In so far as there is an economic argument against nuclear power, I
think it is mostly related to the regulatory environment (long
construction delays add to cost like nothing else).
Electricity is not expensive in France.
As for nuclear proliferation, the USA, India and China all have nuclear
weapons, and whether they keep them or not, has virtually nothing to do
with their civilian nuclear programmes.
Part of the incentive package for North Korea was in fact the supply of
nuclear power plants to them, and what the rest of world does about its
nuclear power plants has virtually no connection with Irans/North
Korea's ability or desire to build nuclear weapons.
Based on French experience, it's quite feasible, and not economically
burdening, to replace most of the world's coal fired capacity in one to
two decades, and that's a very big cut at very modest effort, as coal
is mostly used for power generation and represents something like 40%
of emissions.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
