[lbo-talk] catastrophy

[Wojtek S]

Jordan: "http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-04_ForgetNuclear
This non-technical summary article compares the cost, climate
protection potential, reliability, financial risk, market success,
deployment speed, and energy contribution of new nuclear power with
those of its low- or no-carbon competitors. It explains why soaring
taxpayer subsidies aren't attracting investors. Capitalists instead
favor climate-protecting competitors with less cost, construction
time, and financial risk. The nuclear industry claims it has no
serious rivals, let alone those competitors-which, however, already
outproduce nuclear power worldwide and are growing enormously faster."

[WS:] Thanks for this link.  He makes a good argument, especially that
I would like to believe in what he is saying.  My original point,
however, was slightly different - that nuclear is better than coal,
not that nuclear is better than "soft energy."  If "soft energy" can
replace coal power plant, as he is arguing, this would be of course
great, but not everyone agrees with this proposition, I am afraid.

I do not have enough background knowledge to decide between these
claims.  Furthermore, I am generally skeptical about "micro-solutions"
to macro problems (cf. the fiasco of the microfinance hype, or the
misguided belief that small business is a favorable alternative to
megacorps).  I understand that arguments of the "small is beautiful"
variety can get a lot of traction the in the US, but I would like to
hear from non-USers.

Wojtek