> 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.
>
>
But you do this a lot, Chuck wasn't talking about coal... much less coal vs.
nuclear... in fact, he didn't mention alternatives at all but he did mention
the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, built right on top of the San Andreas
fault, right on the coast... in double fact, Chuck didn't even imply that
his concern was associated with personally being downwind.
So what you did was construct a complete a total straw man, name it Chuck
and others like him, and savage it in the name of technophilic Progressive
expertise and implicit proposals that the only real problem is that we can't
get energy businesses to listen to you brilliant Progressives. If you'd
asked Chuck about coal I bet he'd agree with the idea that its a total,
complete and devastatingly chronic ecological, health and social disaster...