Quote:
Originally Posted by ken0042
Did you even bother to read my post, or did you just see that I was against it and wanted to sling an insult at everybody who has a different opinion that you.
Once again, nuclear waste needs to be stored for much longer than 3 decades. If the first nuclear power plant opened in France 30 years ago, then the odds are it is still in operation. Meaning the revenue generated by that plant today pays for the containment costs from the 30 year old waste. What happens 200 years from now? Who pays for it then?
I look at what happened at Lynnview Ridge in SE Calgary. 60 or 70 years ago we assumed that we were acting safely, but as it turns out we were poisoning our environment. Fortunately the company resposible was still in business, so there was somebody to pay. But what if something like that were to happen with nuclear waste in the future; long after we are all gone.
I'm not saying that nuclear power should not exist. My issue is the legacy we leave for our kids and grandkids, etc. If the true costs of nuclear power were calculated to the end product, it would not be affordable. And by true costs, let's say the costs of storage and maintenance for the next 1000 years. Add those costs in, and then see who still wants to build one.
|
The only problem is, if we want to continue to live in our society, we need more power and wind/solar/biofuels will not be enough to substitute it. They WILL help greatly, but not substitute completely.
So - do you want to live with Oil and Natural Gas, which becomes more expensive every year. Or coal, which would be hazardous to the environment, even assuming Coal-to-Liquids technology is completed, the increase in CO2 would be considerable. And if Co2 sequestration technologies are put in place, the costs are very high.
Even the environmentalists who used to hate nuclear are converting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041401209.html