MOSFET - Exactly. If we are serious about energy independence, it will be on the back of nuclear power. There is NO alternative. When people speak about 'cleaner' alternatives I have no idea what they are reffering to, I posted a graphic in the previous thread demonstrating just how many renewable sources would be needed to solve our energy crisis, and while I am sure that wind, hydro, solar, tidal and geothermal can be a *part* of our solutions, especially for decentralized areas, nuclear is going to have to be the backbone as its the only clean source that can produce at the level of coal and gas fired plants.

Threeweight - You really need to update your knowledge. Current reprocessing techniques do not leave nuclear grade material, and the spent fuel can be reused repeatedly until 99% of their potential energy is consumed. It is estimated that the US could supply all of its energy needs for 300 years, including projected growth rates on the existing nuclear waste *alone*. A main reason for the high costs of US nuclear power is because we are stuck using 30-40 year old reactors, nations like France have been doing it for a fraction of our costs. I highly suggest checking out the December 2005 issue of Scientific American for an overview of Fast Neutron reactors, they run on reprocessed waste, are fairly cheap to build, and solve most of the concerns people have about nuclear.

_________________
2006 Jeep Liberty Sport CRD

My comment on increasing nuclear proliferation was not related to the waste left behind containing fissile material. It is the fact that the entire reprocessing is aimed at producing high grade plutonium or uranium to run back through the reactor. In the hands of a government like Iran, that same material could just as easily be diverted into a weapons program (the main reason we have our collective panties in a bunch over Iran developing reprocessing technology).

I'd love to see numbers to back up "cost of energy for nuclear is the lowest of any energy source." The Nuclear Energy Institute has claimed that current US nukes produce power at 1.7 cents per kilowatt hour. More credible analysis is on the order of 5-8 cents, and that still does not factor in the cost of insurance and waste disposal currently stuck to US tax payers. The national average is 5 cents, with coal slightly below that. I'm sure nuclear engineers are convinced there is some wonderful new technology right around the corner that will make it even better, but these are the same folks who promised nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter" in the 1960's.

Wind power, shockingly enough, is now right at the average, and becoming more cost effective all the time. Certainly wind isn't going to power America, or even 1/4 of America, but it is now succeeding in the free market. If nuclear is such a cheap option, it should be profitable, no? Then why don't nuclear backers raise the capital to build new plants, without seeking handouts from federal taxpayers?

No offense Reflex, but you tend to have a very condescending view of the intelligence or knowledge of other posters here. You might be surprised how much folks know. Like, for instance, that the Scientific American article you reference was written by John Deutch (who serves on the board of Raytheon, a US company that builds nuclear power facilities around the world), and Ernie Moniz (on the board of USEC, a company that makes uranium enrichment and reprocessing technology). Gosh, I wonder if those two might have an ulterior motive for promoting nuclear power?

As far as emerging technologies go, here are a few. Focused solar arrays (also known as solar thermal) is proven technology working quite well for Israel, and now being pursued in portions of the US (PGE and Ausra just broke ground on a 177 megawatt facility in central California). And since the technology uses steam-driven turbines, it can be used in tandem with natural gas or other fossil to create a hybrid system that provides a steady production night and day. See: http://www.ausra.com/news/releases/071105.html for more. A facility was announced in Washington State a few weeks ago to test marrying focused solar and wind (good solar output during the day, with wind balancing it at night).

Others? Longer term, fuel cells. They work just fine already, but the cost per hour is too high for use in a grid network like the US. However, in a country without a developed energy grid, they become more attractive (just like wind and solar).

Which brings up why this entire debate is rather silly. Debating what wiz-bang technology the US should replace its power infrastructure with misses the point. Billions of people in China and India (and elsewhere) are now in a place economically that they can demand electricity, and that desire will be filled. Those countries do not have a developed utility grid, so they are essentially starting from scratch (meaning, the price of electrification is not only the cost to produce the power, but also the cost of building the network to deliver it). Under those circumstances, distributed energy production (like solar, wind, and small-scale hydro) become much more attractive than either fossil fuels or nuclear.

