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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (183609)	2/25/2004 2:10:10 PM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1573004

John Re...What's the time payback on a Nuclear power plant? The electricity consumer, obviously, pays for the construction. Of course they would, They would pay, with any type of electricity production. I surely hope you aren't trying to imply that solar costs less to build/ kwt. as reality is exactly the opposite. Nuclear is cheap, compared to coal, or natural gas; however nuclear is far more expensive than sunlight, unless the dems figure out how to tax the hell out of sunlight, after they run the rich out of the country. It is the infrastructure costs, of solar, which is its achilles heel, as solar is a low fuel cost, high infrastructure cost situation. Then there is the on-going maintenance and salaries for the workers, and I know you feel maintenance is a drop dead issue. While you said that as sarcasim, maintenance issues are important, for any type of electric production. Nuclear, right now, even with 20 yr., old plants, has been able to produce over 90% of the time; higher than even coal or natural gas. Doesn't it make more sense to reduce utility demand by putting the same about of investment into residential and commercial solar? Investment? No, Development funds? Yes. Solar could very well have a big future. It isn't here yet. Keep on perfecting the process, until solar is ready to compete. Who knows, maybe Zo's windshield wipers will be the answer; just kidding. Thus far, far more money has gone into nuclear, and maybe, just maybe that is why nuclear is further along. Build nuclear now, and keep on developing alternatives. Nuclear itself, likely will have a short time span, as fusion will almost certainly, will be the ultimate future. When? I have no idea. Heavy ion fusion looks promising,(unless even more promising, pie in the sky, cold fusion works out) but even that is at least 50 yrs away.