Dear jim:
>
> Todd Rich wrote:
>
>>
>> His main concern was the plutonium extracted from
>> reprocessing. However it also represents additional
>> fuel instead of waste, and other countries are doing
>> it now. We've pretty much cut ourselves off at the
>> ankles and are forcing ourselves to use coal instead
>> to power our country.
>
> But isn't that argument a bit disingenuous? It is my
> understanding that there is nothing preventing the
> construction of nuclear reactors in the US.
Coal-fired plants go up in months, while nuclear reactors take years.
Investors simply choose to invest in Coal fired plants
> rather than nuclear.
Yes, because it makes profit sooner, many fewer permits, its radioactive waste is allowed to blow downwind, and the anti-nuke crowd doesn't seem to care.
Government regulations do have an effect on the cost -
> there is no doubt about that. For instance,
> requirements for heavy containment structures for
> nuclear reactors make the capital investment much
> larger than it would be for building a Chernobyl type
> structure.
Nah, its the "birth certificates" for every component and triple+ redundancy that carry the cost.
And sure the government regulations could be
> changed so that investment in fossil fuel infrastructure
> would also cost as much due to their long term
> negative consequences. And that is really the
> difference between the US and other countries. If
> there was a heavy carbon tax in the US as there
> is in many other countries then capital investment
> would naturally start to flow to nuclear energy.
Some. More would go to wind, solar, and power generation from waste too.
But right now there is not only not a tax in
> recognition of the long term negative consequences
> of carbon fuel use, the US government actually spends
> a huge amount of tax money from other sources
> subsidizing the use of carbon based fuels.
No need. Cite the coal fired plants for releasing radioactive materials and arsenic. That will shut them down.
David A. Smith