eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (07/07/86)
<408@meccts.UUCP> <817@whuts.UUCP> <209@njitcccc.UUCP> <176@cci632.UUCP> > > This article is also being added to net.sci to insure that I'm not wildly > misinformed about Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) and Argon/Freon > properties. > (editing) > Actually, the pure costs (non-legal) of nukes has actually gone down, > even before inflation, but the legal costs have gone up exponentially. No, the non-legal costs have gone up. But it also gets harder to separate: e.g., are clean-up mops considered legal cost? > Not to mention the incedent reports every time there is even a trivial > problem in operation. If coal powered plants had to fill out the same > paperwork each time they were take off the grid, before they could get > back on the grid, the whole country would be running on five plants. No, but coal fired plants don't have fission products like Ba, Sr, Cs, etc. when they blow up. And they do blow up. (more editing) > >Third, and in my opinion one of the biggest problems, are the > >managers of these companies who constantly go for short term > >profit and ignore long term gains, as well as those managers > >who have no idea as to what they are managing. Ken and Rex: (re: bashing managers and PWR) hindsight is frequently 20/20. One of the biggest reasons we have PWRs is that back in the 1950/1960s, there was a great dirth of engineering expertise in any reactor technology. We (the US people) wanted clean power. The first source of engineering expertise came from the US Nuclear Navy, and power companies took people from the USN as airlines take miltary pilots. Their experience was all under PWR systems. This was probably a smart management move at the time. The problem was that the 1) the engineering has not been able to scale on all account, and 2) the relative rigidity of the USNN's position on PWRs which are probably fine for their needs, but could do with some updating. It's too easy to bash managers (profit vs. long-term). Don't forget that most power company managers started as engineers. All you have to do is write EPRI in Palo Alto. While I am a critic of certain aspects of the economics of nuclear power, I recognize the need for coherent argument. The following has very little to do with space (other than take up tracks on a disk), so round up the usual disclaimers. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center com'on do you trust Reply commands with all these different mailers? {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,tektronix,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
mvs@meccts.UUCP (07/10/86)
In article <1557@ames.UUCP> eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes: >> Actually, the pure costs (non-legal) of nukes has actually gone down, >> even before inflation, but the legal costs have gone up exponentially. > > No, the non-legal costs have gone up. But it also > gets harder to separate: e.g., are clean-up mops considered legal > cost? One article I read said it took about 5 years on the average to build a nuclear power plant in Japan. This is in a country which is much more earthquake prone then the US. In the US it takes somewhere like 15 years to build a nuclear power plant. It is the legal costs that have destroyed nuclear power in this country. Fortunately that hasn't happened in to many other countries. (Or they, like us, would be using more dangerous methods of producing power.) > No, but coal fired plants don't have fission products > like Ba, Sr, Cs, etc. when they blow up. And they do blow up. Name one nuclear power plant that has *ever* blown up. A nuclear power plant can never come close to ever getting a critical mass. A chemcial explosion followed by a fire is not blowing up. If you want to show that nuclear power is too dangerous, then simply show a power source that can produce the same amount of power with a lower cost in human life. Remember that coal emmissions kill an estimated 10-50 thousand people a year and that radon gas (which collects in tightly insulated homes) is suspected to cause up to 10 thousand cancers a year. -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs
joel@peora.UUCP (Joel Upchurch) (07/10/86)
>If you want to show that nuclear power is too dangerous, then simply >show a power source that can produce the same amount of power with a >lower cost in human life. Remember that coal emmissions kill an >estimated 10-50 thousand people a year and that radon gas (which >collects in tightly insulated homes) is suspected to cause up to 10 >thousand cancers a year. > >-- >Michael V. Stein >Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services I read a book that did an analysis like this a few years ago, "The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear". I don't recall the author's name. -- Joel Upchurch @ CONCURRENT Computer Corporation (A Perkin-Elmer Company) Southern Development Center 2486 Sand Lake Road/ Orlando, Florida 32809/ (305)850-1031 {decvax!ucf-cs, ihnp4!pesnta, vax135!petsd}!peora!joel
