3 ms·

Nuclear isn't built because it isn't financially viable. I'd love to see more nuclear, but it just isn't going to happen anytime soon. Maybe if we added a carbo

Nuclear isn't built because it isn't financially viable. I'd love to see more nuclear, but it just isn't going to happen anytime soon. Maybe if we added a carbon tax that was reasonable considering the climate emergency it might be.

nabla9 8y ago
Prematurely closing the existing plants is insane however.
- chris_mc 8y ago
  It depends on the cost, honestly. If the cost is too high, no utility will continue to run those plants. I agree with you, but the reality is that finance runs everything these days.
  - nabla9 8y ago
    Main cost of nuclear power plant is the capital cost of building it. Operating nuclear plant is extremely cheap, even cheaper than maintaining solar or wind power plants.
    - chris_mc 8y ago
      Yea, and capex is the hardest nut to crack since it requires investors that want to make a profit sooner rather than later. I love nuclear, but it's not a realistic resource at this time. All the downvotes in the world won't make this untrue.
belorn 8y ago
A carbon tax would be nice, but I rather see in EU a complete ban on burning coal, oil and gas for electricity. From there people can do what ever they want to solve the energy shortage during production lows, be that nuclear or other solutions. I doubt we will see any reasonable economics for nuclear as long coal, oil and gas is allowed to be burned.
- chris_mc 8y ago
  >I doubt we will see any reasonable economics for nuclear as long coal, oil and gas is allowed to be burned. True, and that's why the carbon tax would have to be super-high as to make oil and gas financially un-viable. Banning burning fossil fuels is a better step, though, I agree.
chris_mc 8y ago
I would seriously like to hear from you folks why you disagree with my statement above, please comment. I have a feeling it's either rabid pro-nuke folks (I was a nuclear technician in the Navy, so I am also pro-nuke) or the pro-oil folks that disagreed with my carbon tax proposal. I have no idea right now why you think my position is wrong, so please enlighten me.

nabla9 8y ago

Prematurely closing the existing plants is insane however.

chris_mc 8y ago
It depends on the cost, honestly. If the cost is too high, no utility will continue to run those plants. I agree with you, but the reality is that finance runs everything these days.
- nabla9 8y ago
  Main cost of nuclear power plant is the capital cost of building it. Operating nuclear plant is extremely cheap, even cheaper than maintaining solar or wind power plants.
  - chris_mc 8y ago
    Yea, and capex is the hardest nut to crack since it requires investors that want to make a profit sooner rather than later. I love nuclear, but it's not a realistic resource at this time. All the downvotes in the world won't make this untrue.

belorn 8y ago

A carbon tax would be nice, but I rather see in EU a complete ban on burning coal, oil and gas for electricity. From there people can do what ever they want to solve the energy shortage during production lows, be that nuclear or other solutions. I doubt we will see any reasonable economics for nuclear as long coal, oil and gas is allowed to be burned.

chris_mc 8y ago
>I doubt we will see any reasonable economics for nuclear as long coal, oil and gas is allowed to be burned. True, and that's why the carbon tax would have to be super-high as to make oil and gas financially un-viable. Banning burning fossil fuels is a better step, though, I agree.

chris_mc 8y ago

I would seriously like to hear from you folks why you disagree with my statement above, please comment. I have a feeling it's either rabid pro-nuke folks (I was a nuclear technician in the Navy, so I am also pro-nuke) or the pro-oil folks that disagreed with my carbon tax proposal. I have no idea right now why you think my position is wrong, so please enlighten me.