The first half megawatt - Page 33

 On 4/6/2011 2:00 PM, Tom P wrote:

Yes, like nuclear power.


The utility.  Presumably a consortium.


The insurer.


Then we stick with coal.

I'm not a proponent of conventional nuclear as an end, but a means to an
end.  There are FEW choices: conventional nuclear, coal, LNG.  You
choose, Irwin M. Fletcher, but that's the menu.

Of those three, coal/LNG are the most cost effective, nuclear is the
most beneficial in terms of furthering Gen IV/LFTR technology which is
the PREFERRED longer-term nuclear power source, until fusion (or
equivalent) is achieved.  Renewables don't factor into this at all as a
baseload power supply, they are merely /supplemental/ to one of the
other three.

So, what is your choice?

Conventional nukes, coal, or LNG?

 

There are all sorts of subsidies, some more obvious than others. The fact
that nuclear doesn't need to pay for clean-up and compensation AFAIK, is
one.

 

That is one way to look at it. Another is that we live in a community and we
all should be happy to contribute something to the whole. Some are not
willing to voluntarily, they just want to take, so they need various other
incentitives rather than a sense of community.

 On 4/7/2011 1:33 AM, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:

You are advocating forcing people to do what you think is right.

 

Not at all. As long as they go quietly to court and to prison, (eventually
if they really are that obstinate), then no need for any force.