Engineering News

What a fine example of nonsense pseudo science. Totally disregarding future fuel costs, or addressing environmental damage from fuel extraction or combustion. Noxious by-products, (SO2), greenhouse gases (CO2), spent nuclear fuel, dam eco impact. Does solar or wind have issues, especially related to production variability and peak demand? Of course it does, but drawing conclusions about the future of energy plant construction from this kind of reporting is simply untenable.

I would have appreciated links to the two earlier articles in the series. In them he apparently discusses assumptions and other factors that bear on his final evaluation in the cited article. I have read reasonable reports that cite a much higher decommissioning cost for nuclear--so few plants have reached their end of life that reliable costs are still conjectures. Also, the very real problem of handling waste is an un-priceable future expense for nuclear.

I would have appreciated another comparison--to conservation. That one is by far the best of all the approaches, and has been proven to be workable--socially, environmentally, governmentally, etc.

--JMM