Comment 40559

By Mike Koning (anonymous) | Posted May 07, 2010 at 17:56:59

Thanks, Andrew, for a well-written article.
It's clear that we need to be cautious and realize that reactors are not indefinite power-producers. While we were all worried that nuclear proliferation would mean more and more stockpiled weapons, it turns out that it meant the application of commercial reactors. It seems to me that you're arguing that, while nuclear power seems cheap to produce, the startup, shutdown and waste management costs mean that it's really much more costly than it appears.

However, it seems to me that nuclear power will always be more environmentally and therefore, in the long-run, economically friendly. Perhaps I'm putting too much hope in the future, but I'd like to see a day when vehicles are primarily electric and fossil-fuel power plants are obsolete. Sure, Uranium prices will inevitably increase, but oil will never be cheaper, either.

What I'd like hear from you, then, is this: you conclude that "accidents and errors" are the main source of worry for nuclear power. Do you believe that nuclear power is still the best way to go? I agree that people need to reevaluate their distinctions between ICBM and dirty bomb scares and meltdowns or leaks at nuclear reactors. Are you writing simply to encourage awareness, or do you think that something should be changed?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds