Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;desertgem, post: 1128020, member: 15199&quot;]In balance, the nuclear plant is 40 years old, and has provided service with little danger until a natural event well above design specifications caused events which would require serious intervention. Compare what has occurred so far with what could have been 40 years of pollution and expense if it was petroleum or gas fueled. I am all for solar or wind, but so far they have been far too expensive and unreliable, also must be replaced, and storage batteries are not sufficient in extreme hot or cold environment. Humans, I feel will be increasing their demands for power, and with their possible danger I think Nuclear will still be the method of choice. Don&#039;t get me wrong, public opinion of course will be against any other nuclear plants, throwing money at the &quot;green&quot; methods, only to find their only other real alternative is still petroleum/gas based. I think the green stocks at the moment are for the impulse buyers. IMO.</p><p><br /></p><p>Jim[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in