Which one is more cost-effective, lower risk: NUCLEAR or PHOTOVOLTAICS (solar electricity).

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by neil cox on April 27, 2009 at 5:10am

The are several, perhaps many opinions about the details of the new nuclear reactors. Perhaps President Obama will select a detailed plan this week = about as likely as impeachment of President Obama = unlikely. With lots of taxpayers money, the construction of the first ten reactors could begin before the end of this year and be sort of completed by 2012. Half the design power is possible in 2013, but never is more likely as haste makes waste with new design nuclear reactors. An equally imprudent and expensive scale up of big wind turbines in West Texas will likely produce 20,000 megawatts in 2013, which may be soon enough to prevent USA from becoming a third world country.
A more reasoned approach to nuclear, could possibly start construction of ten much better reactors in 2012, but completion is very unlikely since the USA and most other first world countries will have collapsed to third world by 2013. I see little hope of avoiding the world wide economic collapse other than doing something smart like big wind turbines in West Texas faster than seems prudent. Neil

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Steve Fortuna on April 27, 2009 at 2:08pm

While I'm not against nuclear plants per se, with solar energy there is no mining or enrichment of uranium, no fuel rod disposal problems and no recurring costs for storage, containment, water cooling, safety training, etc.

In Georgia, the Public Service Commission approved GA Power's plan to increase customer bills starting in 2011 for the as yet unconstructed Vogtle 1 and 2 nuclear plants that won't come online until at least 2015. As far as I know this is an unprecedented use of 'pay before you go' tariffing which should be disturbing to consumers everywhere.

▶ Reply to This