jmc@riccb.UUCP (Jeff McQuinn ) (07/11/86)
> > No, but coal fired plants don't have fission products > > like Ba, Sr, Cs, etc. when they blow up. And they do blow up. > > Name one nuclear power plant that has *ever* blown up. A nuclear > power plant can never come close to ever getting a critical mass. A > chemcial explosion followed by a fire is not blowing up. > > -- > Michael V. Stein > Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services I'm sorry to differ (especially since I've always been a staunch defender of nuclear power) but a steam or chemical explosion is 'blowing up'. What you mean is that it will not produce a nuclear explosion which is true however a steam or chemical explosion is capable of breaching containment and dispersing radionuclides to the envirnment. Case in point - Chernobyl. US reactor facilities have containment structures that can stand up to quite a lot but when you have explosions INSIDE the structure there is only so much you can do. I worked on a reactor facility at Argonne Nat. Labs where the containment structure was designed to withstand the detonation of 100 lbs of TNT at core center. We annually pumped the inside of the containment structure to 10 PSI for leak testing. Most structures fall down with 5 PSI on the outside. Three Mile Island officials were quite worried about hydrogen build up. Their calculations were showing that IF the temperature was high enough that hydrogen was disassociating from water in enough quantity to violate containment if ignited. Fortunately hydrogen wasn't forming but I can't believe it's not possible for it to happen. I guess the real problem for reactors is the risk vrs benefit factor. Since we had no real idea what the price to be paid is if the worst happens we have to assume total destruction of the area and a wasteland legacy for generations. If anything is to be learned from Chernobyl, it should be an accurate picture of the price to be paid when all hell breaks loose. I don't believe the price is as bad as the general public thinks (all though it is a heavy price). Jeff McQuinn just VAXing around
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (07/11/86)
>>If you want to show that nuclear power is too dangerous, then simply >>show a power source that can produce the same amount of power with a >>lower cost in human life. Remember that coal emmissions kill an >>estimated 10-50 thousand people a year and that radon gas (which >>collects in tightly insulated homes) is suspected to cause up to 10 >>thousand cancers a year. [Michael Stein] > >I read a book that did an analysis like this a few years ago, "The >Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear". I don't recall the author's >name. [Joel Upchurch] Petr Beckmann's book appeared about ten years ago. Most thoughtful opponents of nuclear power are familiar with his line of reasoning. I recently posted an article explaining some of the problems with this count-the-dead-bodies-per-megawatt-hour type of argument. So far I have seen no response. If we are going to have a battle of the books, have any of the pro-nukes read anything by Amory and Hunter Lovins, such as *Soft Energy Paths*, *Brittle Power*, and *Energy Unbound*? These are well informed and thoughtful discussions of energy policy which provide no aid and comfort to the nuclear advocates. Richard Carnes
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (07/12/86)
In article <2238@peora.UUCP> joel@peora.UUCP (Joel Upchurch) writes: > I read a book that did an analysis like this a few years > ago, "The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear". I don't > recall the author's name. Petr Beckmann, as I recall. By the way, here is the address of the company I previously mentioned that specializes in stocking books of interest to "friends of liberty". Unfortunately I couldn't find the above book in their current catalog, which is the one with the excellent summary of Ayn Rand and her philosophy, Objectivism, and a 2-page review of Barbara Branden's new biography of Miss Rand. Laissez Faire Books a division of Libertarian Review Foundation 532 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 phone (212)925-8992 Incidentally, I've read many of the books they offer and there are some I can recommend and some I can't. Get the catalog anyway if you care about freedom, philosophy, and current events.
mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) (07/13/86)
In article <708@riccb.UUCP> jmc@riccb.UUCP (Jeff McQuinn ) writes: >I'm sorry to differ (especially since I've always been a staunch defender >of nuclear power) but a steam or chemical explosion is 'blowing up'. >What you mean is that it will not produce a nuclear explosion which is true >however a steam or chemical explosion is capable of breaching containment >and dispersing radionuclides to the envirnment. Case in point - Chernobyl. I wanted to emphasize that there is no physical way for a plant to blow up like a nuclear bomb. Since Chernobyl had no containment dome, it didn't take much for it to start spewing its radioactive inventory into the environment. Nuclear plants in the US of course do of course have containment domes. >... Three Mile Island >officials were quite worried about hydrogen build up. Their calculations >were showing that IF the temperature was high enough that hydrogen was >disassociating from water in enough quantity to violate containment if >ignited. Fortunately hydrogen wasn't forming but I can't believe it's >not possible for it to happen. This is a misconception about Three Mile Island. I will quote from the "Staff Reports to the Presidents Commission on The Accident at Three Mile Island." During the period March 29 thru April 1 the NRC became concerned over the possibility of the hydrogen in the reactor vessel exploding and the damage that would result. ... The mechanism psotulated for oxygen formation was the radiolysis of water. Radiolytic decomposition of water always occurs in water reactors, both while they are operating and after they are shut down. Knowledge of this phenomenon and how to deal with it was evolved long ago and is discussed in detail in textbooks. The usual method (as in TMI-2) is to add hydrogen gas to the coolant to react with any oxygen produced and thus prevent its accumulation. Only 0.1 cubic centimeters of hydrogen per kilogram of water will suppress the formation of oxygen; the hydrogen concentration in the reactor coolant was about 200 times this level at TMI-2. No such explosion was possible. The TMI commission later concluded that the "The basis for the NRC's concern for an H2 O2 explosion in the reactor vessel apparently stemmed from their habitual assumption of worst cases rather than realistic estimates." The Argonne National Lab review of the disaster concluded, "Since the radiolysis of water has been studied for decades by radiation chemists, it is hard to understand why none of this country's outstanding radiation chemists were contacted..." >I guess the real problem for reactors is the risk vrs benefit factor. Since >we had no real idea what the price to be paid is if the worst happens we >have to assume total destruction of the area and a wasteland legacy for >generations. If anything is to be learned from Chernobyl, it should be an >accurate picture of the price to be paid when all hell breaks loose. It isn't hard to see that the old Russian graphite reactors like the ones at Chernobyl are a disaster just waiting to happen. From what I can tell, the power density of the Soviet graphite reactors is so high, that only continuos cooling prevents the temperature from rising to the ignition point of the graphite. (Someone correct me if I am wrong here.) There are many reasons that Russian reactors are now PWR. Yet again, the question isn't risk vs benefit - it is risk vs risk. "Is it safer to produce this power through nuclear plants, or through other means?" - should be the operative question. -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs
ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (07/13/86)
In article <519@gargoyle.UUCP>, carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: > > > >I read a book that did an analysis like this a few years ago, "The > >Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear". I don't recall the author's > >name. [Joel Upchurch] > > Petr Beckmann's book appeared about ten years ago. Most thoughtful > opponents of nuclear power are familiar with his line of reasoning. > I recently posted an article explaining some of the problems with > this count-the-dead-bodies-per-megawatt-hour type of argument. So > far I have seen no response. Don't worry, I'm writing one, but I hate writing long responses to items, it means I have to think. (:-> > > If we are going to have a battle of the books, have any of the > pro-nukes read anything by Amory and Hunter Lovins, such as *Soft > Energy Paths*, *Brittle Power*, and *Energy Unbound*? These are well > informed and thoughtful discussions of energy policy which provide no > aid and comfort to the nuclear advocates. Eh, most of my references are not books commonly available in bookstores. Most are articles taken from technical journals and from various reports, such as the TMI, Rassmussen, and Lewis reports. I don't know about those books but I remember reading parts of one by Barry Commoner in a bookstore one day. I loved how he equated the output of 100% of something with 110% of something. Then was his solar power street light. The expense of such a device would be ludicrious, and the inability to use it in so many places makes the device laughable. But all these so called soft energy paths are missing something very important. They all depend upon the utility company being able to supply power when more than about 3 days of sunless days occur. That means that the utilities still have to design their systems as though there were no such solar systems. And that would drive up the rates of electricity because the utilities still have to pay for the power capacity even though it isn't usually used. And if they don't provide the capacity, they will have to cut off most of the people using solar power after the third cloudy day, because the utilities won't have the needed capability. > Richard Carnes -- Kenneth Ng: Post office: NJIT - CCCC, Newark New Jersey 07102 uucp(for a while) ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!argus!ken soon uucp:ken@argus.cccc.njit.edu bitnet(prefered) ken@njitcccc.bitnet or ken@orion.bitnet soon bitnet: ken@orion.cccc.njit.edu (We are VERY slowly moving to RFC 920, kicking and screaming) Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical, that is the only planet in the federation that can make that claim" Savaak: "He's so....human" Spock: "No one is perfect"
ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (07/13/86)
In article <448@meccts.UUCP>, mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) writes: > > This is a misconception about Three Mile Island. I will quote > from the "Staff Reports to the Presidents Commission on The Accident at > Three Mile Island." Oh my god, you mean I'm not the only person who has read that report! Wow, I don't feel as lonely anymore. > Michael V. Stein > Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services -- Kenneth Ng: Post office: NJIT - CCCC, Newark New Jersey 07102 uucp(for a while) ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!argus!ken soon uucp:ken@argus.cccc.njit.edu bitnet(prefered) ken@njitcccc.bitnet or ken@orion.bitnet soon bitnet: ken@orion.cccc.njit.edu (We are VERY slowly moving to RFC 920, kicking and screaming) Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical, that is the only planet in the federation that can make that claim" Savaak: "He's so....human" Spock: "No one is perfect"
mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) (07/14/86)
In article <519@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >If we are going to have a battle of the books, have any of the >pro-nukes read anything by Amory and Hunter Lovins, such as *Soft >Energy Paths*, *Brittle Power*, and *Energy Unbound*? These are well >informed and thoughtful discussions of energy policy which provide no >aid and comfort to the nuclear advocates. A problem the "soft energy" advocates have is that they confuse the seperate issues of nuclear proliferation and nuclear power. This is a serious error and has been covered before. Lovins also assumes an advisarial stance toward nuclear power. What he doesn't seem to realize is that solar energy and nuclear power are partners. If solar energy is ever to be made economical, it will compete with oil - not with nuclear power. Oil fired electricity is several times as expensive as nuclear and is usually used to help meet peak loads during the day when the sun is shining. This is exactly when solar power could make a contribution. Solar could then someday assist nuclear and coal in meeting daily peaks. It will be a long while before solar will be cheap enough to accomplish that, and in fact the health risks from such a diversified energy source could even be greater then the health risks from coal. Already the deaths just from radon gas are working up to the deaths caused by coal. (Radon gas collects in all homes and is especially prevalent in tightly insulated "solar" homes.) Getting back to the issue at hand, let us remember that the debate is the safety of nuclear power. To do this we can't compare apples and oranges, we have to compare nuclear power with its alternatives. Right now the only alternatives to nuclear power are oil and coal. So, if you want to prove that nuclear power is too dangerous, simply show that the health risks from coal or oil are lower. -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (07/14/86)
