Waking Up to the Downsides of New Nuclear

[webfarmer]

Two really good reports recently in the news. First the Washington Monthly article on the dodgy economics of new nuclear.

Bad Reactors. Rethinking Your Opposition to Nuclear power? Rethink Again. - Washington Monthly - January/February 2009

"Initially, the industry had hoped to limit the number of reactor models to two or three. Instead, there

Comments

[nahele_101]

4. The low carbon sources that are less costly than nuclear include efficiency, cogeneration, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar thermal and natural gas. Solar photovoltaics that are presently more costly than nuclear reactors are projected to decline dramatically in price in the next decade. Fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, which are not presently available, are projected to be somewhat more costly than nuclear reactors.

I am hoping the congress can keep this in mind. Also consider the fact that the other "renewable" options don't stick around for 10,000 years and make people sick.

Plus, when you factor in the cost and this global recession...

[webfarmer]

For me the key point there was that new nukes don't start up for about ten years from when you start in on building them.

Think about where renewables will be in ten years given learning curve cost reductions. That's going to be the competition.

Nuclear white elephants galore.

[nahele_101]

Well said!