Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Delacon
But the trainload of coal is cheaper than the reactor, by miles. It isn't the fuel cost, it is the whole equippage.

We have enough to last about 500 years. Seriously.

9 posted on 05/04/2008 5:07:05 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: JasonC

Well, I don’t have the stats but if we were talking actual costs of delivering say 1 million kilowats of electricity to a community by nuclear power versus coal power plants, I think they are pretty even. Someone correct me it I am wrong. Keep in mind that either one is charging exactly what the market will bear right now. A good indicator would be which one is turning a higher profit over all.


12 posted on 05/04/2008 5:13:22 PM PDT by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: JasonC
We have enough to last about 500 years. Seriously.

We have enough uranium to last thousands of years if we go with a breeder system like the French Super-Phenix and fuel re-processing.

14 posted on 05/04/2008 5:15:14 PM PDT by stboz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: JasonC

‘But the trainload of coal is cheaper than the reactor, by miles. It isn’t the fuel cost, it is the whole equippage.”

Only because of the roadblocks put up in front of nuclear energy. In the early 70s nuke plants cost a fraction of what they did 10 years later.


19 posted on 05/04/2008 5:25:50 PM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson