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: Hawkmoon who wrote (15)	1/15/2001 9:53:27 PM
From: Snowshoe	Read Replies (1) of 312

>>In contrast to this, only a couple of nuclear plants account for 16% of California's power needs. That's TWO plants accounting for nearly 1/5 of the state's entire power needs.<< Even though you may feel it is safe, a significant section of the general public is very afraid of nuclear power. Three-Mile-Island, Chernobyl, and now the latest scare over depleted uranium munitions are not exactly good selling points. When was the last time a new nuke plant was permitted in the U.S.? I think the last great hope for nuclear is fusion, but it's a long ways a way. Meanwhile, wind power is breezing thru the permitting process and growing at a 40% annual world-wide rate. Here's an interesting fact: in Minnesota the PUC forced NSP (now merged with Xcel) to build 420MW of wind power as part of an agreement to allow NSP to keep its aging nuke plants running. That's why the Lake Benton installations got built. Anyway, I guess I've said my piece. If I want to keep discussing wind power I'll start a thread about it. My guess is that nuclear power will remain in limbo with no new plants, but a reluctance to shut down the existing plants.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next