Re:U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weren’t Built for Climate Change
by pfdietz on Monday April 22, 2019 @08:06AM
(#19718220)
> And what "facts" would those be, exactly...?
The levelized cost of solar and wind are well below that of new nuclear. If you did not know this, well, you were ignorant.
> That looks like a pretty big incentive.
Funny you should compare natural gas and nuclear. Exelon, which operates 23 nuclear reactors in the US, did the same thing. The conclusion Exelon came to was that new nuclear construction is hopelessly uncompetitive with natural gas fired combined cycle in the US at current natural gas prices. An effective CO2 tax of $300-400/ton would be needed for new nuclear to compete.
Yes, nuclear saves on fuel costs, but it's a penny wise, pound foolish saving.
> SpaceX has an exemplerary safety record. More misinformation...
SpaceX blows up plenty of stuff IN DEVELOPMENT. They just blew up their manned capsule during ground tests, for example. Applying the same development methodology to nuclear would be a nonstarter. In nuclear you need to avoid accidents everywhere. Paralysis by analysis follows.
> ThorCon is estimating to-the-plug electricty costs of three to five cents per KWH.
Uh huh. That estimate, and $5, will get you a cup of caffeinated brown water at Starbucks.
The levelized cost of solar and wind are well below that of new nuclear. If you did not know this, well, you were ignorant.
> That looks like a pretty big incentive.
Funny you should compare natural gas and nuclear. Exelon, which operates 23 nuclear reactors in the US, did the same thing. The conclusion Exelon came to was that new nuclear construction is hopelessly uncompetitive with natural gas fired combined cycle in the US at current natural gas prices. An effective CO2 tax of $300-400/ton would be needed for new nuclear to compete.
Yes, nuclear saves on fuel costs, but it's a penny wise, pound foolish saving.
> SpaceX has an exemplerary safety record. More misinformation...
SpaceX blows up plenty of stuff IN DEVELOPMENT. They just blew up their manned capsule during ground tests, for example. Applying the same development methodology to nuclear would be a nonstarter. In nuclear you need to avoid accidents everywhere. Paralysis by analysis follows.
> ThorCon is estimating to-the-plug electricty costs of three to five cents per KWH.
Uh huh. That estimate, and $5, will get you a cup of caffeinated brown water at Starbucks.