Sunday, February 20, 2011

Nuclear Energy is too Expensive!

Why is tax money being spent on nuclear when it's now proven that solar is CHEAPER than nuclear and everyone knows it's cleaner and safer? This should end all arguments on the need to mine uranium for nuclear energy now. This gap will only widen with increasing costs of nuclear energy versus decreasing costs of solar energy. Cheaper and getting cheaper versus more expensive and getting more expensive. Source

7 comments:

J. Tyler Ballance said...

The "study" was the product of the environmental group, NC Warn (ncwarn.org) and it was produced by a summer intern, Sam Cunningham. The recently deceased John O. Blackburn Ph.D (econ) has his name on the paper, but it is doubtful that due to his failing health, that he had much to do with this student's paper.

It is great to see the cost of solar cells coming down and solar should be included as part of comprehensive energy strategies, when it is cost effective.

One gaping hole in Sam Cunningham's paper is the cost of storing solar energy, which will add considerably to the start-up and continuing cost of a solar power system.

We should see some economies of scale, for batteries or other newly emerging storage media, due to the renewed interest in electric cars, but anyone trying to compare solar to other generation methods needs to account for what happens when the sun goes down, or for extended periods of cloudy days.

The great thing about nuclear power is that it keeps generating, regardless of the weather.

Had we not been cowed into stopping nuclear plant production, by now, America could be energy independent and our children would enjoy the security of knowing that no matter what happens in the Middle East, or china, that America would be secure and stable.

But, we listened to the tree-huggers, and suspended nuclear generation plant construction. Now, we are at the mercy of the oil cartels and China, and far worse off than during the Jimmy Carter years.

We need a comprehensive energy independence strategy, based on sound engineering (not some summer intern's paper) that includes all cost-effective means of power generation and distribution.

Star Womanspirit said...

Heaven forbid that our tax dollars are ever used to actually benefit all the taxpayers by subsidizing truly clean energy that is not only cheaper but would increease an individual's expendable income. We can't have that in America.

WE need DIRTY NUCLEAR plants so a few folks (usualy caucasian men) can get rich at our expense.

Calling folks names and attaching labels to them is so so scientific J. Tyler. But it sure fits the modus operandi of the folks in support of getting rich while fouling our water, our land, and our homes.

For the record I'd rather hug a tree any day then care more for profit and thinking that collateral damage is okay...What label should be put on immoral profiteers who want the rules fixed again and again so they can do whatever they want and let other folks bear the consequences? Why isn't there a word for that behavior?

J. Tyler Ballance said...

OK, I am convinced...

In what asylum are you currently an inmate?

Never do you offer any substance to your posts. they are always based on emotions, and not verifiable facts. You often parrot whatever blather that comes from some of the regional "activist" blogs, without checking their facts or even pausing to ask if anything that you have cut and pasted here, could ever be confirmed by any objective observer.

In your posts you have, however, clearly delineated one stark contrast; the difference between the Environmental Scientists, and the irrational babbling of some of the Environmental "Activists."

We need more Environmental Scientists, who will examine these issues critically, and objectively.


I am now convinced that my posting further suggestions that you dig for facts and that you critically examine these alarmist blog feeds, rather than repeating whatever gloom and doom that you find on other blogs, has become a waste of time.

This blog could be a great source to disseminate sound environmental policy ideas, but instead you merely repeat whatever alarmist rhetoric that you come across in the blogosphere.

Such was the methods common in the dark ages, where propagating a rumor was considered a suitable substitute for objective analysis and the scientific method.

I will leave you to continue such mindless yawping on your own.

Star Womanspirit said...

J Tyler...you are so full of facts. Then NAME THE OTHER PLACE IN THE WORLD where uranium has been mined without damaging the environment or the people.

I want that fact. Please reassure me since I'm so irrational and "emotional"...like a woman.

проститутки питера said...

I found a great deal of helpful information in this post!

sexshop said...

It can't truly have effect, I consider like this.

a said...

Locate references that cover the ancient history of opium. You can find all the resources you need for your research on opium history from the online library.