X-Message-Number: 20672
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 02:20:48 +0100 (MET)
From: Magnus Redin <>
Subject: Nuclear power.

Hi!

Yvan Bozonetti writes:
> They are not stupid: They burn 1 kwh from oil at a cost of 1 cent
> and get back 1 kwh of elctricity from nuclear, they can sell at 10
> cent.

1 litre of oil is about 10 kwh i heating value. Lets be nice and give
you the best assumption, that 1 litre of oil in heating value is
equivalent to 10 kwh of nuclear electricity according to your
suggestion. A 1000 MW reactor would then be equivalent to 100 m3 per
hour, 2400 m3 per day, about 70 000 m3 per month, 700 000 m3 for ten
months, about two supertankers. (You would need 2-3 times that ammount
to get the same ammount of electricity by feeding a conventional
powerplant. ) Now where is all that fuel used up in the nuclear fule
cycle if your suggestion is correct?

> Energy benefit = 0
> Money benefit = 9 cents.
> That is why nuclear power plants are good energy converter but not an energy 
> primary source.

Please give us some suggestions with rough figures about where this
vast ammount of oil is used. And the next question is why these
processes can not be run on nuclear electricity.

I am sure that our world will not collapse due to energy shortage
since we have both nuclear and solar power as possible very large
scale power sources.

This gets us slightly back to the lists topic. As I see it
preservation for an unlikely but non zero chance for some more life
and how to get favorable conditions for it and the technological
advancements needed for the preserved corpse to be more then a
historical biological sample.

This is an intresting list even when the debate is about if religions
should be opposed to get a more stable future or wich energy sources
are the best in the long term. People thinking about long time
stability and favorable conditions for scientific progress, that is a
very good thing.

Best regards,
     /Magnus Redin

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20672