Comments: Nice graphix can't help KOS-niacs understand economics of Nuke & Coal

My appreciation for Cato is well known 'round here. Their energy guys assure that "you can take a lefty's solar/biomass/wind proposal, do a global replace for "nuclear," and hand it to someone of the right.

The exact same levels of subsidies are required -- but the nuke plants need it for insurance, permitting, &c. I hear that as gub'mint protection from gub'mint, but some people I admire greatly say the current technology is not economically viable. They all wet?

Posted by jk at March 4, 2015 4:36 PM

JK:

say the current technology is not economically viable. They all wet?

Yes, the currently employed technology for nuclear power plants in today's (horribly overblown) regulatory environment is not viable.

Why? Because current technology employed are 40-50 year old designs! It's been a coon's age since I've looked into it - once professionally, once as a lurking/blogger - but the state of the art designs are very viable, or so says the PM with whom I interviewed (who would have no reason to lie to me)! There's a small cadre of companies, a few local, sitting on very nice designs and just waiting.... which is why I didn't get the job! Greenwood Village.... just as well, I suppose.

The regulatory environment is - well, let's just say it would be quite comfortably familiar to the architects of the ACA.

Posted by nanobrewer at March 4, 2015 6:08 PM

CATO energy guy: is that Chip Knappenberger?

Btw, that same article I cited has a great explanation of how the energy storage in Norway & Sweden's copious dams is what makes Danish wind power close to viable: when the wind blows, the Danes send power north & the northern folks hold their water, when it doesn't the water & electrons flow south.

Posted by nanobrewer at March 5, 2015 4:20 PM
Post a comment










Remember personal info?