« RANT II Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Airspace Over Flooded Nebraska Nuclear Power Plant Still Closed

By: lkorrow in RANT II | Recommend this post (0)
Tue, 21 Jun 11 11:57 PM | 25 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Rant II
Msg. 18512 of 20747
(This msg. is a reply to 18509 by Tour)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Tour says, "I don't think SolarEnergyBob has the same ring to it as AtomicBob?"

I do. With an updated grid, solar would bring down electric generation requirements very significantly. And on days it doesn't work, bring power in via the grid. Only reason solar hasn't taken off and economies of scale realized is the lobby agasinst it and lack of commitment of the govt to back it the way they do nuclear.

Decommissioning is only one of the factors that make nuclear cost prohibitive. I'd venture that it's not included in any cost comparisons of the various plant types. Total cost of ownership is a foreign concept to the nuclear industry.




Avatar




» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Airspace Over Flooded Nebraska Nuclear Power Plant Still Closed
By: Tour
in RANT II
Tue, 21 Jun 11 11:27 PM
Msg. 18509 of 20747

In the US, it's 20%. We have more nuclear power plants than any other nation in the world.

It takes years, and an enormous amount of money, to fully decommission a nuclear plant.

Do you know what the cost would be to not just get rid of them, but to replace them with enough geothermal plants, wind farms, coal burners, etc. to make up for the 20% of electricity?

Trillions. Money that doesn't exist, even if we did have enough get-up-and-go to massively restructure the power industry.

It's not going to happen anytime soon.

PS: Asia, as a whole, has plans to build up to 100 new plants over the next few decades.

PPS: I don't think SolarEnergyBob has the same ring to it as AtomicBob? Very Happy


« RANT II Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next