🚀 go-pugleaf

�

Dogknees wrote:

> Don Libby <no.spam@tds.net> wrote in message
> news:393EC284.C1580A2D@tds.net...
> > "D.A.Kopf" wrote:
> > >
> > > One likely datum we would probably both stipulate: nuclear fission will
> never
> > > provide a sustainable energy source for mankind.
> >
> > ???� It is already providing a sustainable energy source for mankind.
> > Nuclear fission is sustainable for hundreds or thousands of years.� A
> > large increase in the number of nuclear power plants can be expected
> > beginning twenty to fifty years from now.
>
> Sustainable for geological periods (millions-billions of years)?

The energy in uranium and thorium is large compared to the
energy to extract them from dilute ores, even seawater,
although the whole ocean contains less than a cubic mile of uranium
and virtually no thorium.� This is an energy reserve equivalent
to at least 100 trillion barrels of oil.� Here is a very accessible
summary of a B.L. Cohen paper, by the irreplaceable John McCarthy:

���� http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html
�

But hardly any of either the world's uranium
or its thorium is in water.� Most of it is in rocks.
Read "World Uranium Resources", by Kenneth S. Deffeyes and
Ian D. MacGregor, Scientific American January 1980.

Also read my proposal (below) for how fission energy,
or any sustainable energy, can come to a vehicle's drive wheels
in a form very much safer than today's liquid and gaseous fuels.

---------------------------------------------------------------
$1 uranium = ca. $124 petroleum = ca. $111 natural gas.
Electricity? Hydrogen?�No, the indirect nukemobile power-taps
distant reactors through the fifth element, ~boron~.� More at
http://members.xoom.com/I2M/boron_blast.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------
