Environment & Energy

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

5. Nuclear the cheapest option? Only if you lie.

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:25 AM

Jun 2013

The strike price of nuclear is no good unless it is guaranteed for at least 40 years. Future nuclear plants will almost certainly require HIGHER prices since the cost curve for nuclear is ever higher.

They aren't willing to guarantee the price for renewable any longer than 4 years.
Why?
Because the price of electricity from renewable sources is steadily declining and writing todays prices into stone (as they are doing with nuclear) would be foolhardy and a gross misuse of public funds.

Let me know when they either make an agreement to steadily lower the price of nuclear at the same pace they do renewables, or, when they agree to hold today's offered price for renewables for a period of 40 years.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is solar really four times the cost of nuclear? No, but� [View all] wtmusic Jun 2013 OP

people of chernobyl are anxiously awaiting the arrival of "cheap, low cost" nuclear nt msongs Jun 2013 #1

They didn't have to wait at all. wtmusic Jun 2013 #2

Gee, nuclear power for the hospitals Lugal Zaggesi Jun 2013 #4

Oh please...you and Helen Caldicott wtmusic Jun 2013 #6

Oh please...you and Glenn Beck Lugal Zaggesi Jun 2013 #7

Check this out - this dude grew up across the street from the reactor wtmusic Jun 2013 #8

He looks deformed, BlueToTheBone Jul 2013 #26

Kiev, Ukraine, 20 April 2011 - Secretary-General's remarks at "25 Years after Chernobyl Catastrophe: OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #23

Thyroid cancer from Chernobyl has conclusively resulted in nine (9) deaths. wtmusic Jul 2013 #24

Let�s not pretend it was business as usual after the meltdown OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #25

Backpedal! Backpedal! wtmusic Jul 2013 #29

I�m not backpedalling in the least OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #33

Still waiting. nt wtmusic Jul 2013 #38

What are you waiting for? OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #44

Nuclear is cleaner than renewables wtmusic Jul 2013 #46

And, if battery backup, or hydrogen backup were used? OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #51

Honestly I don't know. wtmusic Jul 2013 #54

Do you own stock? BlueToTheBone Jul 2013 #27

When antinukes don't have an argument, they resort to mindless hacks. wtmusic Jul 2013 #31

One last question. BlueToTheBone Jul 2013 #37

World Nuclear Association: Health Impacts � Chernobyl Accident Appendix 2 OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #28

Hilarious...you might want to "read" before you "cut and paste". wtmusic Jul 2013 #36

And there it is! Your tell! The smiley! OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #48

How many people have died from wind turbines falling over? wtmusic Jul 2013 #50

You like to pretend that nuclear power is absolutely safe OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #52

Really? Show me where I make that claim. nt wtmusic Jul 2013 #53

It�s all about your attitude OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #55

If they had depended on solar panels covered with snow to keep them warm wtmusic Jul 2013 #56

Non sequitur - I thought the topic was the safety of nuclear fission plants OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #57

And we should consider the design of Chernobyl as representative? wtmusic Jul 2013 #58

I suppose we should consider Chernobyl irrelevant� OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #59

For all practical purposes, it is. wtmusic Jul 2013 #60

So, let me see if I follow your argument OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #61

You and your straw men: please talk amongst yourselves. I'm bored. wtmusic Jul 2013 #63

I don�t need any straw men to keep me company OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #64

A couple of extra pair of underwear... kristopher Jul 2013 #65

People in Fukushima Prefecture, Japan Lugal Zaggesi Jun 2013 #3

Sorry - but you are being a sucker for anti-nukes that know Photoshop... PamW Jun 2013 #10

Chernobyl is the Hindenburg of the nuclear power industry PamW Jun 2013 #9

Whats illogical in all this madokie Jun 2013 #11

Post removed Post removed Jun 2013 #13

Nuclear the cheapest option? Only if you lie. kristopher Jun 2013 #5

Just wondering... Did you actually believe any of that? FBaggins Jun 2013 #12

Sorry but that doesn't work. kristopher Jun 2013 #14

Nice attempt at deflection FBaggins Jun 2013 #15

It is manifestly obvious that wind is cheaper than nuclear. DLnyc Jun 2013 #16

You need to do some homework. wtmusic Jun 2013 #17

Well thank you for this information reinforcing my point. DLnyc Jun 2013 #18

Please. $50 billion in "nuclear subsidies" is either just bullshit wtmusic Jul 2013 #19

Back of napkin, early morning half assed asleep figures madokie Jul 2013 #20

A = pi r^2. You are basically correct. DLnyc Jul 2013 #21

And if more than half of the circle isn't over land? FBaggins Jul 2013 #22

Does that include the cost of transporting/storing spent rods? Auggie Jul 2013 #30

Soil contamination?! wtmusic Jul 2013 #32

Potential ... Auggie Jul 2013 #34

Can you guarantee the human race won't be extinct in 500 years? wtmusic Jul 2013 #35

Nuclear never cheaper once total life cycle including waste & decommission included on point Jul 2013 #39

The biggest uncertainty facing nuclear power is how many idiots Greenpeace can marshal wtmusic Jul 2013 #40

Really? Mopar151 Jul 2013 #41

All the disasters you name were from weapons production, wtmusic Jul 2013 #42

Show me the NPV for 100,000 yrs of waste protection and we can talk on point Jul 2013 #43

Ah, Greenpeace Idiotic Talking Point #1. wtmusic Jul 2013 #45

Nobody is falling for your pro nuclear propaganda. Plz move to Fukushima ok? on point Jul 2013 #47

Statistically it would be safer than living in parts of West Virginia wtmusic Jul 2013 #49

The Mass Yankee core is buried at Hanford Mopar151 Jul 2013 #62