OT new nuke

Bill Gates got involved with this one. A real bargain at only

If the planet is in anywhere near as much jeopardy as most climate scientists say it it, we should be aggressively pursuing all solutions, including nuclear, but obviously that isn't happening. If Obama had put half that money that went to solar in his epic fail that resulted in about 100% bankruptcies into nuclear, they would be online now. And sleepy Joe, who was front and center for that epic fail just repeated the same thing.

I am not convinced the end to end cost of nukes makes them cheaper, they may be the most expensive plants but when running, they are arguably the cleanest and most reliable if they are properly sited and designed. The open issue is what we do with the used fuel. We are not talking about a lot of material but it is going to be dangerous for longer than man will be on the planet.

There is a solution for that problem , but it's not allowed . I believe they are called "fast breeder" reactors , and they convert what is now waste into more fuel ... or weapons grade plutonium and/or uranium .

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote

The french have proved that they are.

Nope. That was solved a long time ago now.

Nope. The most active stuff doesn't last long and the bulk of the fuel is no worse than what is dug out of the ground.

And it will be reprocessed into new fuel because very little of the original is actually consumed. Its just that currently its cheaper to dig up more uranium than to reprocess.

And fast breeders turn it into new fuel too.

Anyone hear anything about Thorium-based nuclear power?

"The operator of the plants, Exelon, said they were losing hundreds of millions of dollars and that nuclear can't compete with cheap natural gas"

(forget wind and solar, HA HA HA ! ! !)

--

Bob F snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote

Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.

Rod is going to have you in a paper bag soon. ;-)

Detroit?

Cindy Hamilton

Books & songs were written ..