You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #28: What were the real costs of earlier non-nuclear power generation methods? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
TheMadMonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #1
28. What were the real costs of earlier non-nuclear power generation methods?
Coal even today is considered notoriously dirty. In it's heyday it was incredibly filty. Environmenally disastrous and a killer from the moment we wrested it from the ground till the time it's ash settled in the lungs of a kid in London.

Oil only marginally better than coal in terms of its impact and increasingly expensive to find ways to mitigate that impact.

Hydro has it's own environmental and even greenhouse costs.



Nuclear power is one industry, where fear of consequences has ensured that extreme measures are taken to account for all unforseen costs and potential risks of the technology. Of course it's going to be more expensive than older highly developed methods in which certain impacts (past or present) are discounted or ignored altogether.

A further part of the cost of nuclear energy is that regulatory approval for advanced designs that address a good many of the objections that are valid to some degree or another with respect to existing designs, is essentially non-existent. Instead, increasingly aging infrastructure is propped up, patched and only incrementally upgraded at an ever increasing cost.


Let's start with setting aside for the moment the idea of complete site rehabilitation. Any existing nuclear reactor can be decommissioned by removing it's fuel supply. At that point we have decades to deal with what remains. No matter when we do decommission, this is going to be an issue, and the longer we leave it, the more aged will be the buildings and reactor superstructure, and the less time we will have to make final disposition.

Designs for suitable (or at the very least much less dangerous) replacements ready to be built right now do exist, and the solutions range from rail car sized units suitable for a small town, up to as big as or larger than anything existing. More experimental options offer even more exciting posibilities such as nuclear "incineration" of radioactive waste.

By expanding nuclear power generating capacity to replace greenhouse poluting plants, we at the very least mittigate a known current major environmental threat and can managably defer any impact for a considerable period of time. Long enough in my opinion for economical, industrial scale nuclear incineration to become a reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Nuclear Bombshell: $26 Billion cost $10,800 per kilowatt! killed Ontario nuclear bid bananas  Jul-15-09 07:31 PM   #0 
  - Yes. When all the real costs of nuclear, including storage of waste,decommissioning,&true liability  lindisfarne   Jul-15-09 07:44 PM   #1 
  - We must never forget the pro-nukers have been lying to us for years now  madokie   Jul-15-09 07:49 PM   #3 
  - Yes, and now, even costs are being claimed to be trade secrets in attempts to obscure the truth.  lindisfarne   Jul-15-09 07:52 PM   #4 
  - Oh bull. The fact is that the dumb anti-nuke set is extremely unfamiliar with economics,  NNadir   Jul-15-09 08:05 PM   #5 
  - Did you read the link in OP? Also, in your calculations, did you include the actual  lindisfarne   Jul-15-09 08:08 PM   #6 
  - Big guy don't read links  madokie   Jul-15-09 10:16 PM   #10 
  - But they can unrec this issue  Liberation Angel   Jul-16-09 12:17 AM   #13 
  - nnadir never fails to entertain. nt  Javaman   Jul-17-09 12:07 PM   #35 
  - you don't need to store for tens of thousands of years.  Sirveri   Jul-16-09 12:28 AM   #14 
     - No, you have to store it for a million years - EPA requirement, based on NAS report  bananas   Jul-16-09 11:54 AM   #18 
     - EPA requirement is a smokescreen for the real reason.  Sirveri   Jul-17-09 01:29 AM   #30 
        - No, it wasn't a "smokescreen".  bananas   Jul-17-09 03:07 AM   #31 
           - Time will tell. But with the current state of US politics I see coal in the future.  Sirveri   Jul-17-09 04:54 AM   #32 
              - Oil is less than 2% of current electric generation.  kristopher   Aug-05-09 10:14 PM   #37 
     - You want mayonaise on that shit samwich  madokie   Jul-16-09 12:28 PM   #20 
        - tell that to the US Navy and France.  Sirveri   Jul-17-09 01:15 AM   #29 
           - It's easy to be anything one thinks they want to be here on the Internet  madokie   Jul-17-09 05:44 AM   #33 
              - Wow really, I had NO idea.  Sirveri   Jul-17-09 11:36 AM   #34 
  - Oh bull. The fact is that the dumb pro-nuke set is extremely unfamiliar with economics,  bananas   Jul-16-09 03:24 PM   #22 
  - What were the real costs of earlier non-nuclear power generation methods?  TheMadMonk   Jul-17-09 01:10 AM   #28 
  - 2-4-6-8 -- NUCLEAR POWER -- AIN'T IT GREAT?!?!  xchrom   Jul-15-09 07:45 PM   #2 
  - Nuclear energy is free- we have a giant nuclear reactor in the sky.  Ian David   Jul-15-09 08:57 PM   #7 
  - And it's responsible for wind powersolar power, and hydroelectric power. Not geothermal though-  lindisfarne   Jul-15-09 09:10 PM   #8 
     - For geothermal we can thank the other stars that supplied the material that made the Earth.  GliderGuider   Jul-15-09 10:05 PM   #9 
     - Geothermal energy is produced by nuclear fission  Dogmudgeon   Jul-16-09 10:40 AM   #16 
        - I doubt that nuclear reaction is responsible for geothermal energy..  TheCoxwain   Jul-16-09 11:49 AM   #17 
           - I think you've got your Uranium isotopes backwards...  SidDithers   Jul-16-09 11:59 AM   #19 
           - yup .. my bad .. clearly its been a while ..but I think that does not water my argument down  TheCoxwain   Jul-16-09 12:52 PM   #21 
           - 20% planetary accretion, 80% radioactive decay  bananas   Jul-16-09 04:26 PM   #24 
  - K&R and into the greatest page -- let's see if the unrec does it in  Liberation Angel   Jul-16-09 12:01 AM   #11 
  - UNWRECKER strikes again OFF Greatest page! Damn BUT see this:  Liberation Angel   Jul-16-09 12:16 AM   #12 
  - Only a shill would unrec this thread - they want to hide the true costs.  bananas   Jul-16-09 03:38 PM   #23 
  - They've got it down to three recs - they are really afraid of this information!  bananas   Jul-16-09 07:25 PM   #25 
     - It fits with the way it's been with the nuke crowd from the get go  madokie   Jul-16-09 07:34 PM   #26 
     - 3 recs is their goal  Liberation Angel   Jul-16-09 10:14 PM   #27 
  - No surprise.  girl gone mad   Jul-16-09 01:19 AM   #15 
     - Who knows the price? - nobody yet  DiamondJoe   Aug-05-09 03:47 PM   #36 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC