Re: Obama's excellent atomic omission

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:07:05 -0500, trudogg wrote:

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:02:33 -0500, "Allan Smith"
<guesswho@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

dogg,

...the problem with nukes is waste storage.

Not much of a problem for the Pebble Bed. The tennis-ball sized pebbles are
pyrolytic graphite which can withstand 7,200 degrees F, are sealed in
ceramic coated with silicon carbide, and are designed to be geologically
stable for one to two million years.

...or so the theory goes.

I'm for nukes. We've got *lots* of places in the western US to store it.
You give New Mexico the right price, we'll do it too.

Heck we got the live ones here.

They're too risky now for private investors. The only way they are going
to be implemented is with public means. Public utilities aren't such a bad
thing.

When I say they're "too risky," I don't mean as a threat from radiation,
but making the facility pay with the alternative off burning cheap coal.

They are "shovel ready" things. Companies have been pricing this out and
doing the legwork for years now. I like the idea of federally funding six
to eight nukes. I'd rather deal with radioactivity than melt the planet.
--
larry gates

Perhaps you should compile your Perl with long doubles one of these
megaseconds.
-- Larry Wall in <199806241734.KAA09652@xxxxxxxx>
.