The debate wasn't really settled, it was a loaded debate. The government cooked the books, as far as costs.
If they had spent the money on coal technology that they spent on nuclear power, who knows how clean coal could be as a power source?
As far as solar, sure, the individual could have it at the home level, but they could have also built big plants in places like the arizona desert, maybe. Or getting real wild, maybe they could have looked into capturing and harnessing lightening, more use of wind power, geotherm power.
But that's all water over the dam, IMO they should just start phasing out the nukes, and forget about them.
It's not the question of whether the nuke power is dangerous, and do they think they have it under control, it's the consequences of an accident of massive proportions, when and if they're wrong. If a coal or a gas fired plant "blows up", big deal. It will be on line again probably within 6 months, and there's minimal damage to the surrounding area. If a nuke "blows up", it won't be back on line for at least 20 years, and the possible damage to the surrounding area is so massive, and for such a long time that it's just not worth the trouble. |
