Outstanding observation but a tad more research is in order. Nukes DO NOT have an infinite life span. Construction cost - astronomical and one error can be failure - before it ever gets on line. Vermont Yankee is one of the older U.S. operations and has undergone a few refurbishments - each time this happens - it shuts. So do all the rest.
The second problem is what to do with the hazardous waste? The government solved this years ago, but the prospect of transport is a yet.
Along with the positive - there comes a lot of negative.

France has a standard nuclear plant design.

The us lets each plant be designed by a political croney-so they cost more to design and build and not similar.

Then we have osha and epa-and of course the coal lobby! What costs France $1 costs the us taxpayer and electricity customer $1000!

Build a neuc plant in foggy bottom and let it melt down!

On Modern Marvels (history channel), in 1995 a fusion reactor achieved for a fraction of a second 900 million degrees farenheit(world record). And at a lower temperature for about 5 seconds a reaction was recently demonstrated. Fusion research is really far along. In forty years they expect to make great strides towards fusion power. Much more energy than an atomic power plant. Black holes have temperatures in the billions of degrees farenheit(They're now pretty sure that all Galatic suns have black holes in them and maybe bigger stars). I've read that H-bombs achieve temperatures upto 150 million degrees farenheit. The uranium atomic bomb that hit hiroshima achieved a temperature of 1.8 million degrees farenheit(History channel). A car engine gets upto about 2400 degrees farenheit.


Plasma torches have been developed that get upto 100,000 degrees farenheit.

I can't believe anyone would want to have a reactor meltdown but Mike Young would. Apparently the terror of Three Mile Island has been forgotten. Nuclear power plants are not designed by political cronies. They're designed by G.E. and Westinghouse. Both these companies have advanced and standardized designs ready to build. The question is one of liability for the spent reactor fuel. France reprocesses spent fuel-we do not. This is not to say France doesn't have radioactive waste: they do. We store our waste in temporary fuel pools on-site or in above-ground dry storage casks. Neither of these methods is a permanent solution. Storing it under Yucca mountain is not a solution either. This fuel will be hot long after an earthquake breaks open the containers. The problem of spent fuel is only one reason why nuclear power is a poor choice. We have tons of it lying around now and we're talking about drastically increasing that amount which makes no sense whatsoever.

France is so far ahead of us in nuclear development they can't even see us in their rear view mirror. Now, all of a sudden McBush want's to build 45 plants and dump the waste in Yucca Mountain. Then the clone wants to drill wherever he's standing at the time and 'drill, drill, drill' even though the oil companies are very happy to collect their profits, suck on their cigars, and do NOTHING with the MILLIONS OF ACRES that were given to them on lease to find more oil. McBush doesn't understand that we couldn't refine another barrel of oil because we don't have the CAPACITY to do so. He does the soft shoe shuffle (in his $600 dollar loafers) when asked about this FACT. All the guy want's to do is to continue to ride his tired old war pony into the ground and tout his 'experience' that has resulted in our country doddering on the brink of bankruptcy. The Bush AND McBush era is OVER. He can't figure that out, but let's face it, Republicans are slow learners.

Screw the french political energy. My brother lives in Normandy: Cogema's La Hague retreatment plant is a mess, and there is a beatiful silence upon the infantile leucemia rate around it.

And once and for all: nuclear technology are not apocalypse-proof.

Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. Santayana. In the 1960's Canada offered to have the US participate in a large hydroelectric power plant along the Niagara. The US refused as the Atomic Energy Commission pushed nuclear. Their excuse - they did not want the US to be dependent on a foreign source of energy, namely Canada.

Enter Westinghouse (Canada) to set up a uranium cartel and raise, legally, the price of uranium by over 300% in one year. Where does uranium, the fuel for the reactors, come from? Not the United States! How does that end our dependence on foreign energy sources?

And what about those Greenpeace ships that were protesting the French dumping nuclear waste in our, repeat our, oceans. The politicians are right. The electorate has a very short memory.

This post is getting some good commentary. I did not mention hydro as I feel that it is a source that has little support. As to the U.S./Can joint, there were some takers on the State level. It did not work out well. We have numerous small dams with hydro stations still in existence, but not in use. These could be up-dated and brought back on line, but it is not a popular idea. It seems that there must be politics and rather big money around making the nuke push. I think Pickens ideas make more sense.

This shows why liberals, and Democrats in particular, cannot adequately lead and have very destructive policies. Their stand is unequivocal, no drilling, no nuclear and no dams. It is clear that their goals support the Russian, Chinese and Jihadist view that the US must be energy starved to cause its decline.
Vote Democrat only if you want dark days in our future.

I think that nuclear energy is indispensable for the future energy policy of the United States. I believe that there is still enough oil capacity to last another century, however, other means of electricity production are needed. Nuclear energy is cleaner and it there has not been any major nuclear incident in more than three decades.

http://www.worldworststockpicker.com
http://www.yarifixmycredit.com