On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Robert Holmes <rob...@holmesacosta.com>wrote:
> Yeah, greenest only if you ignore the environmental/human/dollar costs of > getting the uranium out of the ground and then you forget about that whole > messy decommissioning component (which usually relies on the assumption > that national government must ultimately underwrite/pick up the tab and is > therefore free)—R > I'd like to know the details here. Coal, Oil, Gas are all subsidized too. Also the "waste" material is becoming valuable, being used in new reactors as core covers producing radiation needed in the reaction. Don't get me wrong, there are lots of problems. But if we really are concerned about CO2, I believe nukes still are "cleanest". I'm also concerned that we are falling behind in nuke research, thus not discovering even more ways to make nukes more palatable. I'm also concerned that PC is trumping science. -- Owen
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
