From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Fri Mar 22 2002 - 05:56:23 MST
My bet on this is derived from the WorldWatch Institute's analysis (1999),
indicates that fission is indeed, comparatively expensively. Therefore, power
generation will continue to come primarily from natural gas (methane) via gas
turbines. Perhaps much of this methane power ought to come from a variety of
sources, especially Russia; which at present, seems much more desirable then
OPEC nations.
Coal gasification is a very old technology, but also should be considered. It
is certainly not as low-carbon as either fission or natural gas. Perhaps a
technological advance might alter this?
Kai M. Becker noted:
<<All in all, nuclear power in Germany today is more expensive than old
fashioned carbon burning - or buying cheap (and unsafe) power from Czechia,
France or Russia. It's pure coincidence (and the magic of globalization),
that the commercial interests and the people's interests go into the same
direction. High risk technology has no good standing here. If the industry
in Europe will find the way to really modern and safe power technologies in
time remains to be seen.
Kai >>
If one has to wait for "magical technology", one will be waiting a very,
long, time.
<<P.S. IMHO, when we sum up all costs of fission based nuclear power
production, including everything necessary to minimize the risk of medium
to large accidents, theft of radioactive material, etc., this technology
will always be more expensive than lower risk technologies, simply because
the necessary man power and bureaucracy is much higher.
-- == Kai M. Becker == kmb@kai-m-becker.de == Bremen, Germany == "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced">>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:04 MST