Skip to main content

View Diary: Nuclear Power is our Friend (110 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Now if only (0+ / 0-)

    we could find consensus with Republicans on that one.

    My main point with that chart is to show that nukes belong in the same class as renewables in terms of safety.

    First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

    by Cream Puff on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 11:04:56 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  All of your charts are an indictment of fossil (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marsanges

      fuels, really.  And the only reason they've been so 'reasonable' economically for so long is the massive number of ways in which we've subsidized them since they appeared on scene.

      •  It is kind of (0+ / 0-)

        like shooting fish in a barrel.

        It does show, however, that nukes are comparable in terms of economics with fossil fuels, and comparable in terms of safety and environmental effects with renewables.

        Perhaps I should delve into the morass of hidden subsidy and peak power arguments required to compare nuclear and wind/solar, but it's not easy to do and we'd be unlikely to find consensus even on the basic measurements.  Others have already argued it better than I can.

        My expertise has mostly to do with the likelihood and severity of nuclear accidents.

        First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

        by Cream Puff on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 11:38:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You said: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roger Fox
          It does show, however, that nukes are comparable in terms of economics with fossil fuels, and comparable in terms of safety and environmental effects with renewables.
          You didn't lay out any such case and I would invite you to do so in the manner that must be confronted by electricity customers and by interested state electric utility rate setting boards.

          You have a graph showing nuclear plants with low operating costs compared to fossil fuels.   You didn't address plant construction costs.   You didn't display the costs of electrical energy on an annualized basis reflecting all site acquisition and construction costs for each method of electrical energy generation displayed on a basis annualized over the design-basis life of the facility.   You also have not displayed the economic effects of the nuclear industry discharging accident liability costs to the taxpayers and the effect of inadequate design on costs arising from such things as heat exchanger replacement in nuclear plants.

          •  That's a lot to ask. (0+ / 0-)

            The first part of your request is pretty complex, but I'm pretty sure capital cost financing is included in the input data.  It is for all the cost-benefit analyses I've done.

            You also have not displayed the economic effects of the nuclear industry discharging accident liability costs to the taxpayers
            Yes I have, because the taxpayer is not on the hook for accident costs, at least not in the long term.  The licensees are.  See my point about the misconception regarding insurability.
            ... and the effect of inadequate design on costs arising from such things as heat exchanger replacement in nuclear plants.
            That wouldn't necessarily be caused by inadequate design.  Some components need to be replaced more often than others.  Repair requirements are part of the operational risk of any heavy industry.  I distinguish this from my bullet about licensing risk premiums, because the NRC can pull the plug on any license whenever it wants and the licensee has little control over that.

            First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

            by Cream Puff on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 01:54:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site