Yes, you are right. But maybe his accounting too will change in another twenty years.
The capital cost of the well-managed Bruce B Project was about $6 billion, which amounts to less than $2000/kW.
My home uses about a kW, so $2000 of generation covered my need for 30 years.
My home furnace cost more than $2000, and I hope it will last 30 years.
From: Andrew Daley [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: September-12-11 8:54 PM
To: Jerry Cuttler
Cc: Canadian Nuclear Discussion List
Subject: Re: [cdn-nucl-l] National Post, Solomon, Why spend billions to store used fuel that won't kill anyone?
Based on the statement: "Canada’s nuclear power industry —uneconomic from the start —has already cost Canadian taxpayers and electricity customers tens of billions in needless costs. It makes no sense to compound the economic harm that this industry has wrought"
I don't think Lawrence will be joining EFN anytime soon!
On 2011-09-11 6:22 PM, "Jerry Cuttler" <email@example.com> wrote:
> Lawrence really gets it! I must invite him to join EFN-Canada. It seems
> that Energy Probe has really changed in 20 years! I seem to have more in
> common with him than I do with the ...
> Anti-nuke environmentalists are opposed to nuclear energy stations. They
> have been clamouring for decades about the "unsolvable problem" of what to
> do with the "nuclear waste." The nuclear scientists did an enormous amount
> of research to demonstrate that deep geological disposal was technically
> acceptable. However, the Seaborn Panel concluded after ten years of study
> that while the concept was technically safe, social acceptance had not been
> Is there a technical solution to a social/political problem? As we see in
> the article below, if we change our assumption about the health effect of
> low level radiation, the unsolvable problem just goes away. The problem has
> been our stubborn refusal to trash the scientifically unsupportable,
> politically-motivated LNT assumption of radiation carcinogenesis. The
> economics of nuclear energy would be much improved if we based our nuclear
> safety models on good radiobiology.
> "... my reasoning has changed. Twenty years ago, I thought the wastes too
> risky to bury. Today, I think them too safe."