I'm not sure, may be a web error along the line somewhere,
but I also cannot download those files from google.
Or at least, I couldn't last night, I may try again later.
Why does Rexresearch sell the book?
Well probably because that's the way it's supposed to work:
you write a book, you sell it, others pay to get it.
What Google does is in fact illegal in many countries:
they simply move into a library and scan in all the books there,
even though just about all of those books have a copyright clause
and may not legally be copied and distributed without authorisation
of the authors or publishers.
Many books by foreign authors are simply copied by Google without
even attempting to get authorisation from the authors or their legal
heirs or representatives.
It's great advertising for Google, it is convenient for those who can now
easily get books they used to have to go borrow at the library or buy
at the shop.
It is however not a civil way to proceed, in many cases not actually legal,
and for the authors it is theft of their work and income.
And why would anyone want to build a nuclear reactor?
Well that's quite obvious, isn't it? For the energy.
Basically, we have radioactive materials in the earths soil that is there,
it is radioactive, and it decays. We can leave it there and not get
any usefull energy from it, which means it takes a very long time
before it has decayed enough to no longer be a radiation hazard.
Or we can take it out of the ground, put it in a reactor, and use some
of that radiation that is emitted anyway, to produce some usefull energy.
Afterward, we have the energy we collected, and some material
that is significantly less radioactive than before. We can put that back
in the earth where we found it, and we will now have removed some
of the naturally occurring radioactivity and turned it into a usefull form
of energy.
In a way, nuclear reactors only decrease the amount of radiation and
radioactive material on our planet.
A better question might be why not get our energy from this source?
Is it not better to remove potentially harmfull radiation from the planetary
system than to for example burn fuels that produce additional pollution?
Okay, unfortunately it is currently not yet feasible to construct latest generation
liquid metal reactors, especially not for the experimenter and home inventor,
so complete conversion of radioactive material to energy and non-radioactive
"waste" products is not possible at the moment. But the research is ongoing
and looks very promising, suggesting that within the next 50 years or so this
next generation liquid metal nuclear reactor technology will actually be
implemented on a larger scale, and when that happens the entire stockpile
of nuclear waste suddenly becomes nuclear fuel again...
Untill that time, "classic" style nuclear fission reactors are still quite a good
source of power that produces zero CO2 emissions.
Well, so much for my rant,
replies are most welcome
regards,
Koen