But besides the harm done by CO2 as a greenhouse gas, consider the cost of the harm done by pollution. Please take a look at the European Commission’s report on the external costs of energy. Then, consider that fossil fuels are subsidized by tax credits.

If all energy subsidies were removed and utilities paid for the damage they caused, nuclear would pencil out as cheap as any available energy source.

But besides the harm done by CO2 as a greenhouse gas, consider the cost of the harm done by pollution. Please take a look at the European Commission’s report on the external costs of energy. Then, consider that fossil fuels are subsidized by tax credits.

If all energy subsidies were removed and utilities paid for the damage they caused, nuclear would pencil out as cheap as any available energy source.

“A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates.”

I’ve read the WIRED piece, and I’m still convinced that nuclear power can’t be an answer unless we’re willing to subsidize the [high] costs of nuclear energy for consumers. We’d spend years building costly plants, and the end result would be extremely expensive power, unless it’s subsidized by the government. That doesn’t alleviate my general unease with nuclear power, but if it’s to be a part of the solution for CO2 reasons, it can’t do so without heavy incentives.

On the subsidy/incentives point, the only way I’d support new nuclear construction is under a carbon marketplace system that would appropriately disincentive coal and natural gas plants. From a different WSJ piece:

“[Emissions penalties] matter[] because nuclear power’s ability to provide electricity at a competitive price compared to regular sources like coal and natural gas depends largely on those [large] construction costs [for new nuclear plants]. Fuel costs for nuclear power are miniscule. The only way to handicap the field in nuclear power’s favor is to put a big price tag on emissions of carbon dioxide. Since nuclear plants don’t emit CO2, they win when legislation penalizes carbon-heavy sectors like coal (and even natural gas).”

Are you ready for that type of regulation, Mr. Free Marketeer? If so, let’s talk nukes.

For what it’s worth, there’s a new type of nuclear plant under development. I don’t know enough about it to have an opinion on its value, but here’s a TreeHugger article discussing the merits of Thorium.

“A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates.”

I’ve read the WIRED piece, and I’m still convinced that nuclear power can’t be an answer unless we’re willing to subsidize the [high] costs of nuclear energy for consumers. We’d spend years building costly plants, and the end result would be extremely expensive power, unless it’s subsidized by the government. That doesn’t alleviate my general unease with nuclear power, but if it’s to be a part of the solution for CO2 reasons, it can’t do so without heavy incentives.

On the subsidy/incentives point, the only way I’d support new nuclear construction is under a carbon marketplace system that would appropriately disincentive coal and natural gas plants. From a different WSJ piece:

“[Emissions penalties] matter[] because nuclear power’s ability to provide electricity at a competitive price compared to regular sources like coal and natural gas depends largely on those [large] construction costs [for new nuclear plants]. Fuel costs for nuclear power are miniscule. The only way to handicap the field in nuclear power’s favor is to put a big price tag on emissions of carbon dioxide. Since nuclear plants don’t emit CO2, they win when legislation penalizes carbon-heavy sectors like coal (and even natural gas).”

Are you ready for that type of regulation, Mr. Free Marketeer? If so, let’s talk nukes.

For what it’s worth, there’s a new type of nuclear plant under development. I don’t know enough about it to have an opinion on its value, but here’s a TreeHugger article discussing the merits of Thorium.

Although I think Red Craig thoroughly deconstructed your argument here, just in case your looking for more information on this subject:

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_intro

Henry

Although I think Red Craig thoroughly deconstructed your argument here, just in case your looking for more information on this subject:

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_intro

Henry

This waste issue has aways been a work of fiction. Even when the plan was to throw away the spent fuel instead of recycling it, the contention that future generations will be adversely affected didn’t bear scrutiny. When the fossil-fuel reserves are depleted and the climate is altered so that most people live in severe hardship, the last thing people will care about is capsules of nuclear-energy waste buried thousands of feet in a desert mountain.

The simple fact is that renewable energy only works if it has a backup energy source. The two backups available are fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

This waste issue has aways been a work of fiction. Even when the plan was to throw away the spent fuel instead of recycling it, the contention that future generations will be adversely affected didn’t bear scrutiny. When the fossil-fuel reserves are depleted and the climate is altered so that most people live in severe hardship, the last thing people will care about is capsules of nuclear-energy waste buried thousands of feet in a desert mountain.

The simple fact is that renewable energy only works if it has a backup energy source. The two backups available are fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

If we’re facing a continued short-term oil dependency either way, I’d rather wake up 10 years from now having shifted to renewable energy (with manufacturing processes that have gradually adopted those technologies) instead of looking out my window at the new nuclear plant that’s still being constructed, with other nuclear plants producing toxic waste without any place to go. Now, that assumes that in ten years Congress still won’t have figure out a solution for where to store nuclear waste….I’ll take that bet. But even if Yucca or another location gets off the ground, I still prefer my scenario.

If we’re facing a continued short-term oil dependency either way, I’d rather wake up 10 years from now having shifted to renewable energy (with manufacturing processes that have gradually adopted those technologies) instead of looking out my window at the new nuclear plant that’s still being constructed, with other nuclear plants producing toxic waste without any place to go. Now, that assumes that in ten years Congress still won’t have figure out a solution for where to store nuclear waste….I’ll take that bet. But even if Yucca or another location gets off the ground, I still prefer my scenario.