2 ms·

> Were you prepared to compare the plight of the solar installers who fall off of roofs and get injured to the construction workers injured on the job during va

> Were you prepared to compare the plight of the solar installers who fall off of roofs and get injured to the construction workers injured on the job during various nuclear plant construction projects? > Did you count the various victims at Chernobyl? (Epidemiologists project at least 4,000 deaths) The Banqiao dam killed 170k, and that's just the largest dam failure, there's a heavy tail following it. Wind and solar don't have any single incident so dramatic, but they require so damn much manufacturing, construction, and maintenance to generate so little energy that they don't do particularly well in the comparisons I've seen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents Admittedly this is a surface level understanding, but you speak with the confidence of someone who knows better while providing even less concrete information. I'm hoping you've got deeper knowledge to back your position up and that you're willing to share. > Were you ready to justify why states like New York needs to subsidize nuclear... Everyone in the energy industry gets subsidies. Big subsidies. What matters are costs per kwh, and nuclear seems to win there too. http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/ http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/electric-gene... Are these numbers wrong? If they're wrong, and fission is actually much more expensive than it looks, is it because fission is fundamentally hard / risky or because the updated prices factor in risk due to irrational public perception?

Spooky23 9y ago
I agree that there is plenty of government intervention of energy. But I don't think there are other electrical generating technologies that require direct cash infusions of that scale when in a mature operational state just to remain a going concern. The costs for fission are high because they must operate at peak capacity to recoup their capital costs. That was fine when electricity generation was 100% regulated and demand curves were steady. Now things are changing faster and we have market pricing for generation. Market forces price peak demand higher than base demand, and smaller, more nimble and cheaper generators are eating the lunch of big 1960s nuclear plants. The risks and technology issues are also serious and very expensive, but we have pushed out the costs into the future and taxpayers who aren't born yet will be paying those debts. Nuclear advocates always ignore the costs associated with securely storing waste products for a period of time approaching recorded human history. That said, those costs aren't priced into nuclear energy.

Spooky23 9y ago

I agree that there is plenty of government intervention of energy. But I don't think there are other electrical generating technologies that require direct cash infusions of that scale when in a mature operational state just to remain a going concern. The costs for fission are high because they must operate at peak capacity to recoup their capital costs. That was fine when electricity generation was 100% regulated and demand curves were steady. Now things are changing faster and we have market pricing for generation. Market forces price peak demand higher than base demand, and smaller, more nimble and cheaper generators are eating the lunch of big 1960s nuclear plants. The risks and technology issues are also serious and very expensive, but we have pushed out the costs into the future and taxpayers who aren't born yet will be paying those debts. Nuclear advocates always ignore the costs associated with securely storing waste products for a period of time approaching recorded human history. That said, those costs aren't priced into nuclear energy.