From: jdemers@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM Announces Price Cuts on A4000/A1200
Date: 28 Jan 93 10:31:26 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <10619@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com>, peterk@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com (Dr. Peter Kittel, Commodore Germany) writes:
> Reply-To: cbmehq!cbmger!peterk@cbmvax.commodore.com
> Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
> Distribution: 
> Organization: Commodore Germany
> Keywords: 
> 
> In article <1993Jan26.162343.14030@fcom.cc.utah.edu> carl@jordan.utah.edu (Carl W Howard) writes:
>>In article <10583@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com> peterk@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com (Dr Peter Kittel Germany) writes:
>>
>>>ago. Thus also electricity is no solution either, as you have to produce
>>>it in powerstations that a) produce masses of carbon dioxide either, or
>>>b) are nuclear and will transform the whole world into Tchernobyl area
>>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>earlier or later.
>>
>>I don't believe fission is the ultimate answer to our energy problems, but your
>>statement above is ludicrous (IMHO).  Do you know anything about MODERN reactor
>>design (not Chernobyl) or do you just believe everything you hear in the media?
> 
> Well, I know about prototype reactors (already bigger ones) built here
> with "inherent safety", where the nuclear material was inclosed in
> graphite balls, all in a Helium gas stream for cooling, operating at very
> high temperatures. The conditions were set up in a way that when cooling
> failed also the conditions for fission get worse so that there theoretically
> never was a chance for a meltdown. Great theory. In practice, this reactor
> type indeed didn't melt, but also didn't work, it was defective practically
> all the time. They couldn't really control those graphite balls, they broke
> or even mysteriously vanished!
> 
>>BTW, I agree that harnessing energy from the sun is the ultimate goal for an
>>energy source, but for now nuclear power is one of the most environmentally
>>safe major sources of energy available today.
> 
> But don't forget the trouble with nuclear waste. I read enough stories
> about diverse companies in your country, and mine, and in Russia, how they
> do it wrong. And this aspect also breaks the concept of fusion reactors
> when they perhaps sometimes get ready producing energy. Also this type
> of reactors will generate huge streams of neutrons, contaminating all the
> material used in such a reactor. And the material will have to be exchanged
> very often, because it degrades fast in such a neutron flow.
> 
> For me, there are really only two ways for future energy politics:
> a) cut down drastically the waste of energy (saves perhaps 50 or even
> 80 %, I said *perhaps*!); b) solar energy.
> 
  If I remember correctly, Fast breeder reactors (still somewhat experimantal,
thus are not in use yet) will pretty much eliminate the waste probelm as most
of the radioactive waste will be proccessed and re-used. As for how dangerous
the waste is, I believe that the waste of coal fired power-plant is every bit
as radioactive, when you take the quantity of ash produced into account.  
Cherynble is a bad example of a nuclear disaster, mostly because it was
intentional, the engineers working there -deliberatly- removed all of the safeguards and were trying to
see how far to meltdown they could get. People should also realize that at
three mile Island they did pretty much everything wrong to stop the accident,
and look, the system worked, the people living near it only get about as much
radiation as a person living in L.A. does from the smog.
    -Jon Demers
> -- 
> Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel  // E-Mail to \\  Only my personal opinions...
> Commodore Frankfurt, Germany  \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
> Wer's nicht kann, soll's bleiben klopfen oder Steine lassen!