I'm not sure how much of the "solar not nuclear" sticker on my head is coming from gut feelings (and enormous suspicion of govt and industry desperate to continue making a profit) rather than facts, so I'd better have a poke around for information. Lessee...
Greenpeace reckon that nuclear stations right now are producing less power than alternative sources, and building more stations would cost "trillions of dollars", with that money diverted away from the switchover to alternatives. (I can see that latter as a real risk - the tendency so far has been to procrastinate as much as possible. Get the nukes in place and govt and industry may just put their feet up for a few decades.)
Greenpeace also state the switch to nuclear would take decades and be more expensive than developing alternatives, and that a major barrier to those alternatives is govt subsidisation of "conventional" power generation.
Now if all that's true, it may be that even as an emergency stop-gap, nuclear power would be economically out-competed by alternative power.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 01:08 am (UTC)Greenpeace reckon that nuclear stations right now are producing less power than alternative sources, and building more stations would cost "trillions of dollars", with that money diverted away from the switchover to alternatives. (I can see that latter as a real risk - the tendency so far has been to procrastinate as much as possible. Get the nukes in place and govt and industry may just put their feet up for a few decades.)
Greenpeace also state the switch to nuclear would take decades and be more expensive than developing alternatives, and that a major barrier to those alternatives is govt subsidisation of "conventional" power generation.
Now if all that's true, it may be that even as an emergency stop-gap, nuclear power would be economically out-competed by alternative power.