Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Further to the preceding.

And the cost of nuclear reactors that generate power is not a relevant benchmark, I'm sorry to say. While it might be just gobs of fun to run around in circles and scream about how solar/wind/tidal/geothermal/magical unicorn dust is the energy source of the future, that's not the issue. None of these sources can replace the medical isotopes that Chalk River produces. For that, you need a nuclear reactor of some kind or another. Even if it costs a metric fuckton of money to run it. The only question is whether the private sector can do it better; and, thus far, I see nothing to suggest that it can.

(Well, I suppose the other question is whether it's a good idea to let for-profit players get their hands on nuclear material. But that's a bit conspiracy-theory for my tastes. YMMV.)

No comments: