Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
5. Hawaii is not too large.
Thu May 31, 2012, 12:00 PM
May 2012

Granted, remote Alaskan towns are generally small, but there are 'large' remote locations as well. Maui and the Big Island could each absorb one of these reactors. (290mw each)

Fuel costs don't compare on a year to year scale, but when you're done burning a barrel of oil, and everything is past the scrubbers, it's gone. No more cost.

Nuclear fuel has very long term costs to store.

Then there's emergency planning and contingencies. Placing reactors on volcanoes would present interesting safety mitigation.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»"We’re looking at a ...»Reply #5