But the ultimate thing Americans on both sides of the nuclear debate don't get is that the real issue in contention is our national desire to prevent nuclear proliferation. Which would you rather see go into mass production in Indonesia, nuclear plans with reprocessing facilities, or passive solar arrays combined with natural gas plants? Do you really want nuclear reprocessing technology being sold to Burma, Venezula, or Pakistan?

_________________
2006 Liberty CRD Limited
Mopar engine, transmission, transfer case skids
245/70/16 Michelin Latitude X-Ice (winter)
235/75/16 Firestone Destination ATs (summer)
Thule roof rack, cargo box
V6 airbox mod
Flowmaster 50 2.5 inch muffler
Edge EZ module (set for fuel economy)
SEGR
TDIWagonGuy CCV filter
B99 (summer), B20 (winter)

Modern reprocessing facilities do NOT create weapons grade material. That is the point of them and what the major change has been since the 70's. You are repeating what is at this point, a lie.


Coal is by far the cheapest energy production method we have when one only factors in the cost of the plants and mining. When one figures in health costs however, estimates range as high as 28 cents due to its massive impact on air quality. Nuclear is significantly cheaper than that, even in worst case scenerios. Furthermore, the costs of nuclear are threefold, 1) Initial investment; 2) Insurance and 3) waste disposal. The first one is the large hurdle, private corporations cannot get the approximatly $16 billion per plant together, however once one is constructed the maintinence costs are miniscule and the plant lifespan is decades. The second issue is less serious than it once was, and modern plants are far less of a risk(and thus cheaper to insure) than the 70's era ones in current use. The final one is solved with waste reprocessing. Plants built today could be operated for a fraction of the cost of our existing nuclear infrastructure.


Because initial costs are high, but operating costs very low. Wind, once again, can never be a major solution because it is not consistant. You have to build production as though it does not exist, and then simply scale back when wind is providing(or sell the excess). This is not a efficient or ideal method. It makes sense in some situations, but it does not make sense for all, and in some areas of the country it is completely useless(such as the entire southeast) while being only marginally useful in much of the rest. Refer to the wind chart I posted previously.


You are basically complaining that the article I reffered to was written by experts in the field? Seriously? If you feel I'm being condescending, perhaps that will demonstrate why. The crux of your argument is that basically the only reason people would support nuclear power is because its all a 'conspiracy' by the nuclear industry. Thats simply ridiculous. Nuclear scientists tend to be employed by companies involved in nuclear production, as a result you can discredit just about any such article since they all will have some ties to the nuclear industry. If they didn't, they wouldn't be credible.

Should I discredit Uffe because he works for a wind generation company? After all, obviously he and his corporation stand to profit by convincing us that his power source is best...


Yes, there are emerging technologies. I fully support investing in them. But I do not support holding off on a proven technology that works today while we wait for pie in the sky answers. There is NO answer today that could do what nuclear does *right now*. Since nuclear facilities take 16+ years to build and go live, there is plenty of time to begin nuclear projects even if over the long term we scale back plans due to other emerging technologies. Ever hear of hedging your bets?


Once again, modern reprocessing eliminates proliferation fears. Using that as an excuse is a distraction and a play to the fears of security nuts.

_________________
2006 Jeep Liberty Sport CRD

The biggest problem with wind power in urban areas is WIND SHADOWS and the turbulence they cause. Uffe being directly in the industry may have the design criteria and guidelines to avoid the Urban wind shadow problems. To compensate for the wind shadows the elevation of the prop needs to be increased to the point that the wind shadow turbulence acts like a bearing bed and helps move the wind along in a laminar flow. Since masts cost money and aircraft pilots don't want to reach out and touch wind turbans, urban settings are not cost effective.

As far as risk assessment goes Trans Fat from Junk Food is more risk than a blade flying off a wind turbine

One of my rants in the other threads that were hijacked is the lousy power at the fringe of the grids.
Since rural locations are one of the best locations for wind farms I see this as a DAHHH
Another good location for wind farms are on the slopes that face bodies of water that face the wind ward side, the rise in the slope or ridge provides an acceleration of the wind and more power out of the wind farm, again Uffe most likely has access to the design criteria presented to clients. Illinois and Iowa wind farms use the rolling hills to obtain the accelerated wind effect.

Steve

_________________
2006 Pearl Green CRD
Magnaflow 2 1/2" Cat Back
KJ Extra Leg Room Brackets, Carter Lift Pump, V6 Airbox, ORM
Fuel cooler, Oil Separator, Progard 7
Gauges EGT Boost Trans Temp Oil Pres, Michelin LXT AT2 245 70 R16
7,000# Draw Tight hitch, PML EX Deep Trans Pan
Centrifuge, SunCoast, Transgo, RAM TCM, InMotion Stage 2
Wife's 99 TDI VW Beetle

Since I fly allot for my job, I get to be with a lot of interesting people. A few months ago I was flying back to Chicago from Baltimore and had a great visit, here is the outcome:
1) The U.S. Navy has developed a new safer Nuclear fuel rod that can not be made into atomic bomb or dirty bombs.
2) 95% of the rod can be reprocessed only 5% is wasted, this will move Nuclear Medical Waste to the #1 spot for radioactive wast.
3) All of the Washington Big Shots are on board and 100% are behind it and it is a done deal that will not be derailed. (Unhappy people vote them out of office)
4) Technology is being shared with other countries including our NATO buddies. (Other countries know about it too)
5) Companies like BP and E-M are on board and becoming energy companies, not just oil anymore. (Somehow I don't see Government employees handling the business end)
6) Developing countries in Africa will be outfitted with small reactors that can use the new fuel rods. (I suspect this is so a new cheap labor source can be harvested, labor prices in China and India will rise)
7) This will be on board in 4.5 years when the equipment and other factors get it together.
Note: Don't expect the price of oil to fall too much, this will only help reduce the strangle hold and make it so we all have oil for the time we need it. (China and India want oil too)

What does this have to do with our CRDs
1) They use oil for fuel and lubrication, Bio helps, but there is not yet enough to go around.
2) Most of the homes in New England heat with oil and that puts pressure on diesel fuel prices, nuclear would be smarter source for heat.

Note: Our News Machines are VERY LAZY and the information has not been handed to them on a DIAMOND DECORATED PLATINUM PLATTER by the DOE yet so they are chasing their other stories. Besides, high fuel prices, gang-banger murders, riots, drug dealer busts, Hollywood on dope, political affairs, and weather or geological disasters make better news.

Steve

_________________
2006 Pearl Green CRD
Magnaflow 2 1/2" Cat Back
KJ Extra Leg Room Brackets, Carter Lift Pump, V6 Airbox, ORM
Fuel cooler, Oil Separator, Progard 7
Gauges EGT Boost Trans Temp Oil Pres, Michelin LXT AT2 245 70 R16
7,000# Draw Tight hitch, PML EX Deep Trans Pan
Centrifuge, SunCoast, Transgo, RAM TCM, InMotion Stage 2
Wife's 99 TDI VW Beetle

Uh, DO NOT or CAN NOT?

Pu239 IS a product of nuclear fission in a reactor.
Spent fuel CAN be reprocessed to get the Pu239. However, because the
US does NOT make anymore nuclear weapons there is no demand for
Pu239 (other than the occasional RTG that NASA send into space).
Therefore, reprocessors DO NOT extract Pu239 (except for the occasional
RTG).
But lets not forget MOX fuel! (edit: oops, just remembered that this is
the same as the fast neutron reactor you mentioned Reflex. I'm not trying to take shots at you just trying to hopefully clarify some information)
MOX fuel IS reprocessed Plutonium mixed with U235(depleted/spent).
This fuel is then used again in a nuclear reactor.
There was a MOX fuel reactor (research?) in Washington State but I think
it was recently shut down (funding?). But there are other MOX fuel reactors
in the world.

