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.

Non-Tech : Alternative energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rock_nj who wrote (1097)	7/25/2004 10:44:51 AM
From: Stephen O	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16955

I totally disagree with you. Wind itself has been subsidized directly and how many wind towers will it take to replace a nuke? There was a recent report from Scotland about this. Find it by googling. How much steel in a wind tower with steel at record prices? Coal has gotten by in the past because the pollution scrubbers were never 100% and coal produces tons of CO2. Also a coal power plant produces more radiation than a nuke because the burning ofcoal releases minute amounts of Uranium into the air.

To: Rock_nj who wrote (1097)	7/26/2004 4:29:39 AM
From: JAPG	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 16955

Rock, The production costs of electricity for nuclear power is only one part of the total costs. You need to add the social costs of risks of a melt down, terrorists stealing radioactive material, dismantling a nuclear plant after its operating live, storing radioactive byproducts for 10000 years that no state wants to have in its backyard. Once you add these costs and come to the REAL total costs you will find that renewable energy --like wind energy --is cheap by comparison. Take care JAPG