You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #2: not necessarily [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Juche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. not necessarily
Edited on Sun Mar-23-08 01:17 PM by Juche
There is enough uranium & Plutonium to keep nuke plants in power. Plus some people are looking at other elements like thorium, so shortage shouldn't be a problem.

My problem is that nuke plants cost about $2 billion to set up, take 10 years to build and produce waste that can be hard to get rid of. Setting up geothermal plants would be far cheaper, or offering homeowners subsidies to buy thin film solar panels would be a far cheaper, better idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC