Proven fact, multiple studies of cost effectiveness and safety analysis.
Nukular is the way to go, leave that NG in the ground, close those pipelines, and put those NG death-mongers out of business and into jail where they belong!
Its too late for nuclear to become a major energy source.
Regulations, environmentalists, ecological studies.
Cost to build in multi-billions up front with no regulatory relief until plant completed. Cost overruns eaten by the utility because activist rate payors raise holy hell like at Rancho Seco years ago when PGE asked for a big rate increase before Rancho Seco was even on line.
The fact is from a raw economic standpoint that coal powered plants have NG capabilities and can easily convert based upon price differentials and provide cheaper power than nuclear can ever become.
FERDI.: Not to be argumentative, but what do you do when Nat Gas supplies decrease or run low.--Nat gas is still a "finite" resource.
Much of what you say is correct but how long will the supply last if we increase usage as you suggest?
In the end we need an inexhaustible source of energy and at present nuclear is the only source that fits that definition.
Life is always a series of choices weighing risk/reward. This is just another such choice.
Can you remember CHERNOBLE ???
Nuclear is only the cleanest fuel if there are absolutely NO mistakes, NO terrorist attacks, NO spills, clean transport, etc etc.
And just how "clean" is "clean"??
When nuclear material is being transported to Yucca (if it eventually goes there) do you want the transport vehicle (truck or train - probably) to go through your town? Can the operators sufficiently insulate and/or clean up the transport vehicle to the extent that, if it rains as the vehicle goes through your town, there will be absolutely NO remaining radioactive residue such that some small amount will not wash off onto the streets or rail tracks that you have to drive over?
These are but a few of the issues involved. In the case of Chernoble it is my understanding that there are now hundreds of square miles surrounding that facility that are off limits or at least still hazardous.
Nuclear is known to cause cancer and birth defects. Once the rabbit (radioactive material) is "out of the hat" it cannot be put back. It will stay in the environment for hundreds of thousands of years and will be very hard to contain from where it lies. In other words, it can also spread to nearby areas as well.
Oh yeah . . . one more thing: Can we really trust the nuclear industry to tell us the truth about emissions and levels of material being released.
I think that on final analysis, nuclear could also be seen as the dirtiest of all fuels (by a wide margin).
I have been on the nuclear power grid my entire adult life. First, Monticello MN and only one accident that I remember, secondly, Prairie Island near Red Wing MN and no accidents that I remember. Our electricity is cheap and people that have lived around the plants all of their lives don't fear nuclear plants at all. In my opinion it's the storage that is the issue. Also, nat gas can be used for transportation I would hate to have cars and trucks going down the road powered by nuclear power. I also suspect that coal plants will be converter to nat gas that is one of the reasons I own this stock.
I suspect you trust only those you trust.
Chernoble was a badly designed and operated facility. If that weren't true, facilities throughout the world would have been shut down and/or revamped.
You'd better work on getting all the coal plants first, they can emit nuclear too. Also, outlaw briefs, everyone use boxer underwear or you may affect your children genetically worse than nuclear.
Perhaps we should reprocess nuclear waste as other countries do, then we'd have less nuclear to worry about.
Kidding aside, there are risks to living and progressing. It makes more sense to me to make decisions after considering all the effects and ramifications. I didn't think I referred to nuclear as clean, these things are relative. Heated effluents from cooling water has what some might call a non clean effect, and there are others. Please consider the Three Mile nuclear accident, and the lack of effects from that, rather than Chernoble. Natural gas is a great fuel with many benefits, but there have been related accidents. I'll not post more on this issue since it seems gone off topic.
Let's be realistic.---Coal is very dirty!
Oil is not only dirty but we have verey little supply left.
Nat. gas is reasonably clean. While the supply seems to be plentiful at the monent, such general use as is being proposed will exhaust the supply much sooner than is forcast.
Wind is unreliable and we do not have the required grid.
WE MUST REMOVE THE EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS AND FACE THE REALITIES OF OUR NEEDS.
NUCLEAR IS THE ONLY RATIONAL ANSWER.--France generates 80% of their energy from nuclear plants--NO ACCIDENTS---We must face the realities of energy use and prepare NOW for future needs.
We better start soon since it takes a long time between planning and completion.
I live in NV now. I believe Yucca should be used to dispose of nuclear waste. I believe in the safety o nuclear.
But let's be realistic. Unfortunately, one incident at 3 Mile Island destroyed the nuclear possibility.
John Podesta on CNBC talked about NG as a transition fuel to greener energy. He talked about being able to retrofit buses and transportation to NG much quicker than other alternatives.
The translation is that NG will be the go to cleanest fuel for the next many many years.
Synfuels program in the 70s imploded and left us with ethanol which is a complete bust nationally.