The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

[CountDeMoney]

I just think comments like "Hey, if you ignore how much it costs, and yeah, that is A LOT!!!!!, then nuke power is practically free!" are funny enough to be worth poking you on.

It's not a matter of ignoring it, it's a matter of getting companies to grow the balls to invest.  But that irks shareholders something fierce.

[Berkut]

I just think comments like "Hey, if you ignore how much it costs, and yeah, that is A LOT!!!!!, then nuke power is practically free!" are funny enough to be worth poking you on.

It's not a matter of ignoring it, it's a matter of getting companies to grow the balls to invest.  But that irks shareholders something fierce.

I think it is more a fear of the political mess behind it, and uncertainty around such an investment.

[Siege]

What about the Lockheed Compact Fusion Reactor?
That thing looks promissing...

[Siege]

[CountDeMoney]

I think it is more a fear of the political mess behind it, and uncertainty around such an investment.

Shareholder Value, Inc. turned down $12B in federal loan guarantees to build a third reactor because it would've required a $150M marker, all because they determined they could make more in LNG futures in the next 5 years.  So now Georgia gets to build them.

Political messes and uncertainty have nothing to do with it.  It's about the making the most profits in the shortest term possible, and within that context the shareholders are right:  the less generation assets you have to put on the grid, the more you can charge per kilowatt hour. 

The unfortunate aspect of all this is, when you've got companies deciding that they can make more money the next 5 years on fossil fuel speculation than choosing to invest in an energy solution that can make more money at less cost for the next 50 years--and all the additional positive economic impacts that comes with it--you've got a broken energy model on a national level. 

[The Minsky Moment]

CDM it is a lot simpler than that.   

Gas is cheaper to build, operate and maintain than nuclear on a per kwh basis, period.  So as long as build decisions are entrusted solely to private enterprise, in the absence of subsidies to nuclear or taxes on carbon, nuclear won't get built.  It would be burning money. 

[Siege]

And here comes Minsky with his usual anti-free market retoric.

[The Minsky Moment]

And here comes Minsky with his usual anti-free market retoric.

A>B is a mathematical relation, not rhetoric.

[Barrister]

And here comes Minsky with his usual anti-free market retoric.

A>B is a mathematical relation, not rhetoric.

A+B however was pure rhetoric.

[CountDeMoney]

Gas is cheaper to build, operate and maintain than nuclear on a per kwh basis, period.

Two things, however:  gas by itself is not the only factor in the kwh equation, and it is severely exposed to market volatility.  Nukes will win the cost per kwh every time.

So as long as build decisions are entrusted solely to private enterprise, in the absence of subsidies to nuclear or taxes on carbon, nuclear won't get built.  It would be burning money.

Which is why the French do it better.

[The Minsky Moment]

Two things, however:  gas by itself is not the only factor in the kwh equation, and it is severely exposed to market volatility.  Nukes will win the cost per kwh every time.

Gas supply can be hedged. 
The problem for nuclear is that construct cost is about five times higher and annual admin and maintenance is about six times higher.  So fuel costs have to go way up and stay up for it to be breakeven. 

[CountDeMoney]

The problem for nuclear is that construct cost is about five times higher and annual admin and maintenance is about six times higher.  So fuel costs have to go way up and stay up for it to be breakeven.

Where are you getting these figures?  Links, plz.

[The Brain]

At least in Sweden fossil fuel energy production doesn't have to take care of its own fuel waste, which makes it harder to compare costs to nuclear. And obviously a significant part of the costs for nuclear are driven by safety regulations that are, from a safety standpoint, quite completely insane.

[The Minsky Moment]

The problem for nuclear is that construct cost is about five times higher and annual admin and maintenance is about six times higher.  So fuel costs have to go way up and stay up for it to be breakeven.

Where are you getting these figures?  Links, plz.

EIA
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

[mongers]

It is a new book apparently. I have found the major points worthwhile of consideration, and it is indeed needed to view issues from both sides. We may very well need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels but that doesn't change the fact that the efficiency they provide has been unsurpassed and they made the well-being of today's world possible.

Would not "The Moral Case For Not Wanting To Be Responsible For The Consquences Of Ones Own Actions" be an more honest endeavour on the part of the OP article's author?

Some odd articles on that pay website, including "Obama: Admin Seeking to Reestablish Funding for Evil UNESCO"