4 ms·

The economic case against nuclear is largely a byproduct of falling prices from fracking. That obviously can’t go on forever, and pulling back subsidies for fos

The economic case against nuclear is largely a byproduct of falling prices from fracking. That obviously can’t go on forever, and pulling back subsidies for fossil fuels would slowly help the economics align. Meanwhile nuclear plants are being built at a good pace throughout the world. A lot of the “anti renewable” people I know are some of the biggest proponents of nuclear. It’s strangely a popular position among America’s “right”.

speedplane 7y ago
> The economic case against nuclear is largely a byproduct of falling prices from fracking. Fracking changed the economics of all energy production, not just nuclear. The economic case against nuclear is that it can potentially wipe out everyone in a 50 mile radius. The cost of a nuclear power plant is therefore proportional to the surrounding real estate value.
- alentist 7y ago
  > The economic case against nuclear is that it can potentially wipe out everyone in a 50 mile radius. Your magnitudes are way, way off. Even the Tsar Bomba, the most powerful nuclear bomb ever detonated, only had a blast radius of 22 miles. And we’re talking about a nuclear power plant here, not a nuclear bomb. Do you understand the difference in how they operate? Your comment is a perfect example of anti-nuclear hysteria based on embarrassing levels of ignorance.
ZeroGravitas 7y ago
See my other comment for some thoughts on how much gas generated electricity would cost even if you set the price of gas at zero and ignored carbon pollution In the past fracked gas and unpriced carbon externalities have been the big factors for nuclear cost disadvantages, starting roughly about now (and already in some places) renewables will be doing to gas what gas has done to nuclear and take nuclear (and coal) out at the same time as a byproduct. A carbon tax would give a short term boost to existing nuclear over gas, which is one of the many reasons it's a good idea, but it also accelerates renewable adoption and price declines which already render new build nuclear ridiculous in economic terms.

speedplane 7y ago

> The economic case against nuclear is largely a byproduct of falling prices from fracking. Fracking changed the economics of all energy production, not just nuclear. The economic case against nuclear is that it can potentially wipe out everyone in a 50 mile radius. The cost of a nuclear power plant is therefore proportional to the surrounding real estate value.

alentist 7y ago
> The economic case against nuclear is that it can potentially wipe out everyone in a 50 mile radius. Your magnitudes are way, way off. Even the Tsar Bomba, the most powerful nuclear bomb ever detonated, only had a blast radius of 22 miles. And we’re talking about a nuclear power plant here, not a nuclear bomb. Do you understand the difference in how they operate? Your comment is a perfect example of anti-nuclear hysteria based on embarrassing levels of ignorance.

ZeroGravitas 7y ago

See my other comment for some thoughts on how much gas generated electricity would cost even if you set the price of gas at zero and ignored carbon pollution In the past fracked gas and unpriced carbon externalities have been the big factors for nuclear cost disadvantages, starting roughly about now (and already in some places) renewables will be doing to gas what gas has done to nuclear and take nuclear (and coal) out at the same time as a byproduct. A carbon tax would give a short term boost to existing nuclear over gas, which is one of the many reasons it's a good idea, but it also accelerates renewable adoption and price declines which already render new build nuclear ridiculous in economic terms.