well i'm going to leave this thread for a while...
and i have just the quote to add here...
it comes from the environmentalists for nuclear power...
As a dedicated environmentalist, I consider it paradoxical to see some environmental groups opposed to nuclear energy. Green opposition to nuclear power plants is in fact a major historical mistake. Their announced concerns are for health, safety, and the protection of nature. In these respects nuclear power is by far superior to the alternatives - burning fossil fuels (coal, petroleum and gas) which pollute the atmosphere, wind turbines or the use of solar photovoltaic cells for the production of electricity, and biomass (growing crops to be burned and burning crop residues) which alter the landscape and produce only minute amounts of energy.
It is a fundamental fact that population growth and increasing standard of living are precipitating an energy crisis which is not being met, and which cannot be met in the long term, say in the lifetime of our children and grandchildren, without recourse to nuclear fission.
Well-designed, well-constructed, well-operated and well-maintained nuclear energy is very clean, safe, durable and economical.
It produces little carbon dioxide, and no sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides; these are produced in vast quantities when fossil fuels are burned, and they are injected (dumped) into the atmosphere.
Unlike solar cells, wind turbines and growing biomass which cover large areas, a nuclear power station is very compact; it occupies typically the area of a football stadium and its surrounding parking lots.
While a little carbon dioxide is emitted in construction (but the same can be said of windmills and photovoltaic cells), none is emitted in operation; thus nuclear power makes a minimum contribution to the greenhouse effect.
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...or-circuit.jpg
check the out flow of the nuclear process...
read the place the heated water is released from...
