Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I'm not a big fan of nuclear energy, but it does seem that the "too expensive" argument is a bit circular. There is a basic (and high) cost to build the plant, mine the fuel, and dispose of the waste. But on top of that is a HUGE legal cost, and a HUGE schedule cost, due to the environmental approval process.

If there were an agreement that nuclear power is desirable, then planning and construction might be done at significantly lower cost.

by asdf on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 08:32:37 AM EST
In Canada, a nuclear plant can be up and running in five years.  Canadian plants are safe and environmentally acceptable.

New reactor designs for the US will have fewer pipes, be standardized, as they are in France.  This saves time and gives the Nuclear Regulatory Commission less of a headache when it comes to monitoring individual plants.

Every nuclear plant has to prove that it is environmentally safe.  The rigorous demands pay off.  The three nuclear plants in the path of Katrina had no problems.  Neither did nuclear plants on the coast of India in the path of the tsunami.

You cannot say the same of oil refineries or chemical plants.

by Plan9 on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 12:38:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series