There are two points that the people who point out economic problems with nuclear power don't ever seem to understand:
1. The laws of economics do not dictate how much oil is in the ground. There is a certain amount of each fossil fuel, and higher prices do not make low-grade reserves work. Same goes for uranium.
2. I don't care if we can get by without nuclear power. Of course, from a supply-and-demand standpoint, we don't NEED it. Theoretically, we could use coal for 100 years if energy consumption continues to go up or 200 years if it doesn't. There wouldn't be any economical reason that we couldn't. The problem, obviously, is that it destroys the environment. We're lucky to have options. Let's choose the best, not the absolute cheapest.
Stewart:
I agree that nuclear fission's environmental superiority is sufficient reason for using it when compared to coal, oil and gas.
As an investor, I was also tickled to death when I realized that it was not only better, but far cheaper, at least in the sense of the total resources required to make it work.
Recognizing undervalued assets is a key to a successful investment.
Commenting by HaloScan
