On Dec 5, 10:43*am, BobR wrote:
On Dec 5, 7:39*am, "HeyBub" wrote:





dpb wrote:
...

And, of course, to be fair, compare them to any alternative mechanism
of generating equivalent power to the grid at equivalent or lower
cost and reliability. *(HINT: *these life cycle studies were done
exhaustively years ago. *While absolute numbers on the $$ values will
change w/ inflation, the relative rankings won't. *Nuclear wins
overall owing to the much smaller volume of material handled as
compared to coal, on other materials costs owing to the low density
output of the alternative sources.)

Right. Ten years of fuel for a nuclear reactor can be transported in one
truck.

The coal required for one power station involves uncountably many railroad
cars, trudging for a thousand miles (e.g., Montana to Chicago), with the
attendant mishaps expected in mining and transporting such a huge amount of
stuff.

Your arguments are starting to sound like the age old question of
rather you perfer to be killed with a rifle shot or a cannon shot. *It
really doesn't make a damn bit of difference if the end result is "you
are dead".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I'm just wondering here. Do you live in a vacuum? Does the US? If
nukes are so bad, how is it that other countries get 70% of their
electric power from nukes today? And I'm not talking about some third
world country. I'm talking about France, which is supposed to be one
of the enlightened socialist utopia of the world. Clearly they have
only the highest regard for human life, safety and the environment of
the planet. So, how is it that they have nukes out the whazoo?