The anti-nuclear crowd exagerates problems with power plants in the '70's, and then pretends that technology hasn't improved since then.

Nukes would replace coal not oil. But if they believed their blather about global warmaing they would cheer for them.

Robert is right that, generally, nukes subsitute for coal rather than oil (or natural gas). But that does not have to be so. Typically coal and nuclear planta are used for base loads and oil and natural gas plants are used for peaks. But you can susbstitute storage facitilies for peaking plants and put more reliance on base power plants than we do.

There was a great fight over one such facility some years ago in New York (Storm King?). I don't recall enough to be sure, but I think the enviro extremists defeated it -- and hurt the environment.

You're probably thinking of the Shoreham nuclear plant, Jim. It was shut down just as it was completed and ready to go into operation.

Would Toshiba's participation in this be called outsourcing ... to us? And similar to daimler Benz outsourcing to us ... again in Alabama?

Is this what Kerry wants to minimize by his incentivising tax plan? Is this what the Detroit Unions want to stop? All rhetorical, of course.

Problem with anything nuclear is that you have an uphill fight against 40+ years of NUKES ARE EEEEEEEEEVIL! supported by a lot of anti-nuke activist money and lawyers.

Yes, I know that the Nifty Fifties "Nukes are Cool! The Atom is the Answer to Everything!" hype had to have some reaction.

But 40+ years of anti-nuke hysteria have conditioned us (like a vibrating yappy lapdog) to pee our pants in terror at even the word "nuclear".

Has the Yucca Mountain thing been wrapped up? I don't think it has.

Anyway, the opposition to Nuclear Power exposes the Luddite domination of the environmental religion. Nuclear Power is the ONLY way to reduce our dependance on Oil/Coal/Natural Gas. Solar, Wind, Hydro, Biomass (which is dirtier than Oil) are all insignificant contributors to our energy usage. Fusion power will be the ultimate replacement technology, but its still several decades away. Until then, Fission is our best bet.

I think the "Made In Japan" label is going to be helpful for public relations. It has a nice aura of reliability, even before you bring up Japan's husge and successful nuclear power program.

AML - if you compare nuclear to wind power from an environmental point of view, nuclear wins. Nuke plants don't smack eagles out of the sky.

In the very long run, it's gotta be solar.

There's this little problem with every other source: the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Waste heat is an irreducible pollutant and, while it is not a global threat, it can be a lot of local trouble.

But not soon. Not till we've burned every barrel of oil first.

Unless it turns out that we really are heading into an Ice Age, and then solar will be the nuclear power of the 22nd (or thereabouts) century. Nobody will want him, we'll be building plants just to burn coal to get that precious carbon back in the atmosphere where it belongs.

I believe Toshiba has had the GE technology (via license) since at least the early 1980s, so outsourcing is not the right term.

Jim,

I meant outsourcing in reverse, which happens to be to our benefit. Just a little jibe at Kerry.