I repeat, if you say "nuclear" I look around for my wallet
Why aren't there more nukes in the US?
The waste issue? nope.
The nuclear proliferation issue? nope.
The design? nope.
The radiation? nope.
Politics? nope again.
M-O-N-E-Y.
Did you know that Tokyo Electric had a minority share in the
proposed nuclear power plant in Texas? They pulled out:
MONEY. Who is going to go in there and plop down a few
hundred million to take their place? And how much time is it going
to take to re-assemble that financial package and what kinds of
reassurances are the new financiers going to need that this is a
safer design?
And with all of the inherent flaws in water cooled reactor design
being showcased by Fukushima, how many other investors are
having second thoughts? Why shouldn't we wait and invest in a
safer thorium design instead, say the shareholders? And how
many billion dollars will be added to the 8 billion dollar per nuke
pricetag after Fukushima? And exactly why should ratepayers
pay premium prices for those electrons when there are cheaper
alternatives out there?
Nukes are dead because they don't make financial sense, there
are much better ways to spend the energy dollar, and it's just a
bad idea whose time never came. Amory Lovins likened heating
water to 1200 degrees with radioactivity to turn a generator blade
akin to cutting butter with a chainsaw: overkill, plain and simple.
Oh, and by the way cosserat #14, it's not painful at all to admit
that my statement was about growth percentage not total energy
production percentage. My intention was clear if you read the
context, which was that folks are shifting their energy investment
dollars to renewables, not to nuclear or coal. It is you who is
laying on a misplaced meaning to my post that was never there in
the first place. But that's OK--I forgive you.
