From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Thu Nov 28 2002 - 02:34:25 EST
I hate to be a naysayer, but the cost of the fuel is not the driver in the
construction of a nuke. Even if came for free from rainfall, the costs
associated with building the nuke would be similar whether fusion of
fission. It
seems as though your argument against fission is just as valid against fusion.
Walt
Glenn Morton wrote:
> Walter wrote:
>
> >I had meant to ask what would the difference be if Fusion
> >rather than fission were used. I'd be surprised if a fair
> >analysis showed that fusion might be economically feasible
> >but fission was not.
> >
>
> Fusion is the big hope. in 1% of the world's deuterium lies 500,000 times
> more energy than will be burned by all fossil fuels combined. We have to
> solve the helium problem. The problem is, it doesn't work, we aren't doing
> enough research into it and thus I have no numbers for how much such a plant
> costs or how much energy it will produce to do an economic study.
>
> glenn
>
> see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
> for lots of creation/evolution information
> anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
> personal stories of struggle
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Nov 28 2002 - 17:03:23 EST