The Great Missed Opportunity of Nuclear Power

Don’t you love the fact that the OP has “bumped” this thread so often they are essentially talking to themselves?

As far as Nuclear goes - the answer is what it has always been - cost. If it were cheaper there would be more of it

 

And that's the point. Cost could be 10% of what it is.

 

when the rich and powerful do not mind a nuclear plant in their neighborhood, we will know they are safe

 

government run could mean cheap energy for all, for profit just means more of the same and the government cleans up the mess afterwards

I would support modern government run nuclear power

and to prove it was safe, I would build the first plant near Mar-a-Lago

 

Run it as a regulated utility, much like the power companies now. Build the generating plants where they are needed.

 

I think nuclear should be run by the government

 

Would your model be the TVA?

 

not sure, saw on tv awhile back some much safer alternatives to the old method

 

Tennessee Valley Authority, hydropower.

 

It was the past government run nuclear sites that created massive waste contamination problems in the first place.

 

if a private company causes a mess, taxpayers have to clean it up

remember the oil spill, the right lamed Obama for not cleaning up their mess fast enough

then the right whined about making them pay us back

 

Taxpayers have to clean up ALL of the government run nuclear reservations because they didn't listen to the scientists back in the early 1950's of the then developing problem when nuclear power production was being increased.

I live right next to the Hanford Reservation in Washington state thus see this problem firsthand.

 

Really? Then stop blaming the government and start asking why corporations have not flocked to a huge money maker

 

Those extra costs are driven by legal and political opposition created by anti-nuclear propaganda.

 

why does government have to clean up after big oil?

 

Ooooh! Things like - make sure there is adequate back up systems for cooling and shielding Nd. Plan to dispose of the waste…….

Silly expensive things like that?

 

Now you are evading the topic which is about NUCLEAR power try again about what I actually posted.

 

No.
Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates: Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone

Abstract
This paper presents evidence of the disruption of a transition from fossil fuels to nuclear power, and finds the benefits forgone as a consequence are substantial. Learning rates are presented for nuclear power in seven countries, comprising 58% of all power reactors ever built globally. Learning rates and deployment rates changed in the late-1960s and 1970s from rapidly falling costs and accelerating deployment to rapidly rising costs and stalled deployment. Historical nuclear global capacity, electricity generation and overnight construction costs are compared with the counterfactual that pre-disruption learning and deployment rates had continued to 2015. Had the early rates continued, nuclear power could now be around 10% of its current cost. The additional nuclear power could have substituted for 69,000–186,000 TWh of coal and gas generation, thereby avoiding up to 9.5 million deaths and 174 Gt CO2 emissions. In 2015 alone, nuclear power could have replaced up to 100% of coal-generated and 76% of gas-generated electricity, thereby avoiding up to 540,000 deaths and 11 Gt CO2. Rapid progress was achieved in the past and could be again, with appropriate policies. Research is needed to identify impediments to progress, and policy is needed to remove them.

 

same would be true of private nuclear plants as big oil - the taxpayers would have to foot the bill for cleanup

let government run it and give us cheaper electricity rather then let for-profit run it and we pay the same price for electricity

 

Now you are going all over the place, and you ignored my post in your silly evasions because you can't address it not going to play your evasion game.

 

Who is underwriting this “plan”?

 

Apparently you did not click the link.
Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 2601, Australia

 

Oh! I did

Are you aware that Australia has only one nuclear reactor and that is not for power generation but to make medical implants?

it is not worth our while to go nuclear because we would have to import everything includibg relevant expertise to make it happen

 

There seems to be interest at ANU.

 

I posted the paper at my forum for the resident Scientist to read it will be interesting what he has think about it.