"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
. com...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"charlesb"
writes:

Keep in mind the fact that fossil-fuel burning plants pollute while
working
perfectly.

Yup. So do nuclear plants. The pollution in each case is different,
of
course.
Nuke plants generate various forms of radioactive waste that will
remain
hazardous for far longer than anyone realistically knows how to deal
with.

Unlike the nuclear plants, they don't have to wait for an
accident in order to cause a problem.

But when a nuke plant has a problem, it's a BIG problem!

73 de Jim, N2EY


Yep, my point exactly. And, waste generation and facilitation is a
part
of
the equation I completely forgot to even include in the debate. And,
it's
a
very important part of the issue.

Suffice it to say that no one will ever convince me that nuclear
generation
is a cost/environmental/health effective way for our power needs. It
will
never happen to be that nuclear generation is the way to go...and the
industry recognizes that as well. No new nuclear power generation is
planned, 'least not that I know of...


Because they are blocked on every hand by people who operate on emotions
rather data.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


See my reply to Clint, Dee. Nuclear power is bad ecnomics.

Kim W5TIT



See my comments to your reply. Are coal, oil, and hydro also bad economics.
California won't allow any of them to be built either.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE