T.Alan Kraus wrote:

The problem is with the Rock generation that's bringing us closer to the
stone age and is so adamantly scared of nuclear power, that they will resist
building power plants until they are all replaced by the next generation.
The job would be to start educating our grandchildren and removing the scary
nuke fantasy from their brains now.

cheerst
T.Alan

"Todd Rich" wrote in message
...


What we need is about another 200 nuclear power plants built with new
modern intrinsically safe designs. Which will let us stop burning so much
coal that is currently putting 2000 tons of uranium and thorium in the
air. Then we can use the excess power generation to crack water to
produce hydrogen to fuel cars and other vehicles.

Net results: Pollution dramatically down, reliance of foregin oil almost
gone.

Could probably be done in 10 years or less and save the country billions
of dollars.






The problem is that nuclear power plants are another huge subsidy to
corporations as well as a way to bilk investors (look up WPPSS). Just a
paragraph from one site:

Several factors combined to ruin construction schedules and to drive
costs to three and four times the original estimates. Inflation and
design changes constantly plagued all the projects. Builders often got
ahead of designers who modified their drawings to conform to what had
been built. Safety changes imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
increased costs too, but the biggest cause of delays and overruns was
mismanagement of the process by the WPPSS. The directors and the
managers of the system had no experience in nuclear engineering or in
projects of this scale. System managers were unable to develop a unified
and comprehensive means of choosing, directing, and supervising
contractors. One contractor, already shown to be incompetent, was
retained for more work. In a well-publicized example, a pipe hanger was
built and rebuilt 17 times. Quality control inspectors complained of
inadequate work that went unaddressed.

Nuclear itself is probably a good way to go if waste disposal problems
and such can be addressed. The real problem with our whole energy
policy is that it relies on massive scale at a source-point rather than
comprehensive sourcing at localities. Investments into smaller scale
localized energy sourcing as well as efficiency technologies would be
FAR better in the long run than massive subsidies to keep old
technologies profitable. If this means bio-diesel on a more localized
scale of sourcing and production, "mini" nuclear, wind technologies,
localized water cracking, or something we haven't even envisioned yet,
it would still be a better energy policy than continuing to subsidize
oil companies to suck wherever they want. Last I heard, in the Midwest
it was cheaper to buy every (coal based) electricity user a new energy
efficient refrigerator than it was to increase capacity to cover
continued use of older refrigerators (and use growth). They opted to
increase capacity instead and bilked consumers for the costs.

Drilling in ANWAR is just stupid policy because it doesn't accomplish
anything except keeping current technologies profitable for another
couple of years. It's typical short-sighted policy of both the
Democrats and Republicans. Short term profits before long term
sensibility (just like the American busness model). There is no gain to
the American public, only a gain in temporary profits to already large
and profitable corporations.


Koz