🚀 go-pugleaf

�

Fred McGalliard wrote:

> codeman wrote:
> >
> > I might add that the most undesirable location (for me personally)
> > and most suitable for nuclear waste, would be downtown
> > New York City. I am sure there are a few million people who
> > would disagree with me on this so please don't flame me, I admit
> > defeat.
>
> But you are actually correct. The hot glass tubes could provide a lot
> of heat for winter without any direct power demands. Shut it up
> tight for the summer and it will be nice and hot by next winter. If
> the glass is sound there should be no radiation at all outside the
> shell, well, perhaps a small thermal neutron count, so it would be
> safer than firing up the old coal fired plant. Just don't tell em the
> source is nuclear.
> Say it's a free energy device.

A fuel rod that during its service life produced, let's say, ten megawatts of
heat, after ten years of retirement produces how much?

I believe it's something like three kilowatts.� This information
belongs on the web somewhere but I haven't seen it.

Beta- and alpha-active radionuclides radiating and turning into
stable ones certainly is a process with a negative delta 'G', where
'G' represents the free energy, so your spin would be truthful,
but would suppress important information.� Oil tax fanciers will
want to jump all over that.� They've got copyright on the practice.
�

---------------------------------------------------------------
$1 uranium = ca. $120 petroleum = ca. $85 natural gas.
Electricity? Hydrogen?� No, the indirect nukemobile runs
on the fifth element, ~boron~.� More at
http://members.xoom.com/I2M/boron_blast.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------
