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.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (47333)	11/18/2010 6:03:33 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

I agree that currently, with today's prices for fuel, today's regulatory issues in the US, today's lack of a permanent storage facility for long term nuclear waste, and today's nuclear plant designs (meaning the designs that are common in actual large scale use today, not designs on paper or in small scale pilot plants that exist today), that nuclear can't compete with fossil fuels, or against hydropower. But 1 - As I said - "when you consider the down time for most alternatives (that they produce less total electricity if they are not producing as often, but esp. that they can't be relied on to produce when you need it) nuclear can probably against many "alternate energy" sources, esp. with some regulatory reform and with improved designs." - In other words its competitive against wind and solar and most other "alternative energy". 2 - Conventional hydropower is only capable of limited expansion. Non-conventional hydropower might easily be much more expensive. 3 - Likely we won't have today's fossil fuel prices forever, not even in real terms (If we could count on these prices continuing, which of course we can'.uclear wouldn't be very cost effective, but neither would almost any form of "alternative energy".)