Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Power The Almighty Buck

Nuclear Energy Now More Expensive Than Solar 635

Posted by samzenpus
from the sunlight-is-free dept.
js_sebastian writes "According to an article on the New York Times, a historical cross-over has occurred because of the declining costs of solar vs. the increasing costs of nuclear energy: solar, hardly the cheapest of renewable technologies, is now cheaper than nuclear, at around 16 cents per kilowatt hour. Furthermore, the NY Times reports that financial markets will not finance the construction of nuclear power plants unless the risk of default (which is historically as high as 50 percent for the nuclear industry) is externalized to someone else through federal loan guarantees or ratepayer funding. The bottom line seems to be that nuclear is simply not competitive, and the push from the US government to subsidize it seems to be forcing the wrong choice on the market."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nuclear Energy Now More Expensive Than Solar

Comments Filter:
  • If you're transmitting it from a place where it's summer to a place where it's winter, or from a place where it's noon to a place where it's midnight, you're going suffer pretty bad losses in those long long cables.

    Unless you've invented a practical, economic room-temperature superconductor. In which case, send us a postcard from Stockholm. Sign it "smug asshole" - we'll know who it is.

  • by AGMW (594303) on Thursday July 29, 2010 @05:42AM (#33066728) Homepage

    Where is it cheaper? Cheaper than nuclear in the north of England, or just in the southern United States?

    Hydro dams or wave power, possibly cheaper than nuclear near Manchester. Solar... not so much.

    Oh yes Manchester ... now if we could only harness the kinetic energy of the falling rain over Manchester we'd be able to power the world!

  • by rufty_tufty (888596) on Thursday July 29, 2010 @07:07AM (#33067230) Homepage

    That was supposed to be the joke!
    I'm well aware neutrinos pass through matter harmlessly in fact a light year of lead would still allow the vast majority to pass through. The point is that a minuscule percentage do happen to interact with matter very occasionally and so therefore everything I said was true.
    It's supposed to be taking the piss out of those who would stop nuclear plants because of their radiation and scientists can't deny that you can't 100% shield against radiation, and you can't test on all possible effects and you can't prove a negative.
    Meh, this is why I'm an engineer not a comedian...

  • by internic (453511) on Thursday July 29, 2010 @07:47AM (#33067614)
    And you provided us with one more piece of evidence that Slashdot can't recognize a joke. ;-)
  • by Culture20 (968837) on Thursday July 29, 2010 @10:04AM (#33069338)

    nuclear would only cost 16 cents per kwh if the plant was awfully mismanaged with terrible performance.

    If the Simpsons has taught me anything, it's that this is the norm.

  • by Kineticabstract (814395) on Thursday July 29, 2010 @10:32AM (#33069724)
    Yeah, you have to work on your delivery. Note that you were modded 5, Interesting, and not 5, Yankin'-yer-chain.

    Right this second on some discussion forum, an ignorant twit is ranting about the unstoppable-super-neutrino-radiation-killing-force that no one cares about that is killing our kids and OBAMA KNOWS!!!!!

    And it's your fault. Just sayin'

    ;)

FORTRAN is a good example of a language which is easier to parse using ad hoc techniques. -- D. Gries [What's good about it? Ed.]

Working...