Nickname: Dave

Review: I think that we need as many reactors as is possible as quickly as possible. Nuclear energy is clearly the safest scalable energy technology there is. Someone will pipe in about "waste," without recognizing that almost no one cares about the most dangerous waste on the planet: carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is and will kill. Not one person in the United States has been killed by so-called "dangerous" nuclear waste.

Date reviewed: Jul 17, 2006 2:26 PM

Nickname: Wake up time

Review: No one mentioned nuclear power plant waste and where to store it? No one wants it. No one mentioned the people still dying in Russia's accident. No one mentioned terrorism and contamination of water and land. We should require solar power on every building built now and the government pay to put solar on all homes. It is cheaper then the oil war. Global warming is a fact. We need to act now and not take 10 or more years to build a nuclear power plant. For those people that say global warming is not true...what if you are wrong? There's no going back and saying whoops, sorry we have distroyed our planet, now kiss you ass and your kids good bye!

Date reviewed: Jun 30, 2006 11:06 PM

Nickname: Harry

Review: I am surprised nobody seems to be aware of he "pebble bed" reactor design-safer,cheaper, cookie-cut suitable!

Date reviewed: Jun 30, 2006 8:45 PM

Nickname: RobLewis

Review: Dr. Chris is obviously in deep denial about anthropogenic global climate change. The scientific debate is over. Greenland's ice is crumbling twice as fast as previously thought. The thickening of Antarctica's ice is a predicted consequence of global warming, not proof against it.

Date reviewed: Jun 30, 2006 4:40 PM

Nickname: Benny

Review: The nuclear industry keeps on telling us how competitive they are. But the fact remains that the investors simply aren't coming forward. In Europe, the only reactors being built are propped up with huge amounts of hidden subsidies (such as bank loans at extremely preferential rates). Without these subsidies, the nuclear renaissance will not happen.

Date reviewed: Jun 30, 2006 9:03 AM

Nickname: Greener Tec?

Review: It's nice to see revival in nuclear energy. However, I still haven't seen any indications that any of the proposed reactors would be the Breeder Reactor type. The kind that recyles the waste of other traditional reactors. Are there any initiatives that are heading in that direction?

Date reviewed: Jun 29, 2006 10:11 PM

Nickname: Per Peterson

Review: This article's pessimistic view on new nuclear construction looks half-baked. 10 years ago, the "obvious" low-risk investment was to build natural gas plants, and utilities that were buying up existing nuclear plants were considered to be taking large risks. Now companies that went solely into natural gas have gone bankrupt, and the most profitable utilities are those that bought up the nuclear plants--the 5 units that Entergy bought now bring in 30% of its total profits. Even with production tax credits renewables costs keep them at a tiny fraction of new construction plans. In ten years, it will be interesting to see whether it was a wiser investment to build new nuclear or new coal plants, when the U.S. has by then adopted mandatory carbon controls. This article will then become an interesting part of the historical record.

Date reviewed: Jun 29, 2006 8:49 PM

Nickname: mpeyton

Review: One other factor that put an end to the nuclear age of the past was soaring intrest rates on loans. Nuclear plants have a huge up front cost and they take a while to build so companies either have to have a big chunk of money or take out a large loan. Today, intrest rates are not as great of a factor.

Date reviewed: Jun 29, 2006 4:35 PM

Nickname: Dr. Chris

Review: The nuclear eneergy story in America is another sad story of underutilization of what we have available to us. The environmental fascists continue to dominate the news media with their lies. Al Gore's unchallenged lies that global warming is due to man is undisputed science on all the major news outlets serves as a recent proof. In reality the Arctic climate has been getting cooler since the 1940s and Antarctic since the early 1960s. But no one bothered to ask Al Gore such facts. As the leading producer of Uranium in the world, it is sad we are not the number 1 user of nuclear power for electricity production.

Date reviewed: Jun 29, 2006 4:21 PM

Nickname: UtilityGuy

Review: Aston writes "In time, many utilities collapsed under these debts even as customers' bills soared." Nonsense, unless 3 counts as "many." Out of more than 100 commercial nukes in the US, to my recollection, 3 companies went under: GPU (owner of Three Mile Island), Public Service of NH (whose plant ran into severe public pressure after TMI, but which eventually was completed and operates today), and the Long Island Lighting Company, which went bankrupt when NY politicians decided after TMI that given the Long Island Expressway's status as "the world's longest parking lot" made evacuations impossible at any time, thereby making a nuclear plant unacceptable. LILCO's Shoreham plant was scrapped, but not until the company's management foolishly loaded nuclear fuel into it in order to test the facilities safety systems. As for his contention that customer bills soared, that might have happened anyway. Today nuclear plants have the lowest variable cost of any energy source.

Date reviewed: Jun 29, 2006 4:20 PM