tarheel91 on 23 May 2008
| largedarryl said: I don't think it's a very good idea to go and replace all the old coal reactors (nuclear is still far cheaper than any other power generation) They are currently building new coal power plants all the time, when they could be building fewer nuclear power plants. Since you can admit you are not really familiar with present day nuclear power, there have been more than 50 years of technological progress since the "dangerous" power plants were constructed. Current power plants are incapable of meltdown due to the way the nuclear reactions takes place. I'm still really bothered by the amount of misinformation and fear-mongering that occurred during the cold war days, and how much of that carried over today. The unfortunate problem with fusion reactors is even if the tests go good in France, the actual implementation of such a power plant is still 15+ years away. |
Um, wrong, nuclear energy is one of the most expensive ways to produce power. Granted, if you look at just the price of uranium and using it, it's pretty cheap. However, you can't ignore the massive cost of constructing and maintaining a nuclear power plant along with transporting all the necessary materials and storing the radioactive waste. It's more expensive than coal and oil currently (I'm taking this straight out of Living in the Environment, Twelth Edition). If it wasn't for government funding and subsidies, no nuclear power plants would have succeeded economically. There's a reason no new nuclear power plants have been ordered in the United states since 1978.
