> Other than the nuclear waste issues..   Probably the best is Hydro Electric
> power but few areas have ideal places to set that up. Zero pollution and we
> have Hydro plants in Canada that have been running virtually unattended for so
> long that their output has to be converted from 25 cycle to 60 cycle power,
> something that was changed over to in the mid 1950's.

We have hydro plants in this area also.  There is one at the dam on Lake
Cumberland, Herrington Lake, and at the Falls of the Ohio.  There are
others but those are the three I am familiar with.

> Also, as far as nuclear goes, there are stations that can be built that are so
> efficient that they could use the waste from regular nuclear power plants to
> generate power, and Their waste is far less dangerous and lasts a fraction as
> long, but you won't find many of those simply because they cost more to build.

A few years back there was an episode of NOVA on PBS here in the states
that mentioned alternative nuclear power generators.  One had the ability
to turn itself off in the event that something went wrong (i.e. the
reaction itself would shut down so a Fukishima type event -- where the
"controls" lost power -- wouldn't happen).  Others, like you mentioned,
used nuclear waste to run reactions.  That is of interest to me as we have
a lot of waste from enrichment activies stored near Paducah.  That sounded
like a great way to get rid of it and make power also.

They also mentioned that there was a reactor brought online as part of an
experiment out in Idaho that was the type that would shut itself down.
They tested it and it was a success.  The one problem was that the test
happened the same week that Chernobyl happened, so no one cared.  

Mike


 * SLMR 2.1a * "Buck McCoy?!?  He was bigger than opium!"
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
 * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)