Damn straight.
And if the story is about non-standard technologies that offer savings, the main thrust of the article is how much higher the initial cost is, rather than the TCO&O (Total Cost of Ownwership and Operation) figures?
Posted by idiosynchronic at December 1, 2007 05:45 AMRudy screws while taxpayers lose.
Did investigators snooze?
If I am correctly interpreting the summary graph of the report, it says that nuclear power is more cost effective ($10/ton) in reducing CO2 emissions than solar ($30/ton). If so, then this report must be suppressed.
Posted by skeptic at December 1, 2007 12:04 PMOne of the great dirty secrets of the technical debate over environmental subjects is that almost everything bad for the environment is also wasteful so almost everything you do to clean up is profitable.
Posted by johnmorris at December 1, 2007 04:23 PMjohnmorris, that is so true. I was listening to a program earlier this week that talked about how the European Union has requirements (mandates) that equipment manufacturers find less toxic ingredients for their equipment, and guess what, the companies are not only doing that, but they are building cleaner products more cheaply. The US with its fear and loathing of "stifling invention with regulations" is actually becoming the loser in this game. We get the cast off, more toxic products that cost more to manufacture while Europe gets great new innovative products for less. Yet one more way we are being left behind.
Posted by Mary at December 1, 2007 04:33 PM