[eloff]

I believe we have reached the point where solar/wind plus storage is cheaper than nuclear, and without the massive capital outlay, political problems, or risk. Even solar or wind plus a gas turbine is cheaper.

That's a pity because nuclear could be competitive if economies of scale and innovation occur in that space.

Edit: I'm getting down voted, maybe because I didn't provide a source. But neither do the people who disagree. I stand by it.

[olyjohn]

I honestly don't care if it's cheaper. I just don't want to keep running gas and coal plants, and continuing to let the planet warm up. The cost when we've burned this planet up will be much higher.

We have a solution to end coal, oil and gas fired power plants, and end a tremendous amount of pollution. But it's somewhat more expensive to run a nuke plant... Is money the only thing we are looking at here?

We keep fiddling around with solar and wind, and while it's great, we're still running goddamn fossil-fuel based plants for a huge percentage of our power. If solar and wind are cheaper, and price is what dictates this market, then we should have much more transitioned away by now. Solar and wind will get better and better, but we need to dump all this carbon-based power right now. We should be building nukes right now to replace the fossil-fuel based plants and then phase them out once wind and solar, and other, better tech gets developed.

We have a huge problem solved right now. It's nothing but politics and bullshit getting in the way.

[eloff]

Yes, the money matters when it's private industry putting it up.

If the government could do the smart thing and enact a carbon tax so the true cost of carbon based fuels could be accounted for, this problem would naturally go away with no need to convince anybody of anything else. Nuclear would maybe be viable, but at the very least building new solar and wind would become cheaper than just operating existing coal plants.

Maybe it's not politically popular? I don't know. Taxes automatically reduce the thing being taxed, but we tax good things like income, rather than bad things like illegal drugs, gambling, pollution, garbage, etc. It makes no sense, but that's why I'm a programmer and not a politician.

[pfdietz]

You can ask what CO2 tax would be needed to make a particular non-fossil source feasible.

For nuclear in the US, CO2 taxes would have to be $300-400/ton for nuclear to compete with natural gas combined cycle. This number is from the president of Exelon, which operates 20 or so power reactors in the US. Exelon has given up even planning for new nuclear power plants; they are too far out of the running.

[eloff]

I think it should be set at the first to sequester a ton of CO2. Which would be in that neighborhood.

You can't do that overnight, that'd be a huge shock to the economy. But you can implement it over ten to twenty years, ramping it up gradually.

[mk81]

>We have a solution to end coal, oil and gas fired power plants, and end a tremendous amount of pollution. But it's somewhat more expensive to run a nuke plant... Is money the only thing we are looking at here?

I see these types of comments over and over and over.

Wind doesn't always blow. Sun doesn't always shine. We don't have economical grid-scale electrical energy storage technology. Therefore, we can't actually shut down the fossil generation plants, and we end up paying for both.

What is so hard to understand about this?

[mk81]

Show me a working grid scale electrical energy storage system that enables us to spin down fossil generation.

Because I will invest all my money into it.

But it doesn't exist yet.

[eloff]

Um, pumped hydro? Teslas battery facility in Australia?

It certainly can be done. The economics aren't there against natural gas, without subsidies or carbon taxes.

[mk81]

People are working on it; no doubt. But look up the total capacity of these systems and compare to the size of the grid and you'll see that were at the beginning of a very long road.