Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Nuclear power is more than just an occasional plot device on The Simpsons. It's a source of energy that lights up our televisions and heats our microwaves. As we explore ways to harness alternative forms of energy, however, the future of nuclear power grows increasingly uncertain. Is nuclear power our best energy alternative, or is it time to pursue other options?
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Reliability Matters
- From Nuclear Energy Institute
By Nuclear Energy Institute - Nuclear Technologies Policy Organization
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Price?
I like nukes. I even have a friend who' s a nuke ;^D
Seriously nukes really only have one problem, cost. They cost around $9,000kw to install and take 10 yrs Progress Energy just said, one could do many other Alt energy's for less to much less. Solar Thermal generators with wood pellet, ect, backup since they are small steam engines can be done for under $3,000kw. Wind for around $1,000kw in many places, Tidal/river generators anywhere the water goes 2mph or faster are under $1,000kw. While others might say they cost more, I can do these prices out of my very small shop so big business should be able to beat me.
And of course the cheapest energy is that you don't use!! Insulation, CFL lights, eff can relieve the need of any new powerplants and make present coal plants obsolete for much less money..
Nukes need to be smaller, safer like the gas cooled pebble bed types that will cost much less than the monsters now planned before I'd want to pay for them. Maybe the naval sub, carrier types might work if they were declassified.
Jerryd
- jerryd
October 25, 2008 12:37PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Price
I think a large part of the cost of Nuclear is over regulation and the NIMBY effect. (Not In My Back Yard).
Unnecessary rules put in to appease the No Nukes factions of the 80's and 90's and costly litigation by people scared to have a plant in their area. (Thanks to movies like The China Syndrome)
Once people understand the safety record the existing plants have had over the past decade the cost of building a plant should go down.
There is a need for reliable, clean base-load power. For this can only be provided by a handful of Hydro projects and Nuclear.
- BCReason
May 6, 2009 7:53AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nuclear is the way for consumers and taxpayers
Were is this going to get the capital for renewables? From YOU and ME by the Carbon Cap and Trade tax scheme that takes effect in 2012. The carbon cap and trade programs turns the electric, manufactories,heavy trucks, cars, airlines etc into tax collectors for the state. It’s just a tax scheme.!! run by the CARB. Once the gov. get’s into the elect. etc. rates they’ll always remain high and never will go down, just like any other state taxes. The Fed’s already have their multi. Trillion dollar program S.3036 to take effect in 2012. It’s so bad that it has a 900 Billion dollar welfare program for the poor to offset their higher electric and fuel costs. It’s a sleeper to most people but to the politicians and the environmentalist groups who benifit the most from this tax scheme. Nuclear is 1/3 to build, cheaper($.016 KWH), cleaner(0),and doesn’t cover millions of square miles of State and Fed. lands,runs 24/7 plus the electric companies could finance them by themselves with little gov. help, and last for 50 years. Plus they can be built by existing tower lines. You want cheap electricty or do you want higher taxes, electric rates, goods and services, with a 5 million work crew tending the renewables(20 year max lifetime) FOREVER? But it’s not a option with these focks because it doesn’t have the cash flow/tax flow/ new gov. programs/ gov. grants/jobs program that renewables offer. Drilling for more oil will keep the costs down for the American Public while it takes 10 years to build anything and get our act together on a cost effective way to do it. It should be everything and not the gov. picking winners and losers at the expense of the American consummer or taxpayer.
- bcooper
December 1, 2008 11:12AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Costs of Nuclear to Solar
Columbas S.C. is going to build 2 nuclear plants producing 1117MW each at a cost of 9.8 Billion each. They will supply 1.9 million homes. You have to spend $40,000 for a home solar system if you X's that by the 1.9 million homes that the nuclear plants are going to provide it's $76,000,000,000. 76 Billion - 20 Billion for the Nuclear plants is still 56 Billion more than for solar. The new Fed. tax credits for solar picks up half of the costs at 38 Billion on the 1.9 million solar homes that the taxpayers have to pay for.
52% of S.C. electricity is provided by Nuclear power compaired to 20% of the naion. France is 80-90% nuclear. Plus the Nuclear plant runs 24/7, lasts 50 years compaired to 20 max for a solar panels, roofing,etc. But Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club are fighting it so you can pay more for electricity and taxes to do the subsidies.
- bcooper
December 2, 2008 11:55AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ahh, subsidies
So you are against subsidies?
Me too.
- poemgranite
January 11, 2009 9:09PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
total costs
The total cost of supplying everyone with solar power IS greater then building one central nuclear plant. Subsidies do not change that, only acting to shift the burden of the cost over a wider base.
- MrBook
January 24, 2009 10:10AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.