cool, wonder what the down side is?
I've very much in favor of nuclear power, and have written so in this forum and others many times. However . . .
This article makes no mention at all of cost. I think that's no coincidence. Creating all those pebbles in the first place is going to be very expensive. It wouldn't be cost-competitive against rational nuclear reactor designs - but of course the libs are not rational about nuclear power.
If the economics support it, then great. If we don't do something, the costs of alternative ways to generate power will rise until this is cost-competitive, which is sort of like hitting your thumb with a hammer so you don't think about your toothache.
posted on 09/05/2006 8:33:54 AM PDT
This PDF (which I will not excerpt because it needs to be read in detail) indicates that it is more expensive that other nuclear power designs such as Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) (whatever that is)
posted on 09/05/2006 8:58:28 AM PDT
("That kid's about as sharp as a pound of wet liver" - Foghorn Leghorn)
It is my understanding that the biggest cost of a N reactor is the cost to dismantle once it is no longer useable. I favor N power but would like to see some clev er thinking done about the waste problem.
posted on 09/06/2006 6:54:26 AM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson