 Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon  the economics of nuclear power simply do not add up.
they only make money if there is huge public subsidies in their building and running and disposal. financially they just dont work. the real advantage of nuclear was during the arms race of the cold war. without that incentive there is no reason to do it. | Not only that but switching priority to nuclear merely replaces one environmental hazard with another; nuclear waste (among other things). I think it's really impractical to assume that there is a huge future in nuclear energy as 'cleaner' sources become in higher demand. France may have pretty clean air because of their nuclear energy capabilities, but through clever rebate and incentive programs, solar energy is one of the fastest growing energy enterprises in Germany and they will soon be primarily solar-based for all of their energy.
Surely, if Germany (hardly a place you would think of for their sunshine) can do it; so can we.
In the end I think it is impractical to assume that any one source will become our primary contributor to the same capacity that coal is today. I'm pretty sure it will be a collection of things including solar, wind, and nuclear. Who knows what we'll develop here. But what I do know is that there is no such thing as "clean coal". "If you want to achieve peace of mind and happiness, then have faith; if you want to be a disciple of truth, then search" -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72
Last edited by Katczinsky; 04-16-2008 at 03:26 PM.
| 
04-16-2008, 03:17 PM
Linear Mode
