3 ms·

> uncompetitive ... cost of the steam side ... it ... makes a loss. Huh? Whatever gave you idea that electricity production needs to be a profitable endeavor?

> uncompetitive ... cost of the steam side ... it ... makes a loss. Huh? Whatever gave you idea that electricity production needs to be a profitable endeavor? The considerations for choosing technologies should be availability, sustainability, safety (of the plant, the population, the environment), etc. - the price of electricity can be set arbitrarily afterwards, and if there's a loss then taxes will cover it, or subsidies + taxes to cover those. So, the question of whether to use steam or not is not a question of profit-and-loss.

marcosdumay 4y ago
Why would anyone subsidize nuclear instead of batteries? (Well, I know why, and yes, they would favor nuclear jut after oil and coal. But it wouldn't happen for any good reason.)
Gwypaas 4y ago
Lets create a market of everyone installing solar and trying to decouple from the power grid because you're forcing them to use more expensive power?
- einpoklum 4y ago
  I don't understand your comment. You seem to be indicating that I am somehow opposed the wide use of solar or that I support wide use of nuclear power - neither of which is the case. I'm just saying that steam turbines being "non-profitable" is not a consideration in whether or not to use them.
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    You're proposing using laws or tax payer money to subsidize certain power generation. That's bound to lead to issues, like for example the now cancelled Virgil C. Summer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal
    - einpoklum 4y ago
      All economic systems (with division of labor) are arrangements in which the efforts and the products of people's work are channeled in certain avenues. Laws and taxes are just some particular mechanisms within such systems. You (or I) might find certain laws or taxes beneficial or detrimental of course. Anyway, if the use of steam turbines is justifiable in terms of feasibility, efficiency, safety, costs (monetary or otherwise) etc. - then it is justifiable, period; and if it isn't, then it isn't. And the same goes for nuclear power plants. Otherwise you're arguing that we shouldn't use technology X because some US state is too corrupt to make it work. If that's your argument, I understand where you're coming from, but - USers should fix _that_ problem, not suggest that we forego the technology entirely.

marcosdumay 4y ago

Why would anyone subsidize nuclear instead of batteries? (Well, I know why, and yes, they would favor nuclear jut after oil and coal. But it wouldn't happen for any good reason.)

Gwypaas 4y ago

Lets create a market of everyone installing solar and trying to decouple from the power grid because you're forcing them to use more expensive power?

einpoklum 4y ago
I don't understand your comment. You seem to be indicating that I am somehow opposed the wide use of solar or that I support wide use of nuclear power - neither of which is the case. I'm just saying that steam turbines being "non-profitable" is not a consideration in whether or not to use them.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  You're proposing using laws or tax payer money to subsidize certain power generation. That's bound to lead to issues, like for example the now cancelled Virgil C. Summer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal
  - einpoklum 4y ago
    All economic systems (with division of labor) are arrangements in which the efforts and the products of people's work are channeled in certain avenues. Laws and taxes are just some particular mechanisms within such systems. You (or I) might find certain laws or taxes beneficial or detrimental of course. Anyway, if the use of steam turbines is justifiable in terms of feasibility, efficiency, safety, costs (monetary or otherwise) etc. - then it is justifiable, period; and if it isn't, then it isn't. And the same goes for nuclear power plants. Otherwise you're arguing that we shouldn't use technology X because some US state is too corrupt to make it work. If that's your argument, I understand where you're coming from, but - USers should fix _that_ problem, not suggest that we forego the technology entirely.