Posted by Eeyore on October 17, 2007, 1:41 pm
And you'd believe what the Guardian says ? Have you seen the disarray their
Liberal Party is in ?
Posted by Eeyore on October 17, 2007, 1:44 pm
Rubbish. It was backed by the New Party.
Long overdue. Democracy together with responsible and accountable politics is
dead in the UK at this time. We currently merely have a few tired old nags
out their death throes.
Posted by Eeyore on October 17, 2007, 1:50 pm
What's wrong with either of those ?
Nuclear power is the only sensible option if you believe in radical reduction of
emisions from electricity generation and you want that electricity to be
more than a few hours a day.
Bring it on. There are some excellent French designed reactors that have been
and uncontroversially (and safely) supplying 80%+ of France's electricity needs
decades. And inexpensively too btw.
The British power reactors were an economic farce dictated originally by the
use them to produce plutonium for bombs and then finally by the adoption of a
'techonology too far' perhaps in the case of the AGR which was 'too clever by
mostly and as a result cost an utter fortune.
Posted by The Natural Philosopher on October 17, 2007, 4:24 pm
Agreed on all counts.
The problem is the USA in particular, and the west in general are only
to aware that once you have reactor grade uranium, you can make a fast
breeder reactor to create weapons grade plutonium. Nasty.
However conversely a separator capable of achieving reactor grade
uranium is not NECESSARILY at all capable of refining down to weapons
Which is why there are UN nuclear inspectorates..although these seem to
being killed off a shade rapidly.(Kelly)
Posted by Eeyore on October 17, 2007, 4:39 pm
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
No breeder is required. Enriched uranium fuel will produce plutonium in a simple
reactor. Doesn't even need to be a power reactor.You just need to be careful
with the burn
rate and extract the used fuel earlier rather than later, so the plutonium