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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hdl who wrote (444401)	8/17/2003 8:58:11 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Respond to of 769670

Years ago, I'd say I would agree with the previously held French goal of 100% nuclear power. However, the two main issues, obviously, are security and environment. The environmental issues, I believe, are now less important than the issues of security. Not only security from direct attack, but, as the recent blackout pointed out, security from indirect attack. Apparently, there were nuclear plants in the blackout area that were being cooled by on-site generators. If those generators failed, it could have been another Chernobyl. A dual-pronged attack to knock out both the power grid and the on-site generators could have devastating impact. So, do we invest in nuclear power that is both environmentally 'safe' and physically secure? I believe we can, but not in a deregulated market. I do not trust deregulated energy companies to 'do the right thing'. What do you think?