"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:31:10 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:


For the billions of dollars and significant effort that the government
spent in the last 40 years killing and avoiding nuclear energy, we could
have had a recovery process and had no energy problem today. Yet the
government is continuing to bury its head in the sand and promoting the
gimmicky sources of electricity like windmills, and other fanciful ideas
that will not work in the long run.

Oh please, the government hasn't killed nuclear energy, the economics of
nuclear energy killed it. Nuclear energy, if you include the capital
costs, is expensive. However, with carbon sequestration and other "clean
coal" costs, nuclear energy is becoming cost competitive. You do know,
31 new nuclear plants are in the pipeline, don't you? Doesn't say much
for your theory that the government is killing nuclear energy, does it?

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-lice...iles/expected-
new-rx-applications.pdf

The capitol costs are out of whack because of the government rules. 15-20
years to get all the approvals and build. Then you have to get a license to
run the plant. Can not get a license until after construction is finished.
One of the killers for Seabrook (i think that is the one). Cumo opposed the
license and the rate payers are still paying for a finished nuke plant that
never operated. Also a reason rates are inflated with nuclear.