Now, pardon me for being a little politically incorrect and "off color," but...
(and this is not directed to anyone on this board, but rather a general statement)

The reason that there are not any more nuclear reactors here in the US is
because people are stupid.
Or, maybe I should say that the American people have become bred and
trained to be stupid and fearful.
Nuclear power reactors are very safe! But, people still percieve them to be
ticking time bombs just waiting to spew horrible radioactive contamination
that will not go away for a thousand years. They think that if they get near
a reactor they will become radioactive.
Fact is, that COAL fired power plants spew out more radiation, in the form of
Radon Gas, than any (safe) nuclear reactor ever will.

The real problem with nuclear reactors is what to do with the spent nuclear
fuel. Currently, the power plants maintain the spent fuel on-site. However,
they are running out of room. This is why you are hearing about Yucca Mtn
NV in the news. This sounds like a great idea, bury the spent fuel deep in a
mountain, under layers and layers of rock. What everyone is afraid of is how
these spend fuel rods are going to be transported to Yucca Mtn. Well, its
going to go by rail and by truck. "But what if there is an accident?"
Have you seen a Type B Container? It is impervious and indestructable!

In order for nuclear power to be widely accepted here in the US, the American
people are going to have to be re-trained and less fearfull.

No I am not a nuclear physicist, but I have been trained in this field, have
visited sites, and have had the pleasure of working with and learning from
those whom are experts in this field.

OK, I'm done.
Sorry, I dont usually rant.
But this topic have weighed heavily on my mind recently.

_________________
U.S. Army Retired

Hollywood wanted a way to sell movies and since thrillers sell, fear sells, hence make Nuclear Power the boogie man (add a political spin and you can up to 40% of the population off the couch to go to the movie or buy the DVD). Now that we need to get Nuclear Power back online so we don't drive the price of oil so high that we bankrupt the economy, fear is needed to motivate the Sheepeople. Micheal Moore and Al Gore create movies scaring and convincing the Sheepeople that the oceans will rise 12 times higher than they would if their prediction were at all true and blame it on CO2. By scaring them, the Sheepeople will agree with the rest of us thinking rational soles and accept Nuclear Power again, only their reason is to reduce green house gases. Reducing the gases that compete with our oxygen supply so we can all breath and live a happy life is a good idea, but some can not be asked to use any common sense and need to be scared into compliance to motivate them off the couch. Personally, I see reducing the gases that compete with our oxygen supply to be a job that needs to be done like taking out the garbage so the landfill bugs can have their dinner and I can have the space in the house I pay to keep, not the end of the world as we know it.

Unlike the Sheepeople, the rest of us want to be good stewards of our Earth for personal, spiritual, or religious reasons; and enjoy life while we drive our CRDs with an optomisium for developing technologies. Sheepeople have only the sense of the flock, they have no optomisium for technology or individual achievement in developing any.

Steve

_________________
2006 Pearl Green CRD
Magnaflow 2 1/2" Cat Back
KJ Extra Leg Room Brackets, Carter Lift Pump, V6 Airbox, ORM
Fuel cooler, Oil Separator, Progard 7
Gauges EGT Boost Trans Temp Oil Pres, Michelin LXT AT2 245 70 R16
7,000# Draw Tight hitch, PML EX Deep Trans Pan
Centrifuge, SunCoast, Transgo, RAM TCM, InMotion Stage 2
Wife's 99 TDI VW Beetle

Again, if nuclear has come so far as to be cheaper, cleaner, and better than all other options today, nothing is stopping electric utilities from raising the capital to build new plants in the US. There is no law against it.

However, it isn't economically feasible without government (ie, taxpayers like you and me) footing a large part of the bill. And without ramming it down the throats of the people in the community where it is located (thats the problem with democracy, those darn sheepeople get all silly and think they ought to have a say in things).

I always find that considering the source is helpful to making an informed decision. I wouldn't buy stock in a typewriter company based on a really compelling article by their CEO. I wouldn't buy Windows Vista based Microsoft telling me it is the best thing ever. I wouldn't assume wind power is a panacea based on the advice of someone who makes money off windmills. And I would not buy the argument that nuclear power is a miracle solution based on two guys who stand to make a lot of cash off it telling me so.

In any event, the idea that the US is going to make some big switch to any new technology for electricity generation is pretty stupid to begin with. We have a fully developed infrastructure. The only new capacity that will come on line is either 1) additive, being brought on to address growing demand (which we should not have if the government got serious about energy efficiency), 2) to replace failing/obsolete facilities (almost never happens, as once the initial capital costs are recouped there is enormous incentive to keep running facilities nearly forever with minor upgrades, or 3) a cap on CO2 emissions (isn't going to happen unless a major, politically-connected city like Richmond, Galveston or Charleston get's hit by a Katrina-style disaster and Congress suddenly grows balls.) Short of scenario #3, any changes to the US generation mix will be very gradual.

As I said before, the real energy technology debate today is over what technology gets exported to the developing world. In places that do not have a developed electricity grid, major centralized production doesn't make sense regardless of what the energy source is (nukes, coal, etc...) In places like China that have a partial grid, the cheapest option will get the nod as long as there is capital available to build it (as in, US investors to build coal-fired plants). Right now the major international lending institutions (from the World Bank and US AID to venture capitalists) are spending their money on fossil technology. Unless we act to send clear market signals (in the form of tax incentives, penalties, and lending restrictions on government $$), we are going to see billions of people around the world adopt a US standard of living using 18th century technology.

Standing around yelling "if only the sheep would get out of our way and let us build more nukes everywhere" isn't going to change that. And I guess I must be a security nut, as I firmly believe putting nuclear technology in the hands of third-world governments around the world would be about the stupidest foreign policy decision the US could ever make.

_________________
2006 Liberty CRD Limited
Mopar engine, transmission, transfer case skids
245/70/16 Michelin Latitude X-Ice (winter)
235/75/16 Firestone Destination ATs (summer)
Thule roof rack, cargo box
V6 airbox mod
Flowmaster 50 2.5 inch muffler
Edge EZ module (set for fuel economy)
SEGR
TDIWagonGuy CCV filter
B99 (summer), B20 (winter)

The one Tin Horn Dictator, Code Name DOG EATER, who came close to having a nuke weapon has only used it to extract hand outs from the Western World. I am sure that when any Nuclear reactors are placed in Third World countries the big investment firms will do their home work and not take a fake money order as payment or hand one over to a country with an unstable government.
Based upon the history of investment firms, countries with factories that are labor intensive (such as Mexico) will be the first to get them so they can power their industrial revolution. Then as the desire for cheap labor moves to other places in the world, factories and Nuclear generators will follow as needed.
As far as DOG EATER and his fellow tyrants go some strategically placed therapists forced to retire from the worlds oldest profession due to health reasons could give the DOG EATER some therapy and solve our problem. Much cheaper than using our military.

As far as Upgrades go, we upgrade our CRDs and other items. If we are smart enough to upgrade our Jeeps, don't you think the Utility companies who have Jeep owners on the pay role can figure it out Come on, they are not elected officials, they are business people. They have Jeep owners who are engineers, also they have Jeep owners that are real accounts and not just bean counters

Steve

_________________
2006 Pearl Green CRD
Magnaflow 2 1/2" Cat Back
KJ Extra Leg Room Brackets, Carter Lift Pump, V6 Airbox, ORM
Fuel cooler, Oil Separator, Progard 7
Gauges EGT Boost Trans Temp Oil Pres, Michelin LXT AT2 245 70 R16
7,000# Draw Tight hitch, PML EX Deep Trans Pan
Centrifuge, SunCoast, Transgo, RAM TCM, InMotion Stage 2
Wife's 99 TDI VW Beetle

The issue is not government money, the issue is government guarantees. The nuclear industry pays for its own plants, but the size of the loans required(billions and billions) are beyond the ability of private enterprise to guarantee, and private enterprise is all about risk mitigation. The company with the largest cash reserves in the world is probably Microsoft, at around $50 billion in cash and that could only build 3-4 reactors, so I don't see how anyone could expect a private corporation to raise the capital without government backing.

However, since its just government backing, the loans are repayed over time and the government is let off the hook. I am not aware of any nuclear plant 'going out of business' since they are cheap to operate and run basically forever. When they are closed, it is typically on a scheduled retirement plan, not because they couldn't make enough money. As such, they don't end up costing the taxpayers anything, all they cost us were the initial financial risk(and ongoing insurance risk).


This is simply a symptom of your out of date knowledge of the industry. If you find that statement condescending, then so be it but it is true. There are at least half a dozen reactor designs that in no way can provide weapons grade material. We do NOT have to export reprocessing facilities if the concern is too great that they cannot be made to not produce weapons grade material, we can simply buy back the waste and nations that are already nuclear can utilize it in thier own reprocessing facilities. This was extensively covered in the article I mentioned, and the UN already has protocols for this in place(and that any nation to acquire such power would be expected to be a part of those protocols).

Whether you like nuclear or not the genie is out of the bottle. High school students have built nuclear reactors in their garages. Its 60+ year old technology at this point and pretending that its hugely complex is ridiculous because by today's standards its not. We can either stick our heads in the sand, or we can choose to take a leadership position.

_________________
2006 Jeep Liberty Sport CRD

Although there are very valid concerns about third world nations using nuclear waste for bombs, just remember that only one nation in all of history has actually used a nuclear weapon, not once but twice and it wasn't third world. The possibility of someone developing bombs from new nuclear power plants should not dissuade their development, but rather encourage tighter regulation (those nations already have enough bombs anyway). Oh, and for those who are worried about wind turbines wiping out bird populations check out this site

]http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5076012

As a professional window cleaner in my early years I can attest that the number of a million dead birds from window impacts is probably very low.

_________________
Manure green 2005 CRD sport4x4, GDE Hot tune, Cat Gut, OE skids, Draw tight hitch, Duramax lift pump, 160K on multiple varieties of fuel, XM radio, Escort live with Redline, fog light mod, GPS, Icom IC7000 all band radio call sign KC9QPF, Grabber AT2s on Soft 8s, FIA grill blanket.

Give me a f#####g break - "high school students have built nuclear reactors in their garages"? Yeah, and I suppose they just popped down to Home Depot to pick up some uranium to power them with.

Even for you, that really takes the cake. It even surpasses your comments on the biodiesel thread where your latest tack is all but equating support for biofuel use to complicity in genocide - ie, the starving Haitians.

The times you do bring up valid points that would make for an interesting discussion, they nearly always get lost in the lecturing, condescending, arrogant prose that surrounds them - whether that's intentional or not I can't tell - but constantly talking down to other people and pissing them off ends all possibility of rational discussion, much less even getting them to see or acknowledge your point of view.

But then at times it seems rational discussion is the farthest thing from your mind - that the only intent behind some of your posts, given their wording, tone, and context, is to do nothing but stir up controversy, hate, and discontent.

At the best, I would say that your "interpersonal" or "people" skills - ie, tact and diplomacy - are in need of serious work. At the worst, I would have to agree with others that have already labeled you as such - that you're nothing but a troll, making controversial posts simply to elicit a response and draw attention to yourself.

