Brit teacher who filed suit v. Al Gore's movie was a scumbag corporate shill

[Sophistry_and_Illusion]

@cowgirl

Greens who are fiscally conservative (i.e. don’t like waste in any context) find nukes far too expensive.

Nukes are unprofitable unless heavily subsidized by the taxpayer, such as in the form of covering the inevitable cost overruns*, supporting vast bureaucracies for regulating it, and assuming liability in case of an incident (for example, in Canada, operators are limited to $75 million liability in the case of an incident - the taxpayers cover the rest). Also, when nukes go off-line (which they often do), not only do you need to keep paying the full operational costs (plus whatever it takes to get them up and running again), but you need to burn coal anyway (cheap, reliable) to replace the lost energy supply.

Amory Lovins was an influential fellow who advocated for a soft energy path, which is very Green and completely incompatible with nuclear.

Or, read what was posted from Gore’s speech upthread.

Even if you don’t care about the traditional Green concerns of nuclear waste or the threat of war, you should still care about the economics of it all. Nukes are an extremely inefficient way to meet our energy needs.

*In a vivid example, Ralph Torrie, a Canadian energy policy guy, was quoted in Hydro by Jamie Smith and Keith Stewart thusly:

Maybe. I was just reading in the Economist, though, that although nuclear power plants are very expensive to build, they are actually much cheaper to operate than fossil fuel power plants, because uranium is quite inexpensive. Apparently, lately nuclear power plants have been making money hand over fist because of increasing fuel prices driving up the cost of electricity, while their production costs have remained low.

[silenus]

@AskNott

I think I’ll add “Dimmock” to my list of insults aimed at think-free people. “Dimwad” is my current favorite.

Oh, don’t do that! Charlie Dimmock is a beacon of beauty in a skinny-assed world!

[MJinks]

And what beacons!

[Cerowyn]

@cowgirl

*In a vivid example, Ralph Torrie, a Canadian energy policy guy, was quoted in Hydro by Jamie Smith and Keith Stewart thusly:

Because refurbishing a 4000+ MW power station is comparable to burning cash to heat a single house?

Wow. That’s a whole new level of stupid for this thread.

[John_DiFool]

Howcum “brainwashing” by people you disagree with/hate is bad, but brainwashing by those who are on your “side” is just fine and dandy?

[Una_Persson]

@cowgirl

Also, when nukes go off-line (which they often do)

Really? Even 30 years ago, nuclear reactors had about the same net capacity factor and equivalent availability factor as a “reliable” coal plant.

http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1984/8421/842107.PDF (see Fig. 21)

Or look here (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_generation/usreact07.xls) , to see 2007 to-date data on net capacity factors for US nuclear units (I’ll do the math for you - take CELL K142 / (24*(31+28+31+30+31+30+31)*CELL B142), you get 0.916, or 91.6%) 91.6% makes nuclear power extremely reliable in terms of net generation.

…not only do you need to keep paying the full operational costs (plus whatever it takes to get them up and running again), but you need to burn coal anyway (cheap, reliable) to replace the lost energy supply.

This is no different from when most plant go down. And you don’t pay the “full” operational cost, for reasons which really are obvious.

Even if you don’t care about the traditional Green concerns of nuclear waste or the threat of war, you should still care about the economics of it all. Nukes are an extremely inefficient way to meet our energy needs.

1. Inefficient, or uneconomical?
2. What cost are you assessing per tonne of CO2 or equivalent? What did you calculate the breakeven to be?

In a vivid example, Ralph Torrie, a Canadian energy policy guy, was quoted in Hydro by Jamie Smith and Keith Stewart thusly:

A “Canadian energy policy guy” who is either an idiot, or who can’t figure out how to craft a fair example. He ought to be able to do better than that.

To address another question in here, the greenfield costs of current and future tech plants was posted by me in GQ not too long ago. See for details.

[tagos]

@Sophistry and Illusion

Apparently, lately nuclear power plants have been making money hand over fist because of increasing fuel prices driving up the cost of electricity, while their production costs have remained low.

That’s because the costs of decommissioning, accidents etc are handed over to the tax payer.

[Zebra]

@John DiFool

Howcum “brainwashing” by people you disagree with/hate is bad, but brainwashing by those who are on your “side” is just fine and dandy?

Because my side washes brains with a lemon fresh scent.