The US is looking at restarting its nukiller power programme again to cut pollution. The article gives a good bit of history to the issue.
Like the article says: “Nuclear power is not necessarily inherently unsafe,” says Stephen Smith, executive director of Southern Alliance to Clean Energy, which is against investing in nukes. “But it’s inherently unforgiving. If you make a mistake, it’s enormous.” -That's why it will never cut it as commercial -unsubsidized- power; it's simply not insurable cheaply enough -as the article notes. Notice too the things that are not factored in to the cheap quotes. The thing that gets me is at a time when terrorist threats are supposed to be top of the agenda, the US govt is thinking of investing billions in potential 'dirty bombs' many of them near population centres .... now there's got to be something wrong with that.
Nous like scouse or French -oui? We wee whee all the way ... to mind us a bunch of thunks. Too much information? How could that be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Christian England? Maybe not...
I've just read an interesting blog article from Paul Kingsnorth . I've responded to it elsewhere with regard to its consideration of...
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg
-
I've just had an article published on emergingchurch.info. It's an adaptation of some of my book, but I thought I'd share it and...
No comments:
Post a Comment