On Jun 14, 2006, at 5:16 PM, Paul Hill wrote:
Actually I meant that the cost of running a nuke plant is greater than the returns. i.e. the cost of Uranium, building & running (and decommissioning!?). Of course they are subsidised.
And that's when you assume that the cost to store the waste for the next few millennia is zero. When you factor in that cost, well, things really don't add up.
-- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
