On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:24:00 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
.. .

I have two concerns with nuclear.

1) We need a better alternative to the fate of spent fuel than
sweeping it under the rug.

2) It isn't cheap. I pay one utility bill to a fossil fuel(coal)
electric company and another to a nuclear fuel company. The nuclear
kwh is about 30% higher in cost than the fossil fuel.

It is a tough question, but one we are going to have to come to terms
with... I'm damn near willing to do anything to remove us from the
teat of arab oil.....


I am for nuclear power, but I am not sure I understand how it will help in
getting us off of oil.
Nuc power will reduce fossil fuel use but it is primarily coal I think.

Eisboch

Plentiful nuke electricity should make electric commuter cars more
viable than they currently are. I don't have figures, but I'll bet
that most gasoline goes to commuting/grocery-getting/short trips.
Don't know how much home/plant heating is done with oil, but that
can go electric.
Here I heat with NG. That is already becoming near as expensive as
electric. Some power companies are using NG to generate electricity,
increasing gas costs even more.
Coal is filthy and probably causes more death and destruction every
few years as Hiroshima, Nagasaki, TMI and Chernoybyl combined.
It could be burned cleaner, but scrubbing the gases would probably
make it more expensive than nukes.
Nukes are the future. Or dirty air, cold houses and very expensive
locomotion fuel. That's how I see it, anyway.
Save most of the gas/deisel for trucks, airplanes and boats.
And my car, of course. A few will of us will keep gas cars.

--Vic