Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Politics : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epsteinbd who wrote (7429)	10/16/2001 11:01:05 AM
From: joseph krinsky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27666

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.