RE: The reality of the situation [was: Energy shortage]

From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Tue Aug 26 2003 - 18:59:00 MDT

  • Next message: Emlyn O'regan: "RE: Energy shortage"

    Can we put that stuff into nuclear power plants and do something useful with
    it?

    Emlyn

    Robert wrote:
    > Just so you know the numbers (read em and weep (perhaps)).
    >
    > In terms of Enriched Uranium, the U.S. has 645 *tons*
    > while Russia has 1,050 tons. In terms of plutonium
    > (which can create smaller bombs), the U.S. has 100 tons
    > while Russia has 160 tons. According to my calculations
    > that translates into a potential for 194,000+ nuclear weapons.
    >
    > Please note that I am talking *tons*, while when one talks
    > nuclear weapons sizes one talks the vicinity of dozens (or less)
    > of "pounds" or "kg".
    >
    > The material is not allocated in a "maximal number of weapons"
    > pattern. (e.g. minimal weapon yield per quantity of weapons class
    > material -- so the probable number of weapons is lower due to
    > the desire to produce weapons of greater destructive power).
    > Also, much of the material is probably in storage as weapons are
    > dismantled. But make no mistake -- we (the U.S. and the Russians)
    > have significant capability to set humanity back for dozens to
    > hundreds of years should "something" happen -- perhaps long
    > enough to allow an asteroid or a gamma ray burst to wipe out
    > humanity entirely.
    >
    > Robert
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 26 2003 - 19:58:09 MDT