Let's waste some more taxpayer money

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
How is it 'waste'?

If you believe the the government should directly subsidize electricity production, then you might not look at it as waste.

Me..I happen to still believe the electrical power generation should be a profitable enterprise that stands on its own. Old-fashioned..I know.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
If you believe the the government should directly subsidize electricity production, then you might not look at it as waste.

Me..I happen to still believe the electrical power generation should be a profitable enterprise that stands on its own. Old-fashioned..I know.

There is a LOT the government does that I don't think it should do. Having said that, the monopoly that 'profitable' utilities operate under just begs more questions than it answers.

My question was more to what 'waste' actually is. Presumably, the benefactor of gummint largess du jour is spending that dough on employees and local stuff and not burning it or composting it so, really, is it waste?

The federal gummint would cost about 1/5th of what it does today if it were for profit. Which it can't be. But if it was, we're spending 5 times 'too' much. So, is all that waste?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
There is a LOT the government does that I don't think it should do. Having said that, the monopoly that 'profitable' utilities operate under just begs more questions than it answers.

My question was more to what 'waste' actually is. Presumably, the benefactor of gummint largess du jour is spending that dough on employees and local stuff and not burning it or composting it so, really, is it waste?

The federal gummint would cost about 1/5th of what it does today if it were for profit. Which it can't be. But if it was, we're spending 5 times 'too' much. So, is all that waste?

I consider spending my tax dollars on a nonviable technology a waste of that money. Period.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I consider spending my tax dollars on a nonviable technology a waste of that money. Period.

Ok, so, what is 'viable'? If some community gave the beanie cap crowd the same monopoly status as the 'old' electric company, doesn't that make it viable? I mean, the only reason nuke isn't 'viable' is because we apply artificial costs to it keeping gas and coal 'viable'.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Ok, so, what is 'viable'? If some community gave the beanie cap crowd the same monopoly status as the 'old' electric company, doesn't that make it viable? I mean, the only reason nuke isn't 'viable' is because we apply artificial costs to it keeping gas and coal 'viable'.

Viable, in this case, means several things.

Even remotely capable of producing a sufficient amount of reliable power = viable.

Producing power at a levelized cost that is same as, or lower than, the current cost of power produced from coal and natural gas = viable.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Viable, in this case, means several things.

Even remotely capable of producing a sufficient amount of reliable power = viable.

Producing power at a levelized cost that is same as, or lower than, the current cost of power produced from coal and natural gas = viable.

Do we agree that nuke would be FAR cheaper per, what, kwh, than gas or goal for elec generation if they had the same rules? My understanding, and I am deferring to you on this, is that nuke would be about 5% of the cost of coal or gas were it not for the costs artificially imposed on and associated with nuke.

If so, then, that said, what would that ratio be compared to wind v. coal?


I'm sure there is information out there comparing the apples to apples cost of operating a nuke sub to the same boat running on diesel.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Do we agree that nuke would be FAR cheaper per, what, kwh, than gas or goal for elec generation if they had the same rules? My understanding, and I am deferring to you on this, is that nuke would be about 5% of the cost of coal or gas were it not for the costs artificially imposed on and associated with nuke.

If so, then, that said, what would that ratio be compared to wind v. coal?


I'm sure there is information out there comparing the apples to apples cost of operating a nuke sub to the same boat running on diesel.

It's some dry reading...but this is a decent summary of the current cost situation. I work in the offshore wind sector...look at those lousy numbers.

Nuke comes out looking about the same as coal in the linked analysis..but that's due in large part to the artificial "carbon tax" costs being added to the cost of coal powered electrical generation in this analysis.

https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
It's some dry reading...but this is a decent summary of the current cost situation. I work in the offshore wind sector...look at those lousy numbers.

Nuke comes out looking about the same as coal in the linked analysis..but that's due in large part to the artificial "carbon tax" costs being added to the cost of coal powered electrical generation in this analysis.

https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

Right, but, aren't there YUUUUGGEE artificial costs built into nuke?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Right, but, aren't there YUUUUGGEE artificial costs built into nuke?

I'm sure the initial costs are quite high...huge even....but I'm not sure those have that big an impact on a 30-year cost analysis period. The initial costs associated with establishing a large (i.e. significant capacity to make even a small contribution to local supply) offshore wind power system are astronomical but so are the ongoing costs to operate. So far, the only offshore projects being pursued in the US are tokens...meaningless gestures.
 

stew77

New Member
I read once, long ago that if the U.S. would built 12 to 20 more Nuke Energy plants we would be energy free.. That is all it would take. Don't know where I read it, but it makes sense.. Nuke energy is very good and would take us off the coal std, and fracking, and even gas stuff. The only major problem is that the "environmental, green peace and bleeding heart liberals would likely do everything in their power to block any construction of a nuke plant. And I am positive the Californians/New Yorkers would block it also. So many regulations and hoops to jump thru that it is unlikely to happen. Then you need to add politics to the equation! Nuff said!
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I read once, long ago that if the U.S. would built 12 to 20 more Nuke Energy plants we would be energy free.. That is all it would take. Don't know where I read it, but it makes sense.. Nuke energy is very good and would take us off the coal std, and fracking, and even gas stuff. The only major problem is that the "environmental, green peace and bleeding heart liberals AND coal AND gas interests, including labor, would likely do everything in their power to block any construction of a nuke plant. And I am positive the Californians/New Yorkers would block it also. So many regulations and hoops to jump thru that it is unlikely to happen. Then you need to add politics to the equation! Nuff said!

Slight modification.

I can't prove it but I think Esso paid for China Syndrome.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
How is it 'waste'?

Seems wasteful because it is not something in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution. Certainly funding technological research falls into the "useful arts" requirement of the federal government, but not subsidizing an industry on a production-level scale.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Ok, so, what is 'viable'? If some community gave the beanie cap crowd the same monopoly status as the 'old' electric company, doesn't that make it viable? I mean, the only reason nuke isn't 'viable' is because we apply artificial costs to it keeping gas and coal 'viable'.

I am not following you in terms of monopoly (how many electricity-producing companies and co-ops, etc., do you think are out there?) or the artificial costs of nuclear. While nuclear is regulated well beyond anything else (including coal), I know of no artificial costs.

Nuclear was exploding again just a few years ago, with almost everyone involved in nuclear power plants planning on building new ones. Then, the US started sucking natural gas out of the ground like it was going out of style. Natural gas plants are cheap to build, cheap to operate, and now VERY cheap to fuel. They're far more efficient and "cleaner" than coal, so a new gas plant can be thrown up cheaply and quickly as compared to a nuke plant. Thus, almost all the plans for new nuclear plants were scrapped.

Nuclear is the only logical choice going forward in terms of scale and environmental concerns, but gas is cheap. That's capitalism, and it works. When wind can generate reliably and on a scale that people need, it will overtake both gas and nuclear. That day, you will see pigs flying on their own wings, honest politicians, and irrefutable proof with respect to the existence of the Free-Methodist version of God that no one will ever be able to question.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
I'm sure there is information out there comparing the apples to apples cost of operating a nuke sub to the same boat running on diesel.

Depends, a diesel sub could never meet the same performance characteristics of a nuclear one. A nuke can stay down a very very long time, were a diesel one can only stay down until its batteries deplete.

Same thing with power plants, they can't all do the same thing. A nuclear plant is great for providing a high steady level of power but the gas plants are needed for load matching as they can very quickly respond to demand.

In theory wind turbines would average out for which ones had wind and which ones didnt and the output could remain somewhat constant but isn't a guarantee.
 
Top