From a collection of webposts that didn't make it (ex. i reconsidered posting due to ranting/relevance/harshness)
---------------------------------------------------
GE claims they can build a reactor in 3 years. I've seen lifetimes range from 30-60 years.
http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/nuclear_energy/en/new_reactors/esbwr.htm
http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2003-12/danl-nr031804.php
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6344.html
"Nuclear power will figure into our energy strategy"
I definitely think so too. Our energy strategy will be comprehensive and broad, which I don't think is a concept a lot of people understand.
This is Shell's prediction back in 1997:
http://www.t21.ca/energy/shell7.gif
from
http://t21.ca/energy/index.htm
Its all REALLY old data (I got it from my Solar Cells class), but still an interesting read.But as I travel across the internet reading sweet articles on Solar, Biomass, Wind, etc. a comment I constantly see it "Great, but it won't solve our energy problem." I really hate that. If they're waiting for Cold Fusion, they're gonna be waiting a looooong time...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You wrote:
"If they're waiting for Cold Fusion, they're gonna be waiting a looooong time..."
Not necessarily. See:
http://lenr-canr.org
Post a Comment