[ExI] Nukes underground

[Gary Miller]

Tom said: 

>> You mean like project PACER tried to do, but slightly different?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACER  >>


My Response:

I'm sure their concept was much better refined and engineered than my
initial concept.

I had never heard of their project but it is very exciting that they
actually studied the feasibility of it.

But even though the idea didn't make sense based on 1970's energy costs, it
might make a lot of sense at 2010 energy costs.

And if we know our nuclear bombs have a fixed shelf life and we have to
replace them anyway, then using the bombs we have to make energy before they
are useless essentially makes them free doesn't it.  

And as long as we do not exceed the number and size of bombs agreed to in
our weapons treaties we are still maintaining nuclear parity and might even
help the Russian by buying some of theirs that are ready to expire.

I expect as we make further technological stride towards energy
self-sufficiency the oil producing countries are going to panic seeing their
only cash cow headed towards the barn door and start raising the cost per
barrel now to stockpile their loot before we manage to start decreasing our
petroleum imports.

But if modern day fission reactors are still more cost effective than Pacer
would be then I'd say we'd still be better off staying with proven nuclear
technology so long as we build them in places that make sense and require
states to allow us to haul the waste away to the geologically stable waste
site which we've already paid for.