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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bruwin who wrote (180491)	9/12/2013 6:01:55 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Respond to of 206209

Good analysis.

To: bruwin who wrote (180491)	9/13/2013 12:52:04 PM
From: JimisJim	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brian Sullivan Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206209

Liquid fluoride thorium reactors may be the best bet for now... inherently safer, etc. But there are still some risks and not economically feasible yet... Here's everything you'd ever want to know about thorium reactors from World-Nuclear.org: Thorium reactors

To: bruwin who wrote (180491)	9/13/2013 5:58:12 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	2 Recommendations Recommended By No Mo Mo Sam Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 206209

<Nuclear power is a relatively simple process> In theory, yes. But that theory is contradicted by all experience. When theory and facts don't match, I go with the facts. <cost per kWh, of Construction, Production and De-commissioning, it seems that NUCLEAR comes to about 4 US cents/kWh> No, it doesn't. Not even close. The only way to arrive at such optimistic numbers, is to make very optimistic assumptions, and ignore the actual track record of the industry. I know how this is done: assume the nukes are running near-100% of the time, assume no accidents, assume de-commissioning costs a tiny fraction of what they actually are, assume no changes in environmental regulations, totally ignore the cost of LT disposal of nuclear waste (it's the government's problem), don't include the government subsidies (insurance, etc.) in your cost estimates. <Solar, is...22 US cents/kWh> You admitted your numbers were years out of date. Have you looked at current numbers? More importantly, have you looked at the long-term trends in costs for electricity generation? Have you paid attention to the changes in technology? If you do that, you'll find solar costs have been falling fast, wind and gas have been falling less fast, while nuclear costs have been rising. Solar and wind need to be matched with a power source that has dispatchability. That means gas or hydro, not nuclear or coal. As the solar and wind build-out continues, this implies a gas buildout, and switching to gas in mature markets. More dispatchability, not more baseload, is what utilities need.