🚀 go-pugleaf

"Landy" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:en6ms0$vd$1@news-02.connect.com.au: 

> 
> "Greg Locock" <greglocock@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message 
> news:Xns98A9E5F726E6777777777777777777777@211.29.133.50...
>> "Landy" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in news:en59h3$rh0$1@news-
>> 02.connect.com.au:
>>
>>>
>>> "David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.2000942a106031ce98a258@news.bigpond.com...
>>>> In article <en4jub$rl8$1@news-02.connect.com.au>,
>>>> dontemailme@all.com writes...
>>>>
>>>>> So tell me what's wrong with this form of energy as an alternative
>>>>> to coal?
>>>>
>>>> Isn't geothermal just another kind of nuclear energy?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well yes, but one is nuclear fission and the other is not.
>>
>>
>> Nope. Both are fission. Like it or not.
>>
>> There's nothing really wrong with geothermal. If it is cost effectve,
>> add it to the palette of alternatives. If not, not. But, conventional
>> nuclear should also be on that pallette, as should small amounts of
>> wind power, and
>> PV, once that becomes cost effective.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Greg Locock
> 
> Greg,
> You are only partly correct - a minor proportion of Uranium decays by 
> spontaneous fission.
> But the majority of heat produced by high-heat-production granites is 
> produced by
> other methods of decay  -  alpha decay

which is usually fission (splitting apart)

, beta decay

which is usually fission

 and electron
> capture - this includes most
> Uranium decay and all Thorium and Potassium decay.
> 
> I suggest you go and read up on it before correcting others.

Um, yes. Something like that.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/12/10_heat.shtml

etc

far more than the made-up numbers in other versions of your post