Let's nuke climate change!

@wildgrass said
We were comparing fossil fuels vs. nuclear. You thought fossil fuels were the best because they were cheaper. But fuel cost of coal is higher. Facilities cost is higher. They receive $1.3 billion in subsidies on a good year. That was my point.

Many other studies (beyond the one I presented earlier) have shown that the marginal costs of nuclear is lower than coal. Pages 6 ...[text shortened]... -version-120-vfinal.pdf

Who is telling you coal is cheap? Where are you getting that information?

https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power/florida-and-georgia-nuclear-power-projects-too-risky#.XDexJM17m1s

@metal-brain said
https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power/florida-and-georgia-nuclear-power-projects-too-risky#.XDexJM17m1s

It's 57 pages long. What about this report proves your point that coal is cheaper? We have already established that the risks of nuclear power is mostly fear-mongering. What are the quantifiable risks? In terms of costs, this report clearly shows that, while the initial capital investment is higher, the fuel cost of nuclear is less than coal so the long-term cost per unit of energy is lower.

@wildgrass said
It's 57 pages long. What about this report proves your point that coal is cheaper? We have already established that the risks of nuclear power is mostly fear-mongering. What are the quantifiable risks? In terms of costs, this report clearly shows that, while the initial capital investment is higher, the fuel cost of nuclear is less than coal so the long-term cost per unit of energy is lower.

The initial capital investment is much higher. That is why it is too expensive. Existing coal and nuclear plants should continue to operate. Natural gas seems to be the lowest cost for new plants based on what I have read from different sources, but it is possible that has changed. Solar might be competitive in certain parts of the country.

@metal-brain said
The initial capital investment is much higher. That is why it is too expensive. Existing coal and nuclear plants should continue to operate. Natural gas seems to be the lowest cost for new plants based on what I have read from different sources, but it is possible that has changed. Solar might be competitive in certain parts of the country.

Cheap stuff is cheap because it doesn't last as long.

I would prefer that you provide references for your statements regarding relative cost of various energy sources. I have provided multiple independent studies that demonstrate nuclear is cheaper than coal in the long run, from a purely economic standpoint. Based on the information I have, it is very clearly not too expensive.

@wildgrass said
Cheap stuff is cheap because it doesn't last as long.

I would prefer that you provide references for your statements regarding relative cost of various energy sources. I have provided multiple independent studies that demonstrate nuclear is cheaper than coal in the long run, from a purely economic standpoint. Based on the information I have, it is very clearly not too expensive.

Natural gas power plants are less expensive to build. I have never heard they do not last long. What is your source of info?

@metal-brain said
Natural gas power plants are less expensive to build. I have never heard they do not last long. What is your source of info?

The same sources as before.

Energy produced using natural gas is more expensive because the fuel costs a lot more.

@wildgrass said
The same sources as before.

Energy produced using natural gas is more expensive because the fuel costs a lot more.

and I'm giving you the same source as before saying that is incorrect. It is not just the cost of the fuel, it is the cost of the power plant as well.

https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power/florida-and-georgia-nuclear-power-projects-too-risky#.XDexJM17m1s

@metal-brain said
and I'm giving you the same source as before saying that is incorrect. It is not just the cost of the fuel, it is the cost of the power plant as well.

https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power/florida-and-georgia-nuclear-power-projects-too-risky#.XDexJM17m1s

Yes, capital costs are higher for building nuclear, but the fuel is a lot cheaper. Existing nuclear plants have been around for 50 years, and newly built nuclear plants are expected to run for 100 years. So the cost is lower overall. The report you cited seems to show exactly that.

You must have read the report since you are convinced I am incorrect. As I asked you before, where in that 57-page report does it claim that energy produced from nuclear plants cost more than coal or gas? I can't find it.

@wildgrass said
Yes, capital costs are higher for building nuclear, but the fuel is a lot cheaper. Existing nuclear plants have been around for 50 years, and newly built nuclear plants are expected to run for 100 years. So the cost is lower overall. The report you cited seems to show exactly that.

You must have read the report since you are convinced I am incorrect. As I asked you befor ...[text shortened]... does it claim that energy produced from nuclear plants cost more than coal or gas? I can't find it.

The fuel for solar and wind is free so I don't see your point.

http://coaleducation.org/q&a/10_reasons_why_coal.htm

It turns out I was right the first time. Coal is generally cheaper. It depends on the region though.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-03/for-cheapest-power-on-earth-look-skyward-as-coal-falls-to-solar

@metal-brain said
The fuel for solar and wind is free so I don't see your point.

http://coaleducation.org/q&a/10_reasons_why_coal.htm

It turns out I was right the first time. Coal is generally cheaper. It depends on the region though.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-03/for-cheapest-power-on-earth-look-skyward-as-coal-falls-to-solar

These are just different references? What do they add beyond what we already saw?

Two whole pages of comments ago, when asked why you think fossil fuel burning is the best source of electricity, you said "coal is cheap. that is my logic." I gave you several references that showed nuclear energy is cheaper (primarily because of much lower fuel cost) and the 57-page document you provided seems to concur. Where does any of this show that nuclear is more expensive than coal?

Now you are adding solar and wind to the discussion, a point I was not trying to make at all. We can go there if you want, and my counter-argument to those power sources (Which are better than coal) is that they take up a TON of real estate. I would much prefer a single sealed facility inside a mountain to store nuclear waste than to have thousands of mountain-tops pocked with windmills. Since you can't make your point about coal, are you just trying to change the subject?

@wildgrass said
These are just different references? What do they add beyond what we already saw?

Two whole pages of comments ago, when asked why you think fossil fuel burning is the best source of electricity, you said "coal is cheap. that is my logic." I gave you several references that showed nuclear energy is cheaper (primarily because of much lower fuel cost) and the 57-page docume ...[text shortened]... th windmills. Since you can't make your point about coal, are you just trying to change the subject?

Different sources of information are misleading and I have found that out. Many articles try to impose emission costs as an effort to mislead. This is often referred to as "externality".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Because externalities are an estimated cost it is a guess. In fact, many articles I have read base their estimates on a future carbon tax. The bull crap just continues to amaze me.

Coal is the cheapest source of electricity. Natural gas is a close second and solar is catching up. Those are the facts.

@metal-brain saidCoal is the cheapest source of electricity. Natural gas is a close second and solar is catching up. Those are the facts.

You haven't presented any facts, only opinions. Source please?

@wildgrass said
You haven't presented any facts, only opinions. Source please?

Right back at you. I posted a Bloomberg article saying coal was the world's cheapest electricity source. If you have a reason to think that is incorrect it is you that should provide a source, just make sure there is no externality estimate bunk used to mislead. Carbon taxes are not inevitable. It should not be part of cost analysis.

Here is a suggestion. Ask your electricity provider. They ought to know. Just keep in mind what may be cheapest in one region may not be in another.

@metal-brain said
Right back at you. I posted a Bloomberg article saying coal was the world's cheapest electricity source.

That's strange because the other three references we looked at said levelized cost of nuclear was cheaper. The bloomberg article is behind a paywall. Why do you trust that source more than the other three?

@wildgrass said
That's strange because the other three references we looked at said levelized cost of nuclear was cheaper. The bloomberg article is behind a paywall. Why do you trust that source more than the other three?

That is assuming the cost of the nuclear power plant does not go over budget. They always do. That was the whole point of the article I posted. Your article was based on estimates and estimates are often very wrong. There is a reason most electricity is generated by coal and NG. It isn't a mistake.

https://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/eia-levalized-costs-can-be-misleading/