New technology can certainly make new nuclear plants more efficient, safer, and also reduce the amount of radioactive waste they create. In addition, the points above about the massive amounts of carbon dioxide emissions these plants can delete are quite valid, and very necessary.

Oil and natural gas MUST be phased out as power sources, as world oil production has peaked, while China and the third world’s demand is skyrocketing. Promoting coal as an alternative blindly ignores the massive evidence of global warming, and those promoting it are merely attempting to keep control in the hands of Big Oil/Energy, since they own most coal production (and politicians).

However, I believe that total reliance on nuclear is the wrong way to go, as solar and wind power are becoming more and more feasible, and with even marginal investment could start taking over portions of our energy needs within a few years. A study on wind power alone showed it has the potential generative capacity to meet the ENTIRE WORLD’s energy needs, and new research on solar is suggesting that panels can be made much more cheaply than current ones which yield multiple times the energy per unit area.

Energy efficiency is of course the holy grail of the whole issue, since by allowing us all the gizmos and vehicles we want, but at a 30% higher efficiency, we avoid any significant political or economic risk.

Moore left Greenpeace over two decades ago, and has moved strongly rightwards on environmental policy ever since. He supports clear-cutting, bioengineered foods, and is skeptical about controlling carbon emissions. He is, to be brief, not what most people consider to be an “environmentalist”.

See his website, http://www.greenspirit.com.

Now, I happen to think he’s right about nuclear energy, though less so on the other stuff. But this is not the equivalent of, say, Cindy Sheehan supporting the use of bunker-busters in Iran.

All of us in the domestic power and equipment supplier business would love to see nukes come back. We were decimated in the 70′s and 80′s. This was made worse when at the same time we stopped building refineries and chemical plants in the US. A lot of high paying jobs – engineers and skilled trades – just went up in smoke.

Many US companies would jump back in but there would have to be evidence of solid public support. A shift in the environmentalist position is a good start.

Funny thing, the US Navy is a great place to find nuclear technology talent.

There’s a lot of experienced people in other countries — France for instance. Could we not import some talent?

Coal fired plants and large natural gas fired turbines are just the opposite. That’s why there are so many new ones being built today.

Another problem – when the nuclear industry went belly up, so did many of the suppliers of valves, pipe and pressure vessels. Not to mention the intellectual talent, the big engineering contractors and nuclear engineers. Existing nuke plants are already concerned about filling all the positions soon to be vacant due to retirements.

Not to say it’s a bad idea, but it could well be a decade or two before you see a totally new nuke plant.