Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewables, CSIRO report finds

Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewables, CSIRO report finds

It is the most expensive way to generate electricity. However that doesn't mean it doesn't have a place in the industry.

 

when nuclear is safe enough that even a rich neighborhood wants one in their town, I am all for it

 

That is pure nonsense. Nobody (rich or poor) wants power plants in their neighborhood. Or high tension power lines. Or sewage plants. Or water treatment plants. Or railroad tracks. Or freeways. Or airports. Or harbors.

NIMBY has nothing to do with wealth.

 

so everyone wants them in someone elses town?

 

I am by no means trying to infer that you're a socialist with this comment, but isn't this an example of something a socialist would use to argue that the rich act out of self interest to the detriment of the greater society?

Where do you think a power plant should be? Wouldn't it be best to be located central to the location the most power is used? Rich people might live there, but that's incidental to the plant's utility.

Large groups of poor and middle class use far more energy than small groups of rich, and benefit far more from abundant sources of it. Let the rich buy their own sources of energy. I'm sure some would buy an A1B reactor if current regulation & technology limitations didn't prevent them from that. But for $200 million, that's not out of reach for many municipalities.

 

We live in an upscale gated community. It could be next door as far as I'm concerned.

 

I would have no problem with a wind turbine next to my house and wind turbines are the cheapest form of energy production.

Sweden recently announced that they are building wooden wind turbines. One of the biggest cost for wind turbines is the transport cost of the steel structure. The modular wooden structures can be constructed on site

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...MQFnoECB4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1O76yaRK1Sl8LvnHbrdKNE

 

No Amount Of Subsidies Will Ever Make A Wind/Solar Electricity System Economically Feasible
November 30, 2023/ Francis Menton

• 
  The COP 28 climate confab opened today in Dubai. Some 70,000 true believers in the energy transition are said to be gathering. And not one of them appears to be either willing or able to do the simple arithmetic that shows that this can’t possibly work.
  
  
• So far, no country that has made a commitment to “net zero” has officially backed off. (Argentina may soon become the first.). Things proceed as if all that is needed is to build sufficient wind and solar generation facilities, until eventually you have enough of them to meet demand.
  
  
• But that’s not how this works. The absurdity becomes more obvious every day. Can somebody please tell the poor people making fools of themselves in Dubai?
  
  
• Let’s consider the latest from Germany.
  

READ MORE

 

isn't this something the rich would do to get something, but make the poor take the risk and keep the risk as far from themselves as possible

 

see, we have one now that says it's safe enough, once people start to see them going up in such areas, they will want them too

 

Nuclear energy has been subsidized since its conception

 

This is a good reason to stop subsidizing all forms of energy production. It's not a good reason to subsidize energy sources based on their unpopularity.

 

The reactor I referenced is the type used on naval vessels. While some extra expense would be necessary for the infrastructure necessary to cool the reactor, they are currently safe enough for sailors to sleep right next to. The risk is already minimal.

 

Really? In what way?

 

Can you name a nuclear power plant that any government did not contribute to the cost of construction or decommissioning

 

Everybody wants required infrastructure everywhere but where they live.

I already gave you multiple examples.

Everybody needs garbage dumps, but amazing that nobody wants to live near one.

 

And it is more efficient, produces much more power, and is a lot more reliable.

 

Can you name any power plant of any kind in the last century that provided power to the general public that was not subsidized?

Even all the "Green Energy" ones.

Sorry, you do not even realize you are completely failing with chasing that car.

 

Here we go again with rich and poor.

Care to actually address facts, and not just try to push some kind of class warfare fantasy?

 

You made the claim. You tell me.

 

Yeah, they contribute to the cost, but not by paying expenses. Their contribution increases the cost of construction and decommissioning.

Decommissioning is considered part of the life cycle of the plant, and thus the funds necessary to decommission the plant are mandated to be part of the plant's budget.

 

yep, so why would a billionaire not want to power his or her mansion?

 

I have those items in my town, most towns have them

 

the fact is, when the rich want these, the rest of the people will want them too as they will feel they are safer (or the rich would not want them)