Reply #54: Actually the MIT report ISN'T all that well regarded by independent analysts.

[kristopher]

It is constructed with assumptions that strongly favor the nuclear industry; the machinations they went through to maintain some sense of illusion in the 2009 version was particularly distasteful.

The aspiration of the nuclear enthusiasts, embodied in early reports from academic institutions, like MIT, has become desperation, in the updated MIT report, precisely because their reactor cost numbers do not comport with reality. Notwithstanding their hope and hype, nuclear reactors are not economically competitive and would require massive subsidies to force them into the supply mix. It was only by ignoring the full range of alternatives -- above all efficiency and renewables -- that the MIT studies could pretend to see an economic future for nuclear reactors, but the analytic environment has changed from the early days of the great bandwagon market, so that it is much more difficult to get away with passing off hope and hype as reality.

The massive shift of costs necessary to render nuclear barely competitive with the most expensive alternatives and the huge amount of leverage (figurative and literal) that is necessary to make nuclear power palatable to Wall Street and less onerous on ratepayers is simply not worth it because the burden falls on taxpayers. Policymakers, regulators, and the public should turn their attention to and put their resources behind the lower-cost, more environmentally benign alternatives that are available. If nuclear power’s time ever comes, it will be far in the future, after the potential of the superior alternatives available today has been exhausted.

Cooper pg 8.

Where is your critical eye for nuclear? I have had a respect for your views since you took the time to actually ascertain my position on nuclear once long ago. However in the last few months judging by your posts it is hard to conclude anything but that you have drifted into the cheap seats of the nuclear peanut gallery. Look at your comments on the thread about the MIT study and proliferation concerns.


Where is your critical eye for nuclear power? The MIT paper highlighted 4 MAJOR issues that have been present for 50 years. They haven't been solved and it isn't because no one has tried.

Moving forward with that fact looming is real "hand waving".