Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

>> If solar power was economically feasible, we should see it account for a
>> significant percentage of at least some countries' energy needs, right?
>
> Since when does a traditional economic balance include all costs? Just
> because the costs someone has to pay out of his own pocket are smaller
> doesn't mean that the overall cost are really smaller. You need to come up
> with something better than that. Try figuring in the cost of maintaining
> and securing a waste site for just a thousand years and see where the
> economics are.

Figure in the value of energy that would be generated by the power stations 
over the course of 1000 years, and it doesn't look so bad. The amount of 
waste produced is small, and most of it can be recycled back into nuclear 
fuel using an existing technology.

>> Alas, it isn't so, despite the government subsidies.
> And try to see where nuclear energy would be without government subsidies.
> Probably non-existing.

Not true. The only reason new nuclear power plans are not profitable in the 
US, is because of government overregulation. They are profitable in France, 
thanks to their streamlined certification process.

Best regards,

Vitaliy 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist