>What about nuclear? Aren't most its operating costs well known today? >Why aren't "we" (and by "we", I mean everyone, not just this list) >talking more about nuclear power in light of the oil spill?
Well, nuclear is a good replacement for coal and natural gas, and not so good of one for oil. It's a good source for electricity, which is responsible for about 40% of our electricity consumption. Oil is rarely used, now, to generate electricity, only a couple percent of our oil consumption is for that. Transportation dominates oil consumption, and using nuclear power for transportation requires a major breakthrough in energy storage. But, we certainly can replace coal with nuclear. The problem with the new nuclear designs are political, nuclear has special hoops to jump through that result in billions of dollars of cost for new designs. That's why what appears to be a much cheaper and safer design cannot get off the ground, they can't afford the bureaucracy. It's akin to affordable housing in California, if need be 50 year old 3 story buildings are declared historical landmarks to keep housing prices high. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
