How about these Reports on Nuclear?

[HowardE]

Since everyone here keeps uploading files that treat Nuclear Favorably, I figured that some documents to balance the discussion may be in order. How about these two?

Pretty interesting, if you ask me. If you don't agree, let's discuss them. I am all ears!

[Fedya Rovic]

Nothing like posting two documents, that have nothing to do with each other

One can possibly discuss the very one-sided conclusions in the UCS report, but whsat do you really want to discuss about the Nuclear Famine report? Seriously!

[HowardE]

Why do you think their conclusions are one-sided?

That's exactly what I'm talking about! Would you care telling the rest of us here what makes you think their conclusions are such? We can then possibly have a conversation about it, which is not what usually happens (you know... I'm right and you don't understand,... etc.)

You may not believe this, but I *want* to be a nuclear supporter. It's just that nobody has taken the time and committed the effort to explain to me *why* I should! It could be they don't think I will understand it, or something - I don't know.

[Helen22]

Why do you think their conclusions are one-sided?

Because all such industries are subsidized in some way shape or form, but the report singles out Nuclear as if it is somehow the only one. Do you think that the solar energy is subsidized? Have you heard of the solar energy companies that went bankrupt saddling the Feds with all their incentive/spacial loans over the past couple of years? How about the Wind Power industry? Do you think the oil and gas industry are subsidized, mainly in terms of multi-billion $ tax breaks?

That's why the report is one-sided. It starts with a pre-conceived notion and then does whatever it can to prove it.

[HowardE]

That's why the report is one-sided. It starts with a pre-conceived notion and then does whatever it can to prove it.

Wait, don't all reports work like that? Do you really think that researchers start writing a report thinking "Wherever it takes us"? Let's really talk about the substance of the reports, shall we?

Do you think that Nuclear would be a viable option, if it was not subsidized?

[Helen22]

Do you think that Nuclear would be a viable option, if it was not subsidized?

I think that it would be a *very* viable option, if it was decided upon on technical merit, instead of on politics and fear mongering by certain groups. When a nuke takes longer to build because of the extended regulations (more than any other industry) and is delayed 2 or 3 more years because of additional hearings trying to appease everyone, rather than looking at it pragmatically and not trying to prove that there is zero risk (no such thing), then the additional costs tend to skew its viability. Why is that so hard to understand?