Has any of this "new technology" been rolled out and tested economically by independent energy economists?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Another huge cost of nuclear power involves decommissioning the plants when they wear out. A 2004 International Atomic Energy Agency report estimates the decommissioning cost per reactor at $250–500 million, excluding the cost of removing and disposing of the spent nuclear fuel. But recent estimates show that for some reactors, such as the U.K. Magnox reactors that have high decommissioning waste volumes, decommissioning costs can reach $1.8 billion per reactor.
|
After many decades of gerating many times that is energy I see this as less than a deal breaker.
|
It IS a deal breaker when one considers the size of solar-thermal baseload plants that can now be built for $1.8 billion dollars and how economies of scale REALLY kick in for solar plants, and with maintenance these should be able to work far longer than nuclear plants!
Solar thermal plants DON'T cost $1.8 billion to "decommission". Unless we discover fusion, will probably just keep having component parts replaced indefinitely... (unless it's a solar thermal tower and the tower itself needs replacing. But this would probably only take a few million! Just a rough guess to illustrate the point).
Basically I'm seeing a fanboi with emotive terms like "antinuclear lies", "antinuclear nuts", etc and lots of assertions for nuclear, but not one link to peer reviewed energy economists disproving Lovins or Brown? Try again.
I love nuclear as an essential part of the space race, but I DON'T want to be charged double or triple for my electricity if it is not necessary, potentially contributing to dirty bombs, untested, unpopular, and generally going to slow down preparing to scale up the UNBELIEVABLE potential of renewable energy to provide us with energy security without the risks.
