying wolf' more than actually trying to solve the problem. Of course,
with folks like Al Gore, the whole issue is a money-making proposition.

I agree nuclear has to be part of the answer, but it is by no means *the* answer. I also do not seem to
share the trust you have in this government. Living down wind of Three Mile Island, I clearly remember
the assurances that the problem was under control, only to find out later that 1/2 the core had melted
down. Oh, and if you think things have chanced, remember the assurances about the air quality at
ground zero.