[Michael Stein] >A problem the "soft energy" advocates have is that they confuse the >seperate issues of nuclear proliferation and nuclear power. What they do is point out the connections between the two issues. How do you think India got its bomb? It is absurd to claim there is no connection between nuclear power and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Do you mean to say you'd be perfectly happy to see Qaddhafi with nuclear reactors and Libya swarming with nuclear scientists and engineers? Or Khomeini or Assad or your favorite mad dictator? >(Radon gas collects in all homes and is especially >prevalent in tightly insulated "solar" homes.) Minor point here: Most of the new energy-efficient homes have a well-sealed basement and a vapor barrier inside masonry walls which blocks some of the radon. Some of them also have air-to-air heat exchangers which increase ventilation. I would like to recommend some salutary reading for dedicated pro-nukers: - *Nukespeak: The Selling of Nuclear Technology in America* by S. Hilgartner, R.C. Bell, and R. O'Connor; - *Nuclear America*, a recent book by a couple of historians (I forget their names); - *The Cult of the Atom: The Secret Papers of the AEC* by Daniel Ford; - *We Almost Lost Detroit* by John G. Fuller. This last is the story of the near-meltdown of the Fermi breeder in 1966. The title is no exaggeration. Richard Carnes
ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (07/16/86)
In article <524@gargoyle.UUCP>, carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: > [Michael Stein] > >A problem the "soft energy" advocates have is that they confuse the > >seperate issues of nuclear proliferation and nuclear power. > > What they do is point out the connections between the two issues. > How do you think India got its bomb? I believe I've already said how India got its nuclear weapon capability. Why do you continue to ignore it? To repeat, yet another time, India got its weapons capability by using RESEARCH reactors, which are far different than power reactors. Research reactors are designed far differently than power reactors. By ignoring my answer you are using the same technique as Ralph Nader used several years ago when he was shown proof that nuclear power plants could not have a nuclear explosion. Then at the next lecture he said that they would explode. > It is absurd to claim there is > no connection between nuclear power and the proliferation of nuclear > weapons. About the only main connection is the fact that they both use uranium or plutonium. By analogy, an ancient nerve gas is connected to salt. > Do you mean to say you'd be perfectly happy to see Qaddhafi > with nuclear reactors and Libya swarming with nuclear scientists and > engineers? Or Khomeini or Assad or your favorite mad dictator? Frankly I'd rather that they use nuclear explosives than conventional ones. Nuclear explosives are far larger, easier to detect, expensive, and less likely to go off correctly, than conventional explosives. Furthermore, a lot of conventional explosives is needed to set off a nuclear explosive, thus further depleting terrorist resources. And if they do use it we have the perfect excuse for blowing them off the map. (:-> > >(Radon gas collects in all homes and is especially > >prevalent in tightly insulated "solar" homes.) > Minor point here: Most of the new energy-efficient homes have a > well-sealed basement and a vapor barrier inside masonry walls which > blocks some of the radon. Some of them also have air-to-air heat > exchangers which increase ventilation. Just what are you talking about by "air-to-air heat exchangers" ? > > I would like to recommend some salutary reading for dedicated > pro-nukers: [editing] > - *We Almost Lost Detroit* by John G. Fuller. This last is the story > of the near-meltdown of the Fermi breeder in 1966. The title is no > exaggeration. The title of that book is such a joke its ridiculous. And the descriptions of various scenarios that he writes show that he does not know what he was talking about. Yes, I have read that book. And someone forgot to write "We Almost Lost New York", due to 2 massive oil fires. > > Richard Carnes References this time: none. -- Kenneth Ng: Post office: NJIT - CCCC, Newark New Jersey 07102 uucp(for a while) ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!argus!ken soon uucp:ken@argus.cccc.njit.edu bitnet(prefered) ken@njitcccc.bitnet or ken@orion.bitnet soon bitnet: ken@orion.cccc.njit.edu (We are VERY slowly moving to RFC 920, kicking and screaming) Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical, that is the only planet in the federation that can make that claim" Savaak: "He's so....human" Spock: "No one is perfect"
mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) (07/16/86)
