On 26 November 2011 23:54, Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
A little deviation from the topic, a nuclear powered submarine of the US Navy can travel and stay submerged for 30 years without re-surfacing (As seen on TV). If we can harness similar technologies to run railway engines and ships and trucks for many years without re-fuelling it would be such a lovely thing. But we will have the nay sayers who will oppose nuclear technology completely instead of focussing on making it safer and more innovative.
Rony:
Do you know what it costs to run such a nuclear-powered submarine? Do you know what the health impact of such close proximity to a reactor is, on the sailors on board? Do you know how much the US spends on its military in a year? (hint: $680 billion in 2010, India's GDP is $1630 billion) Do you know that a submarine runs far away from nearest land mass, whereas a train runs through several urban centers? Do you know that several countries (developed world) do not allow US nuclear submarines anywhere near their coasts (Spain, for example)? Do you know that existing nuclear technology cannot be ever made safe in the way you want it to be? Do you know that the US is sitting on piles of nuclear waste, without a clue how to dispose it off? That it is willing to offer third-world countries $$$ just to buy it off? Do you know that the US nuclear industry is getting so much backlash from the home population that the only place they want to expand to is the developing world that can afford it (India, for example)?
If you did not know any of the above, please don't bring the nuclear issue to this discussion. It can be discussed separately and perhaps in another forum.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=presidential-commission-see...
Binand