posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 12:32 AM
It's easy to say... 'Nuclear is dangerous, so let's decommission the plants' but you have to consider the big picture.
There is a HUGE amount of time, work, and money required to make this conversion to other energies.
Then, you have to factor in the costs for those energies themselves: initial investment, the environmental impact just for building them and
maintaining them, new infrastructure, individual costs, material, reliability, lifespan, etc.
So, as much as we all want nuclear to disappear, you first need to have something in place, before simply flipping the switch. It's obvious that just
about any other source is less of a threat than nuclear, when it's the worst case scenario, but other energies have their effects on things as well
over time. And there is no 'infinite source of energy' like people want to believe, as all energy requires something to generate it, and that in
itself, is finite.
There is no quick and easy answer for all of this, so don't bother working yourselves up about it. The market will eventually go into a direction
that supports energy demands. There is no one-size fits all. Just kick back, hang on for the ride, and hope that no more reactors go into meltdown.
That's about all I can really say.