3 ms·

I agree that solar is already at cost parity, but not after battery costs. Furthermore I live in Canada, in the winter our solar power generates only 1 / 80th o

I agree that solar is already at cost parity, but not after battery costs. Furthermore I live in Canada, in the winter our solar power generates only 1 / 80th of the power, and unless we're going to tie our energy security to the United States, we're going to need alternatives. Nuclear power in Canada is a complete success. We generate at 6 to 7 cents per kilowatt hour in the first 30 years, and the amortized cost continues to decrease after that. Yes there are maintenance costs, but do you know what else there are? Medical isotopes that the world desperately needs to keep our diagnostics working. You can make nuclear cheap and safe. The problem is cultural, not scientific. If a society is too greedy and corrupt or too deferent to authority, then nuclear won't work. But in places like Canada, Sweden, and France they work very, very well. Also, Thorium reactors are much less likely to cause problems and they are part of the fifth gen reactor designs. We need both nuclear and solar.

akamaka 11y ago
I definitely wouldn't consider nuclear power in Canada to be a complete success. In 1999, Ontario Hydro's debt stood at $38.1 billion, most of which came from the construction of nuclear plants. For comparison, the entire government debt at the time was a little over $100 billion. These plants will continue operating well into this century, so when all is said and done, all of the cost overruns (and the 17 year shutdown at Bruce) will hopefully be worth it. But it's unreasonable to consider nuclear power to be a complete and clear-cut "home run" and to suggest that, as the original article stated, "only fear and capital" stand in the way of rolling out more nuclear plants.