On 6/3/2011 4:03 PM, Robatoy wrote:
....

If your task is keeping costs down on distribution, then it doesn't
matter where the MWs come from.

Well, basically the way we can do that is to control our power cost
which is to say, try to maintain the most effective generation option
possible.

If the decision to drain a lake through a turbine is 20 free MW's for
a year and then the damn thing goes dry, the lake that is, then cooler
heads must prevail. In that hypothetical scenario, you can't run lines
to a community with a guarantee to supply them.
So the supply has to have some robustness to it. Not only are we
talking about base-load, we are also looking at sustainability. The
steadiest, reliable base-load we have, here and below the border, is
nuclear. Fact.

Well, that sorta' thing is patently obvious--which is my rant against
natural gas for central generation except for very unusual circumstances.

And B), yes. Only (or at least the major) problem there is politics and
paranoia here (as I suspect it is there).

....

We can't afford NOT to go nuclear.

Amen, brother; preaching to choir there...

Altho I am not at all opposed to coal; mines don't _necessarily_
collapse and it's really other than nuclear by far the most plentiful
and suitable fuel for the purpose. Certainly taking it off the table in
the US isn't having nor will it have any effect on the Chinese and
Indians nor most of the rest of the developing world so its a fools
errand to think one is carrying the water for some other agenda by doing so.

Adios from south of the border ...

--