[ RadSafe ] Nuclear Power in Saudi Arabia
sjd at swcp.com
Sun Aug 22 21:00:59 CDT 2010
Aug. 22, 2010
At 01:50 PM 8/22/2010, ROY HERREN wrote:
> Is your statement, "Solar costs can not really compete with
> nuclear power
>plant costs over the long haul", a fact or "just your opinion"? I too am an
>advocate for Nuclear Power, however I don't seem to recall a
>for the fuel and waste cycle costs for Solar, and to the best of my knowledge
>the decommissioning costs for Solar aren't even close to being
>comparable to the
>decommissioning costs of Nuclear Power. If we are going to have a
>the merits of a particular energy source I think that we should include the
>entire life-cycle costs. For instance, I can't believe that protesters are
>regularly complaining about the disposal of nuclear wastes while mountains of
>coal fly ash accumulate around the country.
I'm not certain of how to construe this. Taken at face
value, it's easy to believe that anti-nukers are bemoaning N-waste
while simultaneously being blissfully oblivious to the mountains of
fly ash. Anti-nuclearism is based on ideology, not science, and this
particular ideology sees only nuclear waste.
>It is also baffling that using coal
>emits more radioactivity in the form of radon and other isotopes in a typical
>year than Nuclear power emits, but there doen't appear to be a group
Same principle. Has anyone here ever attempted to point out
to an anti-nuker the higher rad emissions from a coal plant? If so,
what kind of answer did you receive?
>Then there is my pet peeve of mercury emissions from coal.
Mercury emissions from coal plants are insignificant.
>we put up with a lot of otherwise unacceptable conditions because coal is a
>legacy energy source. I don't think that we should fall into the lagacy trap
>when comparing Nuclear Power to Solar Power. Solar thermal holds
>and Solar electric has the potential to be a real game changer.
> Roy Herren
More information about the RadSafe