5 ms·
In deciding what to build next, you would compare nuclear with the other future options, which do not include coal. No one argues that solar or wind will kill
by marze 13y ago
In deciding what to build next, you would compare nuclear with the other future options, which do not include coal.
No one argues that solar or wind will kill anyone.
And, the real problem with nuclear is that it isn't cost effective. If the free market was operating, no plants nuclear plants would be built in the US. It is only with govt. subsidies making 90% the up-front cost risk-free there has been even a nibble of interest from free market investors. And even that interest has petered out.
- VLM 13y agoWe no longer have a capitalistic free market in the USA, so its kind of irrelevant. Crony capitalism all the way. We just built a govt subsidized coal plant about 30 miles east (thankfully downwind) from my house. Wind plants don't run on wind but on govt subsidies. This kind of massive corruption makes engineering decisions kind of difficult, given that the bean counting numbers are pretty much imaginary.
- api 13y agoWe've never had a free market. Perhaps we should, but so far it's never existed.
- neonhomer 13y agoBut if the free market was truly operating would we be building any wind and solar plants? When it comes down to it aren't coal plants still the most economical from a market stand-point?
- marze 13y agoSurprisingly, that's not so right now, wind is more cost effective. The price of a new coal plant in the US has gone up dramatically due to the increases in energy and metals.
- VladRussian2 13y ago>aren't coal plants still the most economical from a market stand-point only in the current environment there most of the cost of coal energy (green house gas and other pollutants emissions, environment destruction where coal is mined, etc...) is socialized
- api 13y agoIn a free market I doubt we'd have nuclear either. All energy sources other than fossil fuels are the product of huge government R&D investments and huge subsidies.
- jlgreco 13y agoIf you were charged with building a city from scratch (unlikely, I know) and had to power the thing, the question wouldn't be "nuclear or solar/wind?". It would still be "Is this near a good damming location? No? So... do I want nuclear, or do I want to burn something?" For renewable base load, your options are basically hydro or burning something renewable like ((farmed) wood, trash, or methane from trash). Otherwise, with current technology, you are left with either burning atoms or burning something made of dinosaurs that you claw from the earth. Solar and Wind might be able to do some limited base-load with massive efficient energy storage schemes, such as pumped-storage hydro, but really I don't see that scaling very far. PSH is about as good as it gets for that, and it is highly dependent on local geography.. Other schemes like storing molten sodium or compressed air don't really operate in the same class as PSH.
- danielweber 13y agoSolar and wind do kill people. You can't build a lot of large things without people dying. No one in the US is building new coal because natural gas is super cheap these days. Market conditions can change, though. Plus, China.