Quote:
Originally Posted by Moontanman
Then we are dead locked, you believe people I see as antinuclear activists who would do and say anything to stop nuclear power and you view any sources that disagree as pro nuclear people who would do and say anything to press forward with nuclear power. Very sad for both of us......
BTW, my state has excellent schools..... and my taxes are much lower than the states who abhor nuclear power and promote tax subsidized "green" power....
|
So many assertions, such little evidence.
I said I'll look into it, one day... some things have come up right now. I mean, look at the variety of studies in this wiki. I have to go and check all the "optimistic" studies and see if they actually counted the externalities which the nuclear industry has fobbed off onto the tax payer. That's going to be a lot of work. Too busy just now. But I will say this, a few years ago I was PM'd by a bloke
claiming to work in the nuclear industry that said we was an industry analyst for the nuclear industry, and said this was all spot-on. I have no way of verifying who he was or what he said, as I've lost his contact details now. (Another science forum, and I cleaned out my in-tray.
)
But he quoted similar arguments and stated that the whole industry seemed uneconomical except for help from the government. Do we really want to subsidise such an energy industry IF there are cheaper alternatives that also don't have the security, waste, and political issues?
Economics of new nuclear power plants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Cost per kW·h
Factoring in all these issues, various groups have attempted to calculate a true economic cost for electricity generated by the most modern designs proposed. Because if an actual cost per kW·h can be calculated, then it is possible to compare it to other power sources to determine if such an investment is economically sound.
In 2003, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) issued a report entitled, "The Future of Nuclear Power". They estimated that new nuclear power in the US would cost 6.7 cents per kW·h.[1] However, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 includes a tax credit that should reduce that cost slightly.
The lifetime cost of new generating capacity in the United States was estimated in 2006 by the U.S. government (the 2007 report did not estimate costs). Nuclear power was estimated at 5.93 cents per kW·h. However, the "total overnight cost" for new nuclear was assumed to be $1,984 per kWe[36] — as seen above in Capital Costs, this figure is subject to debate.
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]
A 2008 study concluded that if carbon capture and storage was required then nuclear power would be the cheapest source of electricity even at $4,038/kW in overnight capital cost.[14]
In 2009, MIT updated its 2003 study, concluding that inflation and rising construction costs had increased the overnight cost of nuclear power plants to about $4,000/kWe, and thus increased the power cost to 8.4˘/kW·h.[38][39]
|
I was just pushing you to see if your very strong support of nuclear power was backed by very strong studies into its cost-effectiveness. From my perspective I have linked to studies that cover the "externalities" that so many other studies just plain ignore.
A few years ago I tried to get my head around this very complex matter of energy economics, and Lovins just seemed more thorough. I searched the pro-nuclear studies in vain for references to fuel storage costs for thousands of years, or decommissioning costs, or if they DID reference these things ridiculous assumptions were made about their price that even I, a non-scientist, could spank.
So in one way I hope you're right, I hope that there is this vast, safe, clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels that you're promoting. I hope there IS a way to deal with the waste. I hope we CAN
guarantee that no
currently democratic civilisations we deal with now will suddenly turn into rogue states and misuse their plutonium, even though the waste lasts
longer than the history of human civilisation! We've certainly had one stable democratic peaceful government for the past 200 thousand years or so haven't we?
Because ultimately I want to be an optimist and think we'll quickly adapt to peak oil, gas, and coal over the next few decades. I mean, WORLD peak coal could hit by 2025, and America seems to have peaked out in their best grade coal over the last few years. Coal consumption in tons is going up but the energy delivered through coal seems to remain flat. That means they're working harder to produce roughly the same amount of energy... they've burnt all the best stuff.
Watch this 15 minutes or so.... a very challenging "crash course" this one. You can download it and burn the share-ware DVD and watch in your loungeroom if you wish, the complete course is over 2 hours!
But this one is about 15 minutes or so.
Crash Course Chapter 18: Environmental Data - coal | Crash Course Videos at Chris Martenson - coal, ecosystem, nuclear power, ore extraction, peak energy, petroleum, planet earth, population growth, resource management
