Originally Posted by
Kevin AA
I don't understand why we are still using oil or natural gas to generate electricity instead of nuclear power, which is cheaper and cleaner. It's like someone using whale oil to light the home because they're afraid of what to do with an incandescent light bulb when it goes out.
Combination of political headwinds and high capital cost. I agree that if we're to cut down on CO2 emissions, we need (at this point in our technological evolution) to embrace nuclear power. But people are scared of it, and because of that, the US gov't at least is hesitant to embrace it. Even France, which gets about 75% of its power from nukes, seems to be backing off.
Nuclear power was billed in the 1950s and 60s as a panacea of cheap, modern, clean electricity. While it's certainly the latter two, it hasn't proved as cheap as they thought. The breakeven power price for a nuke plant is heavily dependent on capital cost. I don't think there's been a nuke plant built in the US that came in at or under budget. But I do hear that the South Koreans are really good at building nuclear plants on time and on budget, so maybe we could stand to learn something from them.
Originally Posted by
WRCSolberg
Bingo. Global warming has not vindicated by science and is nothing more than a concept pushed upon the gullible sheep by those with an agenda for financial gain.
I'm not sure which "science" you're citing, but virtually all the peer-reviewed research is pretty clear that the planet is warming and anthropogenic emissions are the cause.