Carlos Moreno wrote:
>
> Well, the trick is that for every trillion of terawatts
> that you generate with nuclear energy, you generate less
> ashes than when generating a gigawatt by burning petroleum,
> or equivalently, cause less damage to the environment than
> hydro-electric energy (which BTW is too limited anyway --
> it's not accessible everywhere, as thermo-electric
> potentially is, and nuclear could be)

If you are talking about fission then the ashes simply cannot
be brushed off so lightly. Yes, the ashes of burning fossil
fuels are harmful to the envirnoment and far larger in volume
that for nuclear fission.

However, how do you propose to safely store fission byproducts
which are highly toxic to all life and need to be safely stored
for tens of thousands of years or more.

Nuclear fission is a really good short term solution that
completely ignores long term consequences.

If we knew in the 1850s what we know now about the burning of
fossil fuels, we may have been a bit smarter about their use.
Simply dropping fossil fuels in favour of nuclear fission
considering that we have no guaranteed method of storing the
waste would be nuts.

Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Spammer: Any of you guys looking for a permanent position in Scotland?
Kaz Kylheku: No, I'm looking for a thug in Scotland who might be interested
in beating up off-topic Usenet spammers, on a pro bono basis.