In article <524@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >[Michael Stein] >>A problem the "soft energy" advocates have is that they confuse the >>seperate issues of nuclear proliferation and nuclear power. > >What they do is point out the connections between the two issues. >How do you think India got its bomb? It is absurd to claim there is >no connection between nuclear power and the proliferation of nuclear >weapons. Actually India is a good example of exactly what I am saying. India used reasearch reactors to produce its plutonium. Using research reactors is many, many times easier then using the spent fuel from an operating nuclear power plant. This is also what Iraq was trying to do when Israel bombed their research reactor. Again, this has little connection with nuclear power generation for electricity. -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs
rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (07/17/86)
In article <442@meccts.UUCP> mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) writes: >In article <1557@ames.UUCP> eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes: >>> Actually, the pure costs (non-legal) of nukes has actually gone down, >>> even before inflation, but the legal costs have gone up exponentially. >> >> No, the non-legal costs have gone up. But it also >> gets harder to separate: e.g., are clean-up mops considered legal >> cost? > >One article I read said it took about 5 years on the average to build >a nuclear power plant in Japan. This is in a country which is much >more earthquake prone then the US. In the US it takes somewhere like >15 years to build a nuclear power plant. It is the legal costs that >have destroyed nuclear power in this country. Fortunately that >hasn't happened in to many other countries. (Or they, like us, would be >using more dangerous methods of producing power.) Unfortunately, many other companies are not making attempts to make their nuclear plants safer. Chyrnobel(sp?) is one example of what can happen when people aren't encouraged to innovate toward safer plants. When incedents do happen, as they ultimately must in PWR plants where simple pressure and decay are critical factors, it only makes "anti-nuke advocates" say "see, we told you so". >Name one nuclear power plant that has *ever* blown up. A nuclear >power plant can never come close to ever getting a critical mass. A >chemcial explosion followed by a fire is not blowing up. As I recall, there was a nuclear waste dump in the U.S.S.R. that did explode. Note, this was not a plant, but a place where wastes were imprudently stored. The explosion was relatively trivial, not even as bad as Chyrnobel. >If you want to show that nuclear power is too dangerous, then simply >show a power source that can produce the same amount of power with a >lower cost in human life. Remember that coal emmissions kill an >estimated 10-50 thousand people a year and that radon gas (which >collects in tightly insulated homes) is suspected to cause up to 10 >thousand cancers a year. The original issue that raised this question was "why not solar, geothermal, wind, or tidal energy". As you point out, there is a problem of quantity, and reliability, in addition to cost. The reason this discussion was brought into net.sci however, was because the issue of how nuclear plants could be made safer came up. So, to put it simply: 1. Do you think nuclear plants are as safe as they could be? (me: no, the basic premise of most plants is pressure and heat, this might be OK if you replace the pipes every 10 years, but not if 1 set has to last 20-30 years.) 2. Do you think they could be made safe? (me: yes, if safety were a primary goal, they could be made safe) 3. Which plant(s) are the safest? (me: Ft. St. Vrain in Greely Colorado, is the safest, but could be safer). 4. How could one make them safer? (me: Use argon to convert neutron radiation to heat, use freon or some other non-radiation sensitive gas to retain heat. Sodium encased in concrete or ceramic, at least 1 layer all the way around, including underneath. Control rod mechanisms that drop before the pile gets too hot. Sodium at the base of the pile, sufficient to prevent melt-down. Coolant which is not temperature sensitive (or mimally so) to cool the pile reguardless of temprature or pressure. Several small piles/reactors rather than one large one. >Michael V. Stein Just as many elements such as silicon, gallium, arsenic, and boron have valuable electrical properties in certain combinations, so to do different elements have valuable nuclear properties. To simply use "pressurized water" because water is "cheap" is like using salt-water dimmers for home "light dimmers". Just as semiconductors can do a better and safer job of managing electricity, so too can certain combinations provide better management of nuclear power. Just because the first light bulb was created using burned cotton thread didn't mean all light bulbs had to be made with thread. Most of my suggestions come from other sources, such as nuclear physicists. I would love to see a "periodic table" of how each element is effected by nuclear radiation. Perhaps nuclear "batteries" or automotive engines would even be attractive if the right packaging were done :-).