needs an ambitious expansion of nuclear power. Mankind will never fulfill its "need" for electrical energy. It is the driver of all economies worldwide . . . and what society wants to curtail its growth?

l Nuclear power plants, on the other hand, emit virtually no carbon dioxide -- and no sulfur or mercury either. Even when taking into account "full life-cycle emissions" -- including mining of uranium, shipping fuel, constructing

plants and managing waste -- nuclear's carbon-dioxide discharges are comparable to the full life-cycle emissions

of wind and hydropower and less than solar power. This is very important because once the nuclear footprint is established the new generation plants are designed for a 50 to70 year life cycle.

l More important from the standpoint of displacing fossil fuel, nuclear can meet power demand 24 hours a day.

Solar and wind can't do that. Nuclear is the only current technology that fits the bill. This further indicates that the development of solar and wind is "speculative" based on "location weather" how often are our weather forecasters 80% accurate? With these changing variables how can definitive numbers be accrued from wind and solar?

l Critics argue that the high cost of building and financing a new plant makes nuclear power uneconomical when compared with other sources of power. . . . But that's misleading on a number of levels. One reason it's so expensive at this point is that no new plant has been started in the U.S. since the last one to begin construction in 1977. Lenders -- uncertain how long any new plant would take because of political and regulatory delays -- are wary of financing the first new ones. So financing costs are unusually high. Several factors have affected this. Our learning factors from past accidents re-wrote many portions of our regulations for the better. There are several NRC "approved" reactor designs that are set for "streamline" acceptance by the NRC capable of being constructed in four years . . . the only delay being that of local politics. Once the public and business communities "understand" the process, "delay" costs will be reduced substantially, hopefully eventually negating the entire political slowdowns when the regulatory systems are pre-approved.

l Suddenly, big carbon polluters like coal-produced electricity are going to look a lot more expensive compared with low-carbon sources -- in particular, nuclear, wind and hydropower. It's estimated that a carbon "price" of between $25 and $50 a ton makes nuclear power economically competitive with coal. It might be interesting to note here that during the nuclear development over the years at the outset they were forced to create their own nuclear "waste fund" to provide for the eventual permanent storage. For nearly the past 30 years we have known that coal burning energy plants were causing considerable damage to our atmosphere . . . we let that slide while hammering the nuclear development.

l Solar and wind advocates say these sources are cheaper than nuclear -- and getting cheaper. But again, even if true, the intermittent nature of these sources make them flawed replacements for carbon-emitting sources. Nuclear is the only clean-energy way to address that gap.  It is only fair here to point out the importance of absolutes. Nuclear energy production is a known variable. Solar and wind farms can only estimate a productivity. When materials, construction, transmission and maintenance costs are added to the overall cost per KW they cannot "currently" compete with nuclear. As stated on our home page, we 100% support renewable energy sources but they MUST be cost competitive to a well established nuclear facility. It is unfair to put the burden of renewable development onto middle and low income citizens. These development costs should be applied to our upper income populous.

l