Comments on: U.S. nuclear hopes choked by low emission costs http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2010/05/20/u-s-nuclear-hopes-choked-by-low-emission-costs/ Mon, 26 Sep 2016 03:26:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Nereida http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2010/05/20/u-s-nuclear-hopes-choked-by-low-emission-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-2619 Mon, 24 May 2010 21:02:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/columns/?p=3126#comment-2619 Nuclear energy is almost clean if you compared it with the rest. The accident in Three Mile Island just caused financial costs nobody has beeing even hurt.
in the 50 years of the whole nuclear world industry no more than 100 people died. Compare it with the hundreds of people that died in the others energy industries.
We were induced to a mistake about nuclear energy.
the new book of James Lovelock helps in this issue.

]]>
By: Benny_Acosta http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2010/05/20/u-s-nuclear-hopes-choked-by-low-emission-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-2587 Fri, 21 May 2010 14:14:06 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/columns/?p=3126#comment-2587 We’ve moved beyond nuclear. Nuclear power is kind of like drilling for oil. It only takes one accident to mess EVERYTHING up. Given the risks involved. It’s not worth the effort or the costs. Then there’s the matter of storing the waste, which NO ONE wants anywhere near where they live. And I can’t say I blame anyone.

We have technology that allows us to produce crude oil from algae. We have solar technologies that are fast becoming more efficient and effective. We have wind generators and some of the windiest land on earth in the Midwest. We could produce bio fuels from hemp without touching our food sources.

There are MANY alternatives that are more effective and far less dangerous than nuclear fission. I personally have no confidence in the regulatory agencies that would oversee the nuclear industry. Look at how effective regulators have been in the oil industry. It’s just not worth it.

]]>
By: Avatar666 http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2010/05/20/u-s-nuclear-hopes-choked-by-low-emission-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-2584 Fri, 21 May 2010 12:58:26 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/columns/?p=3126#comment-2584 Face it. When the money in Big Oil starts to run out we’ll begin to get serious about alternative energy sources. Certainly not before then. Of course we will be in the middle of a created crises and have no other choice. Forget about the government doing anything more than the oil companies bidding (i.e., the “Energy Department” was created during the 1976 oil crises with a goal of getting the US off foreign oil.) They’ve done a great job, haven’t they? Oil & gas, as well as other fossil fuels will be good investments for years to come.

]]>
By: The1eyedman http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2010/05/20/u-s-nuclear-hopes-choked-by-low-emission-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-2561 Thu, 20 May 2010 23:20:50 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/columns/?p=3126#comment-2561 U.S. nuclear hopes choked by low emission costs!
The hydrocarbon producers are determined to keep not only the US but the world addicted to the supply and combustion of hydrocarbons, whether as solid, liquid or gas fuels.
They will have support, from a considerable number of sources, such as politicians, commercial operations, labor organizations, transport, etc., all of whom have a vested interest in keeping the addict hooked on their product.
After all abusing the world’s finite resources makes money and what can possible be more important than that.
Hence, the nuclear option as an energy source will face a long and painful uphill battle, until the public wake up to reality of global warming and are then prepared to vote for nuclear power generation and a transmission system to allow it to operate.

]]>