View Single Post
  #13  
Old 05-17-2019, 04:56 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
There is, currently, one technology that could scale up to meet our needs for constant and steady production. Nuclear. It could easily be brought up in the US to take that 35-40% load, making us a hell of a lot greener, and by extension along with the new wave of battery powered cars make us greener across the board. But we won't do it because it's too risky and costs too much. But this is the same sort of risk analysis and cost to benefit that anti-vaxxers use, with exactly the same flaws.
Actually this shows that you missed what took place recently.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...5&postcount=82

In essence, what you press on is a view based on what was going on years ago; when in more recent times, with virtually no intervention from environmentalists out there, nuclear plants are being closed not only because natural gas is cheaper, but because advances in battery power are the writing on the wall for private industry regarding nuclear power.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyi.../#81fb67b31f31
Quote:
Coal and nuclear plants struggle to remain economic

While declining wind and solar prices have caused renewable energy capacity to surge, they are also dimming the prospects for struggling coal and nuclear plants. The U.S. is on pace for a record 15.4 GW of coal closures in 2018, could close an additional 24.1 GW of coal capacity by 2024, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects a 65 GW decline through 2030. Carbon Tracker forecasts that by that time, 100% of U.S. coal capacity will have higher long-run operating costs than renewables.

In light of these changing economics, the Trump administration proposed a bailout for certain coal and nuclear plants. The plan was dropped after intense scrutiny from multiple fronts due to billions in estimated new annual costs, but it represents a backward-looking approach to keep dirty and expensive energy sources online instead of embracing clean and cheap energy sources.

Several states are also grappling with uneconomic nuclear plants. Two federal appeals courts have upheld state nuclear subsidies in New York and Illinois, while New Jersey and Connecticut are currently considering how to keep unprofitable nuclear plants open. While the court decisions help prop up uneconomic nuclear, they also set an important precedent for states looking to put a value on carbon emission reductions through subsidies.
Hence the option that it is ignored because it also ruffles a lot of conservative feathers; seeing that nuclear will not be as economical, but still IMHO a good weapon to have against global warming, it is then the turn of the government to organize and fund the development and deployment of new and standardized nuclear power plants.