Nuclear Power is too expensive

[JSt0rm]

And? Coal does more damage than nuclear, why aren't you shutting all of them down as well?

People like you live in constant fear and it overrides your logic. You're far too sensitive to the rare catastrophic event and it causes you to ignore the more deadly constant dangers. You're just like Republicans who start expensive, deadly wars based on a single terrorist attack when there are far more effective ways to save American lives.

The point is nuclear is uninsurable. Add nimby to the equation and its dead in the water with or without environuts. Capitalism in the energy sector has spoken.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

The goal should be fusion and not fission.

They're working on it.

 

[K1052]

If the EPA's pending study comes out in a couple years that hydraulic fracturing has and can contaminate ground water supplies all those new gas generators utilities are building will be collecting rust.

Nuclear has never been the absolute cheapest option but it's costs are well known, the plants pump out huge amounts of power on a basis more reliable than any other form of generation, and it's fuel expense is minimal and not volatile.

As we start coming more off coal I am not convinced that natural gas is going to be the hero in our energy future.

 

[rcpratt]

If the EPA's pending study comes out in a couple years that hydraulic fracturing has and can contaminate ground water supplies all those new gas generators utilities are building will be collecting rust.

Nuclear has never been the absolute cheapest option but it's costs are well known, the plants pump out huge amounts of power on a basis more reliable than any other form of generation, and it's fuel expense is minimal and not volatile.

As we start coming more off coal I am not convinced that natural gas is going to be the hero in our energy future.

It's going to be hilarious in ten years when the 50+ new combined cycle plants are useless because that happens and natural gas goes back through the roof.

I have faith in my management to be able to see long-term and choose nuclear over natural gas. The cost isn't even that far off at current natural gas prices.

 

[K1052]

The point is nuclear is uninsurable. Add nimby to the equation and its dead in the water with or without environuts. Capitalism in the energy sector has spoken.

Only the ANI underwrites for nuclear facilities, which is effectively a pool put together by the major casualty companies. If a major accident were to happen there is a second layer of funds that all plant license holders would be required to kick in, all in that covers something like $13B in liability at present IIRC.

The government would presumably pick up the tab on anything exceeding that by declaring a disaster.

 

[K1052]

It's going to be hilarious in ten years when the 50+ new combined cycle plants are useless because that happens and natural gas goes back through the roof.

I have faith in my management to be able to see long-term and choose nuclear over natural gas. The cost isn't even that far off at current natural gas prices.

A lot of execs are playing craps with other people's money in this sector. I guess they figure on not being around if/when the dice come up snake eyes.

The report is due out in 2014. Woe to any oil and gas company involved in that kind of production if it doesn't come out as totally safe. Liability city.

 

[JSt0rm]

The government would presumably pick up the tab on anything exceeding that by declaring a disaster.

^^^conservatives like this? lol.

 

[JSt0rm]

A lot of execs are playing craps with other people's money in this sector. I guess they figure on not being around if/when the dice come up snake eyes.

The report is due out in 2014. Woe to any oil and gas company involved in that kind of production if it doesn't come out as totally safe. Liability city.

But they are getting rich off it now. And the chances of personal liability are probably close to none. Bush let them rape it for a good 10 years.

 

[K1052]

^^^conservatives like this? lol.

Considering that new plants are statistically MUCH safer than even our very safe existing plants encouraging new reactor construction and the phased retirement of the current fleet would decrease insurance risk and the potential for the gov to ever have to pick up the bill in the unlikely event of a major disaster....I don't see what's for anyone to not like.

There is no free lunch in energy. Everyone pays one way or another. Pay a little more for nuclear.....get cancer from coal emissions over 40 years....enjoy polluted groundwater from ng....pay through the ass for solar. The choices are few.

 

[K1052]

But they are getting rich off it now. And the chances of personal liability are probably close to none. Bush let them rape it for a good 10 years.

Yep, that's why I think they are doing what they are doing.

The companies themselves could end up finished or massively devalued.

 

[JSt0rm]

Considering that new plants are statistically MUCH safer than even our very safe existing plants encouraging new reactor construction and the phased retirement of the current fleet would decrease insurance risk and the potential for the gov to ever have to pick up the bill in the unlikely event of a major disaster....I don't see what's for anyone to not like.

There is no free lunch in energy. Everyone pays one way or another. Pay a little more for nuclear.....get cancer from coal emissions over 40 years....enjoy polluted groundwater from ng....pay through the ass for solar. The choices are few.

The difference I see with a disaster like a nuclear one is that it lasts for hundred of years. But I do agree we need to get rid of the older riskier designs. If we are to be held hostage by this industry I would expect some severe penalties to persons for negligence for such risk/reward. I would be ok with the death penalty in this type of situation.

 

[Zorkorist]

The point is nuclear is uninsurable. Add nimby to the equation and its dead in the water with or without environuts. Capitalism in the energy sector has spoken.

LOL. No.

We now have the additional evidence of Japan's "Nuclear Disaster" which isn't a Disaster by any means.

The only thing that makes Nuclear Power expensive is hot heads like you.

In reality, it is so clean, and so safe, and burns no fossil fuels, that it is almost a miracle.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

The difference I see with a disaster like a nuclear one is that it lasts for hundred of years. But I do agree we need to get rid of the older riskier designs. If we are to be held hostage by this industry I would expect some severe penalties to persons for negligence for such risk/reward. I would be ok with the death penalty in this type of situation.

Really?

How about the death penalty for the people that are burning our fossil fuels (which are necessary for plastics etc.) for their own personal gain?

You OK with that?!

-John

 

[JSt0rm]

Really?

How about the death penalty for the people that are burning our fossil fuels (which are necessary for plastics etc.) for their own personal gain?

You OK with that?!

-John

No.

 

[JSt0rm]

LOL. No.

We now have the additional evidence of Japan's "Nuclear Disaster" which isn't a Disaster by any means.

The only thing that makes Nuclear Power expensive is hot heads like you.

In reality, it is so clean, and so safe, and burns no fossil fuels, that it is almost a miracle.

-John

I can assure you, i have nothing to do with nuclear power being expensive. If the bean counters come up with X then the number is X. They dont call me.

 

[Zorkorist]

So don't perpetuate the myth of Nuclear Power being expensive.

Nuclear Power is very cheap, clean, and does not burn fossil fuels.

The only thing that makes Nuclear Power expensive, is Government Regulation.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

A hell of a lot more people have died in Coal Mines, or Oil Rigs, than have ever died in Nuclear Plant accidents.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

And now with Japan, and a possible worst case scenario,

We can see we're not all going to die if a Nuclear Plant melts down.

-John

 

[JSt0rm]

Do you know how I can tell when you get excited?

 

[Zorkorist]

My Nuclear Rod glows red?

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Touche Jstorm.

-John

 

[Infohawk]

And oil would be too expensive too if it were regulated in such a way that no one person could die from its externalities. It's easier for people to freak out about "radiation!!!" than it is to freak out about deaths and illness from air pollution.

 

[Zorkorist]

Their excuse for engineering such unattainable standards was that we might all die in the face of a Nuclear Meltdown.

Now we have had three Nuclear Meltdowns, and we haven't all died.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

How wrong were they?

And how much have they cost our economy in terms of efficiency, productivity, it's reliance on the Oil bearing countries, and the continued extinction of fossil fuels?

-John

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

With the Japanese disaster one issue will be increased insurance costs for building one.

Last I checked, there isn't really a sufficient number of data points to create actuary tables from. In other words, they are just guessing at the costs and policies. The government, like in National Flood insurance, helps to offset this.

The alternative to nuclear power is expensive!!

http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/03/16/whats-the-cost-of-shifting-away-from-nuclear-power/


[/INDENT]

Yeah, but we can't go to nuclear. It's so unsafe. There have been <10,000 lives lost directly due to nuclear power (compared to coal/LNG/oil where in the past 50 years many tens of thousands have been killed), a grand total of 3 major nuclear incidents in the past 50 years (TMI had no leak outside containment building, Chernobyl was repeated pushing away safety concerns that can't be turned off now, and Japan was after a double smacking of natural disasters on a 40 year old plant), is clean from air pollution (and we could reduce the solid waste to lower levels through stuff like breeder reactors and Thorium), and cheaper per MW than just about any other energy source outside of coal.

The difference I see with a disaster like a nuclear one is that it lasts for hundred of years. But I do agree we need to get rid of the older riskier designs. If we are to be held hostage by this industry I would expect some severe penalties to persons for negligence for such risk/reward. I would be ok with the death penalty in this type of situation.

So coal fly ash disasters where the earth dams break don't ruin the soil for years? Fracking doesn't have the potential to ruin the underground water tables for years? Oil spills don't ruin the environment for many years either right?

How about this. How about we move to Thorium based systems? Then it basically eliminates most of those concerns.