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 : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Stephen O who wrote (3984)	4/20/2004 12:52:40 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Respond to of 37252

Yes, the mess remains in many sites. Yes it was created in a time when the longer term impacts might not have been realized, although I bet we can find evidence that enough science and common sense was known at the time to suggest the risks were known. Yes it needs to be cleaned up. Yes, new mines might well be operated more cleanly. No, I would not personally buy into a retirement community built on an old site. I can introduce you to a number of communities built atop other "landfills" that wish they'd never done that. Somehow the long term has a habit of biting us, we never "know enough" for the future. Yes, reactor sales in western countries came to a near stand still thanks to Three Mile Island. The risks suddenly outweighed the benefits. Yes, Nuclear Energy remains problematic and overly expensive even in rich countries (our own for example). Visited Bruce lately? Shall we sell more reactors to Pakistan? India? How about Iran or Iraq? Vancouver? Yes, Nuclear Energy has the promise of seemingly unlimited energy. No, the old problems of Nuclear Energy - storage of spent material for example, remain unsolved, at least from the perspective of a common sense long term view. Yes, nuclear proliferation and terrorism are expanding risks, not contracting risks. What's naive about these views? What is naive is assuming that the west, and the world in total, can continually increase its energy consumption rates without developing an increasing reliance on renewable sources. What is naive is assuming that we should all drive SUV's to the corner store for a pack of smokes, some milk, and some bread, and assume that our individual action is just that - individual, harming nothing. The nuclear industry would love to move forward, I'm not at all naive about that. Energy is going to become a crisis in the world at some point. As developing countries "want in" to the prosperity that abundant energy can deliver, usage will climb to near parabolic rates. eia.doe.gov Of course, price has a natural way of limiting such things - but in the rush to deliver cheap energy, I've no confidence at all that government and corporate interests will actually do the right thing for the long term future. Investing in quick-hit short term measures with long term downsides is naive in my opinion. I am not at all convinced that nuclear energy is anything but that. Those that do not learn from history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them...

To: Stephen O who wrote (3984)	4/20/2004 1:02:29 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37252

You might want to read the DOE 2004 energy forecast: eia.doe.gov The US appetite for nuclear power has not increased since 3MI. Their own security concerns are no doubt going to continue to put a lid on US-driven nuclear enthusiasm. Whether the O&G industry has undue control over political strings is a subject best left to the tin foil hat people- what remains true is that O&G and Coal are cheaper. Even renewables are projected to hold traction over nuclear power generation and that feels like common sense to me. eia.doe.gov High fossil fuel prices should accelerate renewable R&D and production investment. One can only hope that common sense prevails and that we don't let the nuclear industry run amok all over the developing world building new plants if only from a security perspective, not just a safety perspective.