Benefits Of Nuclear Power

pft

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• simpsons
• board
• game
• lottie
• jessie
• tanya

[psipsistar]

Also, nuclear power requires far far far less land than solar or wind, and thus disturbs fewer environments. The best wind power sites are directly in migratory bird routes. It's easier to reliably ramp up nuclear power within a certain range, while you currently need X4 the generating capacity of wind to equal the baseline power generation of nuclear. Advances in grid technology may reduce this gap to 3x

[psipsistar]

1. Solar panels use heavy metals and costs don't cover proper disposal.

2. Coal fired plants release mercury and Sulfur.

3. Burning of MOX, outlawed in the states, would help ensure a supply of cheap fuel.

4. Nuclear is currently 100% viable without additional research or direct subsidy, unlike solar or wind.

5. Fossil fuels have contributed to thousands of deaths. Nuclear has not contributed to one in the states.

6. Nuclear is more scalable than solar or wind.

[milofonbil]

Here in Washington, I have been buying green power for my house from PSE, our utility.  Our wind costs right at 3.2 cents per kWh.

In economics, a subsidy is a form of financial assistance paid, usually by the government, to keep prices below what they would be in a free market. Nuclear power gets loads of subsidies: the liability cap, Price Anderson act, 60 percent of all federal energy research monies, $6.8 billion in a tax subsidy.... Nuclear power simply could not survive in a free market.

[Bleezz]

And you must be looking at distorted data. If Nuclear could not beat out coal and oil with subsidies (which it does not have btw, they have tax credits, theres a difference), then what chance would wind have? Wind still costs roughly 8 cents a watt (compared to 3.5 for nuclear and coal) not including subsidies. If wind was truly as economical as so many claim, there would be no hindrance to it and we wouldn't need energy bill to mandate it.

[milofonbil]

You may be looking at old data...

Nuclear cannot survive without government subsidies. You know this. The Bush government has basically bypassed public approval in order to site a nuclear plant.

Wind is cheaper to build than coal, cheaper to operate, and it is a lower risk to investors, which means that the cost of financing for wind is lower on private capital markets.

In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with wind, coal and natural gas.

Find me a reference.

[Bleezz]

bzz, nice try dude, but nuclear is far cheaper than wind, and it doesn't need government subsidies to be. Nuclear is only slightly more expensive per watt compared to coal, but unlike coal, nuclear includes all of its waste management costs in to the price of the electricity, whereas coal's solution is just to continue dumping its waste into the atmosphere. Second, the only thing slowing nuclear is protesters and unnecessary red tape. Who does it benefit? All man kind.

[milofonbil]

That was certainly a difficult question. It's interesting that it was hard to think quickly on your feet to reason this one out. Nuclear is really not cheaper, wind is. And, it certainly is not quicker - it takes a long time to license a nuclear power plant. The first question to ask yourself on that one is "who does it benefit?"