Russell McMahon wrote: > My $0.02 worth: > > We've had this discussion before :-). Even if the core system is cost effective, and it's by no means sure that it would be in a genuinely free market, the rotating squads of marines, the rapid response tactical team on permanent standby, amortization on the black helicopters, and the ongoing covert surveillance, makes it decidedly economically unattractive. And even the softball sized thingy assumes an unimaginable attraction for some. Especially if you can acquire a number of them. ========= The biggest obstacle is people's irrational fear of nuclear power. IMO in a "genuinely free market" folks with a business interest in nuclear power would have had the incentive to spend the money to educate the public about it, to explain why rotating squads of marines, black helicopters, etc etc are unnecessary. The point is that looked at rationally, nuclear is far far safer than a lot of other things which are stored in warehouses and protected by nothing more than a padlock (fertilizer comes to mind). Any way you look at it, Chernobyl was a much smaller disaster than Bhopal. Russell, if you haven't already, I highly recommend you read Cohen's "The Nuclear Energy Option". It's available for free on the internet, and I would be happy to even send you a hard copy (I happen to have an extra one). Vitaliy -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist