davely-
I think you've got it right. But a nuclear plant at Lake Tahoe will never fly. Perhaps the Paiutes would be forward thinking enough to put it on Pyramid Lake, possibly Stampede Reservoir near Reno or the Humbolt River.

-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA

Oops, I dropped a zero in the above post. It should read, "A single nuclear power plant equates to about 1000-2000 large wind turbines, if we assume the wind blows 24-hours a day. ...but of course it doesn't."

-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com

A single nuclear power plant equates to about 20-40 Nevada Solar Ones (near Boulder City), if we assume the sun shines 24-hours a day. ...but of course it doesn't.

A single nuclear power plant equates to about 100-200 large wind turbines, if we assume the wind blows 24-hours a day. ...but of course it doesn't.

While water is a barrier to nuclear reactors, it is instructive to note that the Palo Verde Power Plant near Phoenix, currently the largest in the United States, is not located adjacent to a large body of water. Instead, it evaporates water from the treated sewage of several nearby municipalities to meet its cooling needs.

As a Nevada resident I do not want to see hundreds of wind mills, dozens of solar facilities and hundreds of miles of transmission lines mucking-up our state. We in Nevada would be crazy short-sighted to turn our backs on the possibility of powering the state with nuclear power.

-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com

Yucca Mountain was a political solution to a scientific problem. It does not make sense to ship nuclear waste to Nevada when 96 of the 104 reactors are east of the Rockies. Nor does it make sense to store nuclear waste above the surrounding water table in the most recently formed and changing crust on earth. We should consider expanding the existing WIPP disposal site in New Mexico. It is several thousand feet under the earth in a salt deposit that's had no geological activity for a zillion years (or there abouts).

-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com

Carbon-free nuclear power is the ONLY way the world can retire emission-belching coal generating plants and possibly check global warming. If we have scientists address the nuclear waste problem, not politicians, nuclear waste can actually become a resource.

Yucca Mountain was a political solution to a scientific problem. It does not make sense to ship nuclear waste to Nevada when 96 of the 104 reactors are east of the Rockies. Nor does it make sense to store nuclear waste above the surrounding water table in the most recently formed and changing crust on earth. We should consider expanding the existing WIPP disposal site in New Mexico. It is several thousand feet under the earth in a salt deposit that's had no geological activity for a zillion years (or there abouts).

-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com

Daily I read editorials, comments and letters-to-the-editor from all over the nation. Whereas when the House passed the bill it was maybe 2-to-1 against cap and trade, opinion now seems to be at least 6-to-1 against. The Senate will be wise to heed the overwhelming lack of public support and stop this costly legislation from passing into law.

If instead of cap-and-trade the United States had a national mandate to replace coal generation plants with natural gas and nuclear energy, plus if we replaced our commuter cars with battery-powered electric cars, we would drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce CO2 emissions faster and beyond the proposed cap and trade targets.

-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com

All this discussion points out one thing: America needs our own scientific assessment of global warming -- a 'climate truth commission'. I am a Democrat who for the past 20 years believed global warming was caused by CO2. But now after reading the UN climate reports I suspect the fix was in. The UN reports contain much good science, but in the end, the UN is a political organization where politics trumps science. We in the United States need our own objective, transparent climate commission to think through global warming. ...before we burden our economy with CO2 taxes.

If we had a national mandate to replace coal generation with natural gas and nuclear energy, and replaced our commuter cars with electric cars, we would drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil and also reduce CO2 emissions. See my website www.energyplanusa.com for common sense energy discussion and links to in-depth articles.

Yucca Mountain was a political solution to a scientific problem. It does not make sense to ship nuclear waste to Nevada when 96 of the 104 reactors are east of the Rockies. Nor does it make sense to store nuclear waste above the surrounding water table in the most recently formed and changing crust on earth. We should consider expanding the existing WIPP disposal site in New Mexico. It is several thousand feet under the earth in a salt deposit that's had no geological activity for a zillion years (or there abouts).

This article essentially is based upon the premise that "a majority of the world's scientists believe [climate change] is being accelerated at an abnormal pace by man-made carbon emissions." Please, Las Vegas Sun do more research on this. It is far from the truth. Readers who want more objective research should visit www.energyplanusa.com .

Good riddance to coal. There are many reasons other than CO2 that make coal nasty. Replacing it with natural gas makes sense, but only in the short term. Wind and sun cannot replace coal, so I think Nevada should take a close look at nuclear. I'm not 100% certain about this but if there is enough water to run a coal generation plant Nevada probably has enough water for nuclear power. See www.energyplanusa.com for a common sense energy plan.