The Case for Nuclear Energy Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Case for Nuclear Energy

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: jlallen who wrote (7)	1/14/2001 4:14:31 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) of 312

Yes, actually I do given the current conversion factors and the costs involved. I'm all for passive solar and continuation of PURPA, which requires that utilities have to buy the power produced by small individual producers. But I'm not for subsidizing something that clearly provides a less effective solution than nuclear. I would be for subsidizing "clean coal" technology before Solar, at least until the efficiencies become compelling (75% conversion). But the problem is that "clean coal" is not clean. A 1 megawatt hour coal fired plant produces some tons of ash every minute, ash which must be carted away and buried, thus threatening our water tables every bit as much as environmentalists would falsely claim about nuclear. In contrast, a nuke produces about a cubic yard of radioactive waste every year. HOWEVER, 90% of that waste can be reprocessed and used again as reactor fuel. Unfortunately, the US govt closed down the only facility used to reprocess spent reactor waste. What I have my eyes on is Fusion. With such an unlimited source of relatively clean power, there is no limit to the amount of economic growth we could sustain. Regards, Ron

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next