Japan shuts down last Nuke Plant.

[Vaughn]

can nuke power be affordable?

Compared to what? Can we continue to belch megatons of pollutants and
greenhouse gases in the air? What will be the cost to clean that up?
What is the cost of ecological damage from coal mining and gas
drilling/transportation? and how does that compare to similar damage
from uranium mining?

When comparing things, you really need to compare all costs, internal
and external. The use of nuclear power admittedly involves potential
environmental consequences, but the use of fossil power (the only actual
alternative to nuclear power) involves CERTAIN environmental consequences.

Vaughn

 

[Mho]

Nuke energy has been classically cheaper. Now we have discovered hidden
subsidies that have been removed.

-----------
"Vaughn" wrote in message

can nuke power be affordable?

Compared to what? Can we continue to belch megatons of pollutants and
greenhouse gases in the air? What will be the cost to clean that up?
What is the cost of ecological damage from coal mining and gas
drilling/transportation? and how does that compare to similar damage
from uranium mining?

When comparing things, you really need to compare all costs, internal
and external. The use of nuclear power admittedly involves potential
environmental consequences, but the use of fossil power (the only actual
alternative to nuclear power) involves CERTAIN environmental consequences.

Vaughn

 

[Jim Wilkins]

...> When comparing things, you really need to compare all costs,
internal
and external. The use of nuclear power admittedly involves
potential
environmental consequences, but the use of fossil power (the only
actual
alternative to nuclear power) involves CERTAIN environmental
consequences.

Vaughn

What do you think the cost per KWH would be if all those were
considered?

I pay ~$0.151 per KWH now.

jsw

 

[Mho]

I believe the subsidies are supposed to be over and done with here. I am
paying 6.2 cents per kWh but the end bill comes to about 14 cents/kWh. I
have to assume that the cost rise due to subsidy removal on nuke energy is
done.

However, with the alternative energy sources being developed and subsidised
this price is definitely going to increase. Our provincial Hydro has had
80.2 cents shoved up their butts, kicking and screaming, for PV, but it
definitely helped develop an industry here. Long term? Maybe. I am not sure
who is paying that bill. I didn't get any of it and lived on PV for a few
years building a home. The result of most subsidies is the prices go up and
the contractors get richer.
I am trying to mount same on my designed slope garage roof, right now.
Geeez! $100 per panel for just the racking and hearing $200-300 per panel to
install plus electrical. Not sure if I want to crawl out on a 12:12 pitch
roof and do this myself anymore. I am telling my wife it may be cheaper to
smash the PV panels and throw them in the garbage than pay the $5K to save
$500 worth of energy for the rest of our lives. They still lean against the
side of my barn being held in the wind by the connections...LOL

Yeah, I can see both sides of the argument but the prices are going to rise
for sure...a lot.

-----------

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message What do you think the cost per KWH would be if all those were
considered?

I pay ~$0.151 per KWH now.

jsw

 

[Bob F]

I believe the subsidies are supposed to be over and done with here. I
am paying 6.2 cents per kWh but the end bill comes to about 14
cents/kWh. I have to assume that the cost rise due to subsidy removal
on nuke energy is done.

In the US, they haven't removed a major subsidy on nuclear, the Price Anderson
Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act.

 

[Vaughn]

In the US, they haven't removed a major subsidy on nuclear, the Price Anderson
Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act.

Sometimes a subsidy is in the eye of the beholder. Since the government
has never had to pay any claims under Price Anderson, some would argue
that it's not really a subsidy at all.

On the other hand, coal and natural gas power plants are allowed to
damage our environment by belching their waste products directly into
our atmosphere, but have no present or future responsibility to mitigate
that damage. Some would also argue that huge immunity doesn't
constitute a major subsidy, but I would disagree.

Vaughn

 

[Bob F]

Sometimes a subsidy is in the eye of the beholder. Since the
government has never had to pay any claims under Price Anderson, some
would argue that it's not really a subsidy at all.

If there were an accident, the injured parties in the US would likely receive
very little in compensation. They cannot buy insurance for nuclear accidents.
Utilities have limited responsibility. So the system transfers the
responsibility for accidents to the victims. Not exactly fair, in my mind, and
without a doubt, a very clear subsidy to encourage a power source that has
demomstrated increasingly more damage worldwide in the last decades.

The total cost to the utility, country, and people of Japan won't be know for
decades or more. Reports of radioactive fish elsewhere suggest that the damage
my spread far beyond Japan.

They said it couldn't happen. It did.

 

[Jim Wilkins]

what other anything runs the risks of nuclear power?

They all have problems. Reduce your consumption.

 

[Curbie]

They all have problems. Reduce your consumption.

Bingo! But I wonder how many people even consider THEIR consumption,
my circumstances are different than others, but I consume 220kWh of
electricity, 5 terms of NG, and 1 gallon of gasoline per month on a
yearly average for the two years I've been tracking it. My point here
is not the numbers themselves, but knowing and making and effort to
improve them.

People talk about energy as if the problem is the way it's produced
and not the demand that THEY themselves place on producers for cheap
supply.

Curbie

 

[Jim Wilkins]

Bingo! But I wonder how many people even consider THEIR consumption,
my circumstances are different than others, but I consume 220kWh of
electricity, 5 terms of NG, and 1 gallon of gasoline per month on a
yearly average for the two years I've been tracking it. My point
here
is not the numbers themselves, but knowing and making and effort to
improve them.

People talk about energy as if the problem is the way it's produced
and not the demand that THEY themselves place on producers for cheap
supply.

Curbie

I've cut electricity use to below 150 KWH / month, but I've run out of
reasonable ways to reduce it much further. That includes electric hot
water.

The household average here is 624 KWH / month according to this report
on the recent scrubber upgrade to reduce mercury emissions from
burning coal.
http://www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/merrimackstation/pdfs/ar/AR-390.pdf

jsw

 

[Mho]

As long as it doesn't affect anything I do I am all for all of that green
stuff.

---------

"Curbie" wrote in message
Bingo! But I wonder how many people even consider THEIR consumption,
my circumstances are different than others, but I consume 220kWh of
electricity, 5 terms of NG, and 1 gallon of gasoline per month on a
yearly average for the two years I've been tracking it. My point here
is not the numbers themselves, but knowing and making and effort to
improve them.

People talk about energy as if the problem is the way it's produced
and not the demand that THEY themselves place on producers for cheap
supply.

Curbie

 

[mike]

As long as it doesn't affect anything I do I am all for all of that
green stuff.

+1
I'm pretty damn frugal. I try to do my part for the planet.
But, lately, I've been wondering whether I'd rather be
standing in front of St. Peter explaining how the Earth died
in spite of my heroic efforts.
OR
Laughing with Lucifer about how much my extravagant motorcycle
got me laid.

There's gotta be a balance somewhere. I fear that by the
time we figger it out, we'll all be dead.

I'll think about it while I go for a ride to the store to
shop for extravagant motorcycles.