I read through this entire thread and you DIDN'T "deal with" Lovins or Brown substantively, but just replied with assertions and emotionalism. What links? I'll publicly apologise if there are the kind of substantive peer reviewed links I'm after on this thread.
And if you want to put public money into energy, fine, we have peak oil, gas, and coal bearing down on us, that might not be a bad idea at all. But if you REALLY want more bang for your buck, it is important to count ALL the costs and build the right thing hey?
Quote:
|
A 2008 study based on historical outcomes in the U.S. said costs for nuclear power can be expected to run $0.25-.30 per kW·h.[37]
|
(Edit to add
That's about 3 times the price of current US energy prices,
so I'll have to spend a bit more time reading the fine print on the assumptions of this study and the external costs and where they come up (and which other studies DON'T include them, because there are other studies at the nuclear wiki that give much cheaper results).
My thing is I have a hard time believing the stuff coming out of the world nuclear association etc because they are so darn good at externalising, and having us taxpayers pick up the bill! But here again is the issue:
IF these studies are correctand the nuclear industry has been subsidised heavily, then you're simply going to get more power per $ if the government subsidises less expensive forms of clean energy. Or another way of looking at it: your state might have better schools and rail if it stopped using nuclear power.
