Should We Subsidize Nuclear Power to Fight Climate Change? – Scientific American Blog Network

Should We Subsidize Nuclear Power to Fight Climate Change? – Scientific American Blog Network

Let us return to the most basic assumption needed for the argument for subsidies to stick, namely that utilities would replace shut down nuclear plants with fossil fueled plants. This is possible but by no means necessary, especially with continued falling costs for renewable energy and storage technologies. The energy industry is changing so rapidly that what the UCS report attempts, to forecast costs and plan over multi-decadal periods, is all but impossible to do with any degree of certainty.

Further, the report’s inputs to the electricity planning model are already outdated. For example, the central cost figures it uses for nuclear reactor costs are significantly lower than the costs of the two reactors currently being constructed in the state of Georgia.

Renewables are not just getting cheaper, they are also quick to construct.

via Should We Subsidize Nuclear Power to Fight Climate Change? – Scientific American Blog Network

Bottom line, renewable energy costs are going down, as nuclear costs are going up, along with the risks, and there is still no cost associated with storing nuclear radioactive garbage for a million years. You can bet that taxpayers will foot that bill, and not the corporations that created it.

3 thoughts on “Should We Subsidize Nuclear Power to Fight Climate Change? – Scientific American Blog Network”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s