On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:45:44 -0400, "Michael Lawson"
wrote:



"David" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 10:39:33 -0400, "Michael Lawson"
wrote:



Hydrogen fuel cells would be a nicer alternative, but
what is the long term impact? We don't know. Nuclear
power is a nice alternative to coal and gas fired power
plants, but no one wants to put up with the risks of it
(or the spent fuel).

--Mike L.


Nuclear would be fine if it weren't for all the petroterrorists
threatening to blow-up the spent-fuel rods.

All you have to say is "Chernobyl" to people
and their appetite for nuclear seems to dissipate.
Or Yucca Mountain. Or "where do we put the
spent fuel rods?"

As far as this stuff goes, nuclear is a great source
of energy, if done right. No matter what energy
source is chosen, there will be byproducts, because
you can't get something for nothing in this world. The
question has to be the following: what source of
energy is the best with the least amount of problems?
Of the usual suspects, given current technology,
nuclear is the best choice. That said, I don't see us
shutting down the coal fired plants anytime soon
and replacing them with nuclear reactors because
people are more scared of nuclear than coal, to be
honest.

--Mike L.


Coal power plants spread much more radiation than nuclear plants.

We will continue to burn coal until it kills us. The coal people own
the government.