Posted by elustran Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:00am PST
Unfortunately he didn't quite get all of his facts straight - newer generation power plants can operate at capacities of up to 95%, not 80% or 85%, costs relating to dealing with waste are largely due to US nuclear politics, he's ignoring certain foreign plant construction cases where there were actually cost under-runs, and some of his financial and capitalization figures seem screwy. The biggest thing that is getting overlooked is new technology, especially small-scale reactors like those being developed by Hyperion, and the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, or LFTR, which promises to simultaneously reduce problems with cost, weapons proliferation, and waste while providing a large enough fuel source for thousands of years of US-level energy usage, world-wide. There are also a lot of questions he's not answering - like why are old nuclear plants economical to run, even though he purports that new power plants aren't? Modernization should be able to provide with lower costs, so rather than throw up our arms and give up because nuclear fears have led us away from using nuclear power, why don't we start thinking of ways we can make it work? Solar and wind power have a place in a new energy paradigm, but the reason they work today is because they account for only a very minute fraction of power used. Solar and wind are a fickle power source and require a reliable baseload powerplant or battery to compensate for the times when there is no sun or wind to provide power. Without a traditional power plant to provide that baseload, renewable installations will have to be larger in order to charge batteries, which will drive costs higher. One way or another, we're going to need a reliable power base.
Report Abuse