Pascal Schmidt wrote in a message to Tom Walker:

 PS> Hi Tom! :-)

 TW> Actualy it is a Stupid move IF they are not replacing them with More
 TW> Modern Plants. but that is another argument ofr another time in 
 TW> another place.

 PS> The idea is to encourage the use of alternative energy sources such
 PS> as solar, wind, and water power. 

I'm all for that (also was moderator of "HOMEPOWER" echo before I
let it lapse :-),  but hydro is pretty limited in terms of possible sites, 
and solar is only really effective in semitropical to tropical areas,  not
so much further north.  I suspect wind needs better sites too,  at least to
some extent.  And the real problem with most of this stuff is the initial
investment,  so "encourage" all too often means
"subsidize" because they don't make a whole lot of economic sense
at the present time.

 PS> Those don't have the problem of having to store waste material for 
 PS> a few hundred years in a safe way.

That's the single biggest problem I have with nukes,  and it's lots longer
than hundreds of years,  though the hotter stuff is relatively short-lived.

 PS> The long-term requirements for such storage are not even 
 PS> completely known. 

Civilization is one,  and it's actually been considered what sort of steps
might be taken to ensure the integrity of storage if civilization were to
fall.

 PS> Also, solar power will be available for the next few billion 
 PS> years, whereas uranium for nuclear power plants is a much more 
 PS> limited supply - sure, it doesn't get used up that quickly, but...

It's not the fuel supply as much as the byproducts that concern me.

 PS> Gas and coal power plants also have gotten a lot better in terms of
 PS> air pollution over the years.

This is true,  though they probably got a good deal more expensive in the process.

---