Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Alternative energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Stephen O who wrote (1096)	7/25/2004 9:28:23 AM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 16955

I'm not against nuclear in a knee-jerk way. But, if we find a cheaper way of making electricity, we should pursue it. If nuclear prices itself out of the market, and other alternatives become cheaper, then economics will dictate nuclear's demise. I'd be interested in learning how much the new TVA nuclear plant (1st new nuclear plant in many decades) will cost, and if it's being subsidized in any way by the federal or state governments. The biggest problem I have with nuclear is not so much a safety issue, I think nuclear has proven that it is reasonably safe, as long as safety procedures are in place and enforced. My problem with nuclear is that it has been subsidized by the federal government via research grants, outright grants/funding, underwriting the bonds used to build the nuclear plants, government bailouts of cost overruns, tax breaks, etc. The true cost per KWH of nuclear would probably be around 2 cents higher if hidden government subsidizes were factored into the cost of building and operating a nuclear power plant. 2 cents might not sound like a lot to most people, but that's a huge swing in the cost sensitive power generation industry. Let's say nuclear plants are supposedly producing eletricity at 6 cents per kWH using current accounting methods that ignore historically and current government subsidies. But, if past and current government subsidizes are factored in and raise the cost by 2 cents per kWH, that's a significant increase. If wind power can be produced at 6 cents per kWH, without subsides, then it would be cheaper than nuclear on a level playing field, and would start replacing nuclear. This is one of the ways alternative energy has been held back over the years. They don't compete on a level playing field. Oil is heavily subsidized via military support for the oil supply business (huge hidden subsidy), tax breaks for exploration, etc. Coal is one power industry that appears to stand on it's own two feet. I say, OK with nuclear, as long as it can compete in the free market. Which I don't think it really can. Nuclear will slowly diminish as a power source because it is costly, and the alternatives are going to get cheaper over time.