Comments on: The Truth About Nuclear Power http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/the-truth-about-nuclear-power/ Whiskey and Gunpowder features articles on gold, oil, currencies, emerging markets, energy, and more. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:05:13 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Andrew http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/the-truth-about-nuclear-power/comment-page-1/#comment-1930 Andrew Sat, 09 May 2009 09:22:24 +0000 http://agoratestsite.com/wordpresswhiskey/?p=228#comment-1930 The nuclear industry doesn't need to justify itself at all, since it is the last man standing. When you're the only option, you don't need to sell it, you sell yourself. Once you price in the externalities of coal, natural gas and fuel-oil plants even the cost inflated nuclear plants of the past are competitive. By all means, don't give nuclear power subsidies. But if we put a cap on CO2 emissions, that will cap the amount of energy which can be produced via fossil fuels. The track record of renewables is much worse then that of nuclear, as Germany clearly demonstrates (They have both high electricity tariffs and large renewable subsidies). That leaves nuclear power. Let's simplify the nuclear regulatory regime, so one plant design can be standardized and save the hundreds of millions in duplicate approval processes. Get some sane legislative gaurentees so approvals for operation come up front and not after construction, this would minimize the risk of stranded capital. Whether or not you believe in global warming, CO2 caps are coming. Your arguments come straight from the mid 90s and certainlly lose under the Obama administration. Also, Yucca mountain is paid for by the nuclear industry with billions to spare (in other words, waste storage is a negative subsidy on the nuclear industry). The problem of it is not technical, but political. If a suitable storage site is found, it would only be justifiable to have it actively gaurded for a few hundred years at the most. Beyond that, any nefarious terrorist would have an easier time getting uranium by mining it (This might be news to you, but radioactive isotopes are in fact a naturally occuring thing). Besides, North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel did not get their nuclear materials by spiriting them away from US facilities (radioactive materials are very easy to trace down due to their radioactive nature), but the old fashioned way. References: 1. E.ON demonstrates the reality of wind power: http://www.aweo.org/windEon2004.html 2. http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html 3. No reference required for the coming regulation of CO2, if you're not aware of that, you must be living under a rock. PS. I don't work for any energy related industry, I'm in IT but I do have an interest in sensible, reality based, energy policy. Renewable fantasies are not reality based. The nuclear industry doesn’t need to justify itself at all, since it is the last man standing. When you’re the only option, you don’t need to sell it, you sell yourself.

Once you price in the externalities of coal, natural gas and fuel-oil plants even the cost inflated nuclear plants of the past are competitive. By all means, don’t give nuclear power subsidies. But if we put a cap on CO2 emissions, that will cap the amount of energy which can be produced via fossil fuels. The track record of renewables is much worse then that of nuclear, as Germany clearly demonstrates (They have both high electricity tariffs and large renewable subsidies). That leaves nuclear power.

Let’s simplify the nuclear regulatory regime, so one plant design can be standardized and save the hundreds of millions in duplicate approval processes. Get some sane legislative gaurentees so approvals for operation come up front and not after construction, this would minimize the risk of stranded capital. Whether or not you believe in global warming, CO2 caps are coming. Your arguments come straight from the mid 90s and certainlly lose under the Obama administration.

Also, Yucca mountain is paid for by the nuclear industry with billions to spare (in other words, waste storage is a negative subsidy on the nuclear industry). The problem of it is not technical, but political. If a suitable storage site is found, it would only be justifiable to have it actively gaurded for a few hundred years at the most. Beyond that, any nefarious terrorist would have an easier time getting uranium by mining it (This might be news to you, but radioactive isotopes are in fact a naturally occuring thing). Besides, North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel did not get their nuclear materials by spiriting them away from US facilities (radioactive materials are very easy to trace down due to their radioactive nature), but the old fashioned way.

References:
1. E.ON demonstrates the reality of wind power: http://www.aweo.org/windEon2004.html
2. http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html
3. No reference required for the coming regulation of CO2, if you’re not aware of that, you must be living under a rock.

PS. I don’t work for any energy related industry, I’m in IT but I do have an interest in sensible, reality based, energy policy. Renewable fantasies are not reality based.

]]>