Nuclear --- From The Founder Of Greenpeace <HR style="COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041401209.html The time has come. Says the author: "Here's why: Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple." <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________
Sounds goods to me.The "founder of green peace" said this(???) ( O.K. no more big boobed/no bra dope smokin' hippie chicks for him): "But just because nuclear technology can be put to evil purposes is not an argument to ban its use.Over the past 20 years, one of the simplest tools -- the machete -- has been used to kill more than a million people in Africa, far more than were killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings combined. What are car bombs made of? Diesel oil, fertilizer and cars. If we banned everything that can be used to kill people, we would never have harnessed fire." Holy swine aviation batman things have changed:
My thoughts exactly. As much as we make fun of France, the one thing they do right is Nuclear power. If memory serves me correct, they have a surplus and sell a lot of electricity.
And with current technology, even the nuclear waste can be reprocessed and used again. If it's 'hot' in the nuclear sense, it can still be used to provide power. Even the "depleted Uranium" has it's uses.....
