|
Dear Rod,
I understand your reasoning perfectly.
I agree that the fusion advocates have been
misleading many people in order to get financial support for this R&D
work. Some of them are consciously aware of what they are doing, and many
are not - they are just enthusiastically optimistic.
The proper approach to deal with the energy problem
and the environmental concerns is for government and industry to spend much more
money on fission energy development and implementation, but as we know
there are social, political and economic barriers which are difficult to
overcome. I don't need to list them for you. Many of them are our
own doing.
Best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a good
Year 2003.
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 5:05
AM
Subject: Re: [cdn-nucl-l] U.S. Should
Rejoin Revised Fusion Energy Project
Why would we want to spend 2-3 times the current fission
research budget on
participating in a scientific effort billed as a future
energy solution when
there is not even a chance of producing
self-sustaining power during a ten
year program?
When are fusion
advocates going to correct the false impression that it runs
on common
hydrogen and not tritium and deuterium, two isotopes with far less
abundance than hydrogen?
I hate being a nay sayer, but fusion is a
pie in the sky diversion from the
very real problem of solving our
dependence on oil.
Has anyone else noticed the threat to world
prosperity that is represented by
a strike in Venezuela at the same time
as war is threatening in Iraq and the
people in Nigeria are increasingly
demanding changes in their treatment by
companies like Chevron?
Rod
Adams
_______________________________________________
cdn-nucl-l mailing
list
cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l
|