Declan, thanks for bringing your thoughts forth to engage in dialog. I’d like to go over your points, in order.

There is a huge supply of uranium. At present use rates, the supply is expected to last for over 600 years, based on geological surveys, at US$60 per pound of U3O8. At higher prices the supply is even greater. But advanced fuel cycles stretch the supply to thousands of years, while eliminating the long-lived actinides.

OK, nuclear is not a magic bullet. It does take considerable manufacturing and construction effort to build a nuclear power plant, almost as much as a comparably-sized wind farm, though much less than a comparably-sized photovoltaic facility. In the US, all commercial power plants are insured by insurance companies and by the owners. It is, in fact, the best-insured business in America. I don’t, of course, know what the situation is where you live.

Close calls are in the eye of the beholder. The argument for nuclear energy has never been that mistakes and accidents don’t happen. The argument always has been that there are enough safety provisions that it’s implausible that harm could come to any member of the public. And, after all these thousands of years of reactor operating experience, no harm ever has. That singular fact, unmatched by any other energy source, has to be significant. Furthermore, as experience grows, we can expect the risks to grow even smaller. It is entirely possible that no western reactor will ever cause harm to any member of the public.

I never would advise nationals of other countries how to deal with their energy problems. I would say, though, that Germany’s approach would not work here in the US. The idea of buying electricity at 50 cents per KWH when it suits the supplier and selling it at 20 cents per KWH whenever the customer demands it would never work here in the US, and in no way could it be considered sustainable.

I didn’t know about France’s sinking of ships. Certainly it’s not a good idea and I’d never countenance such a method of disposing of waste. Where can I learn more about it?

I 100% agree with you, and I think John does too, that there’s plenty of need for more renewable energy and conservation. Here in the US we are profligate in the way we use energy. Actually, the lifestyle is pretty good, but there’s room for greater efficiency. All this can do, though, is reduce consumption down to something nuclear along with renewables can handle. If nuclear energy isn’t maximized, then fossil-fuel use won’t be minimized.

Thanks for your food for thought. You raised some very good points.

I don’t know about the rest of BBN’s readers, but I’m personally not a big fan of returning to a hunter-gatherer society. I’m not addicted to fossil fuels, but I’ll be the first to admit that I’m addicted to the amenities of modern life and I don’t plan on changing that. Sure, Germany may use less energy per capita, but they have more rail per capital than we do, more shared infrastructure per capita, less driving per capita, etc. etc.

But you’re right. I’m all for reduction of America’s energy consumption needs. But even if we all cut our energy consumption by 50%, we’d still be hopelessly linked to energy in a way that our Green alternatives simply cannot cope with the for the foreseeable future.

I agree that I’d rather have America powered by wind/solar than nuclear, but that doesn’t change one indisputable fact: given the level of our wind/solar technology, even at full capacity of all our wind/solar/hydro, even with a 50% reduction in our energy needs, even with a radical reformation of our nation’s transportation infrastructure, we’d still need huge amounts of traditional power sources (fossil fuels or nuclear).

And when it comes down to it, nuclear is cleaner and safer, both in the short- and long-term, than fossil power.

Your arguement for Nuclear is weak and mis-informed.
Where does Uranium come form? This is another form of fossil fuel which will depleat in the same way as Coal and Oil. It is not a long term solution!

It is by no means a magic bullet, You obviously have no idea what it takes to build a nuclear power plant. The time and money involved means that nuclear power plants are underwritten by Government and not insurance companies!

Name a Nuclear power plant that is insured by a private company! There is none, why? would it be that the risks are far to great?

Yes the disaster in Chernobyl was as a result of Soviet incompetence, but did you realise that there has been a number of very close calls in Swedish power plants in recent years.

Germany is in the process of decommissioning all their plants! You fail to mention this! I think that Germany may be a better role model than France.

France have been known to put radioactive waste on ships and distroy them in international waters! Does this sound like a good idea to you!

The biggest problem in your part of the world is that you have been hooked on fossil fuels for so long that you have become an energy junky, this weaning process is beguining and not even nuclear can solve it in the short term!

Most countries are not maximising their use of safe renewable energy such as Wind, Solar, Wave, Hydro power. So on the production side it could be improved quite easily. On the conservation side, US consumers use 2-3 times more energy than the average German. Does the average US consumer have a better or worse lifestyle as a result?????

Food for thought!