🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5x8n5q088lB@dengsiao.ping.de> mjh@dengsiao.ping.de (Michael-Juergen Haase) writes:
>
>PS: I know, that a similar calculation can be made on other forms of  
>energy. But that only means: If we had to pay realistic prices for energy,  
>we (and all the others!) were forced to save a lot of energy (and we  
>could!) and so would solve a lot of problems.
>
>Michael J. Haase


	This is true, look at the fuel for your car, at least in the
	US people pay no where near the actual cost to society for every
	gallon they burn.  You could also find thousands of consumer 
	productws that would have the same problem.  For example, 
	fertilizer requires the mining of phosphates.  The companies
	doing this don't pay anything close to the amount of actual damage to 
	the environment and public health that is resulting from their
	operations.
	
	I think that one could make a case that of all energy sources, nuclear
	is the most scrutinized and as a result comes the closest to paying
	for the actual cost of its use.  (My knowledge on this does not 
	extend outside the US, so you'll have to be the judge of other 
	nation's nuclear programs.) 

 


-- 
===============================================================================
		Michael Baker ... baker@nucst11.neep.wisc.edu
===============================================================================