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.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Larry S. who wrote (42020)	1/6/2013 9:36:51 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi Larry - "...we know how to build safe nuclear plants and that they would produce power at a lower cost than alternatives 24/7." True. Also true that we know how to build safe aircraft that can fly 24/7. But despite tight regulation with high standards of fabrication and operation, we still have accidents. While the outcome of aircraft accidents is often tragic, it's usually limited. Whereas with accidents at nuclear plants, damage can be widespread, catastrophic and long-lasting, far past the original event. Human error -- or a chain of errors -- is a recurring aspect of nuclear accidents and near-accidents. Then there's tons of dangerous radioactive waste for which we still have no safe storage: another danger. New nuclear technology (posted upstream) may assist with these problems. The point: nuclear doesn't forgive mistakes, and mistakes are inevitable. All forms of generation have a downside but generally speaking hydroelectric and renewable are the safest, with the smallest ecological footprint. Unfortunately renewable's great benefit is offset by cost, intermittency and the absence of cheap, efficient storage. --- We're leaving an era of abundance and entering a century of change. As we do opinions polarize and different factions form, each certain of the "right" way to go. Like you, I've long supported nuclear to fill the interim gap in generation until the world can adjust to new realities. However nuclear is an option, to be evaluated with others. Until matters stabilize in the distant future, each energy alternative will have a changing part to play. Like it or not there'll be contention and disagreement. We'll need a macro perspective, to step back, and understand the great difficulties humanity is trying to resolve. Jim