agreed....
posted by Johnr: I would rather see emphasis placed on solar, wind (even if off Nantucket), and yes, in the words of our wordsmith President, Nucular
Power.
.................................................. .................................................. ....
to further that discussion.............
was reading : The U.S. nuclear-power industry has been stagnant for three decades; the last successfully completed reactor order was made back in the early 1970s. The 1979 Three Mile Island accident, and the far worse 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe, helped stop the industry in its tracks. Public confidence plunged; regulatory pressures, political opposition, and costs surged.
And by the 1990s, fossil fuels were cheap enough that nuclear power--"even with more-efficient designs"--wasn't worth pursuing.
but not any more........
build new plants, which would benefit from three decades' worth of technology advances in materials, sensors, and control software? Today's 104 operating U.S. nuclear power plants, after all, reflect the designs of the 1960s and the technologies of the 1970s.
final note:
that recent meltdown of our power system due to computer errors reflects the problem also. crappy technology that can be totally and completely re-done
same as all of the space shuttle designs.
|
Threaded Mode