From reading thru this thread and the one on biodiesel, I would certainly be inclined to believe the latter is the case - I haven't seen this much bulls### being shoveled about since the last time I visited my neighbor's dairy farm.

_________________
Mitchell Oates
'87 MB 300D Diamond Blue Metallic
'87 MB 300D - R.I.P. 12/08
'05 Sport CRD Stone White
Provent CCV Filter/AT2525 Muffler
Stanadyne 30 u/Cat 2 u Fuel Filters
Fumoto Drain/Fleetguard LF3487 Oil filter
V6 Airbox/Amsoil EAA Air Filter
Suncoast TC/Shift Kit/Aux Cooler
Kennedy Lift Pump/Return Fuel Cooler

...my window cleaner, I like clean windows, birds or no birds

Good points made, we need to be good stewards of the Earth Nuclear power, wind power, wave power, solar, biomass, and biofuels all have their places.

Suppressing technology with positive results for political or control freak reasons (such as Government confiscation of research) is an unforgivable transgression and should be dealt with severe punishment such as a long time in prison. People who use fear to control others have no place in leadership roles and should be removed by what ever means is needed, but the legal system should be the first choice.

True every new technology has risks, but not going after the new technology can be even more risky. All we need to do is make the move responsibly as we do with our Jeep modifications and the trails we go on.

Lets explore our options.

Steve

_________________
2006 Pearl Green CRD
Magnaflow 2 1/2" Cat Back
KJ Extra Leg Room Brackets, Carter Lift Pump, V6 Airbox, ORM
Fuel cooler, Oil Separator, Progard 7
Gauges EGT Boost Trans Temp Oil Pres, Michelin LXT AT2 245 70 R16
7,000# Draw Tight hitch, PML EX Deep Trans Pan
Centrifuge, SunCoast, Transgo, RAM TCM, InMotion Stage 2
Wife's 99 TDI VW Beetle

Retmil - You may wish to actually do some research before making yourself look as stupid as you just did. Home reactors have been done for a couple of decades now, and they don't have to run on uranium(although thats far more attainable than you seem to believe, its in a lot of substances we use regularly, such as old glow in the dark watches). Here are some links to actual high school science project fusion reactors:

http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,12 ... 02,00.html
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/mar/ra ... -boy-scout

There are two teenagers who buillt nuclear reactors, one in his own home. There are about 20 amateur members of the 'Nuclear Club' who have managed to achieve fusion outside of a lab or nuclear facility.

Google is your friend.

_________________
2006 Jeep Liberty Sport CRD

Commercial and Military Nuclear Reactors are Fission reactors that are a proven working reliable technology that can be put to use now. The new Nuclear fuel rods discussed in my previous posting are for Nuclear Fission reactors as well. Fusion reactors are still in the development stage

I am all for RD but some how, I don't expect the Southwest 737-700 I will be flying to Portland on Monday morning to yet have Gravimetric Propulsion engines mounted under the wings just because two scientists applied Nicole Tesla's calculations and built a working Gravimetric Propulsion Engine in the lab two years ago This engine, built from lab junk, also produced 100,000 times more thrust than predicted by Einstein.

Boeing will be the first to let Gary Kelly know when the Gravimetric Propulsion engines are available, how much they will cost, the maintenance costs, how much they will save in fuel costs, and if the existing 737s in the fleet can be upgraded

Fusion is down the road, but it is coming, lets not confuse it with Fission

Steve

_________________
2006 Pearl Green CRD
Magnaflow 2 1/2" Cat Back
KJ Extra Leg Room Brackets, Carter Lift Pump, V6 Airbox, ORM
Fuel cooler, Oil Separator, Progard 7
Gauges EGT Boost Trans Temp Oil Pres, Michelin LXT AT2 245 70 R16
7,000# Draw Tight hitch, PML EX Deep Trans Pan
Centrifuge, SunCoast, Transgo, RAM TCM, InMotion Stage 2
Wife's 99 TDI VW Beetle

Y'know, going by Reflex's definition of a "reactor" (at least what the definition has been for the past hour), perhaps I should give the news media a call.

A couple of friends at work have reactors in their garages.

And they can produce more useable energy than they consume!

All hail, the era of fusion power plants is here!

Oh wait, that's right, they're not doing fusion - those are BIODIESEL reactors they have.

And that's no more asinine or "stupid" than representing a high school science experiment as a working nuclear fusion reactor to sell magazines, or trying to equate it with the complexities involved in the design, operation, maintenance, and waste disposal of a 1,000 MW fission power plant.

_________________
Mitchell Oates
'87 MB 300D Diamond Blue Metallic
'87 MB 300D - R.I.P. 12/08
'05 Sport CRD Stone White
Provent CCV Filter/AT2525 Muffler
Stanadyne 30 u/Cat 2 u Fuel Filters
Fumoto Drain/Fleetguard LF3487 Oil filter
V6 Airbox/Amsoil EAA Air Filter
Suncoast TC/Shift Kit/Aux Cooler
Kennedy Lift Pump/Return Fuel Cooler

Wow. This thread went from being an attempt to discuss renewable energy into a half-baked case for nuclear power, mixed in with racist "dog eater" comments, and an absolute certainty of opinion that won't be deterred by having it pointed out that it is based on a fairly huge lack of knowledge.

Whomever first noted this discussion doesn't belong on the CRD board was correct. About all I've learned from this is which posters to ignore.

_________________
2006 Liberty CRD Limited
Mopar engine, transmission, transfer case skids
245/70/16 Michelin Latitude X-Ice (winter)
235/75/16 Firestone Destination ATs (summer)
Thule roof rack, cargo box
V6 airbox mod
Flowmaster 50 2.5 inch muffler
Edge EZ module (set for fuel economy)
SEGR
TDIWagonGuy CCV filter
B99 (summer), B20 (winter)

retmil - I'm sorry, where did I equate a home nuclear reactor to a multi-billion dollar power plant? My point was this: Nuclear technology is not complicated. If high school students can figure it out, then third world nations with budgets of billions can as well. It is sixty plus years old. All of the information needed can be found in texbooks. Pretending we can put a cap on that genie is burying our heads in the sand. Either we can be a leader, or we can just pretend to be 'shocked' every few years when we find out that yet another nation has a nuclear program. Seriously, that position is just idiotic.

And btw, I didn't realize the dog eater statement was reffering to a race. If it was, thats a disgusting POV.

_________________
2006 Jeep Liberty Sport CRD

That's just a little bit different than a "nuclear reactor". The key? Energy in far greater than energy out. It's not like it's going to explode... I agree, the information is out there, but the research and money is not.

_________________
'05 Liberty CRD B100, SEGR - SOLD

'01 Beetle TDi B100, EGR delete
'83 Mercedes 240D B100, no EGR

--- SEGR Builder ---

Kim Jong Il code name, "DOG EATER"!
Were the Navajo racist for calling the Sherman Tank a Turtle in their code talk, after all that could be taken that way by some?

Besides when Kim Jong Il had his mad scientists trying to create a Nuclear weapon he feasted on fine food including Dog. His subjects in the country side were eating grass, digging up roots, and killing orphans to eat and stay alive.

Reflex, you should direct your sensitivity to those who need it and not stick up for a jerks that need the same therapy Saddam Hussein was given by his own people.

_________________
2006 Pearl Green CRD
Magnaflow 2 1/2" Cat Back
KJ Extra Leg Room Brackets, Carter Lift Pump, V6 Airbox, ORM
Fuel cooler, Oil Separator, Progard 7
Gauges EGT Boost Trans Temp Oil Pres, Michelin LXT AT2 245 70 R16
7,000# Draw Tight hitch, PML EX Deep Trans Pan
Centrifuge, SunCoast, Transgo, RAM TCM, InMotion Stage 2
Wife's 99 TDI VW Beetle