Reply #30: It seems that nuclear energy isn't economically feasible and is only kept afloat [View All]

[Uncle Joe]

via long time subsidies.

On this thread by kristopher comparing the cost of renewables to nuclear.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x626150

Another independent econnomic analysis is the Severance study:
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/n...


The price of nuclear subsidies is also worth looking at. Nuclear proponents will tell you the subsidies per unit of electricity for nuclear are no worse than for renewables. That statement omits the fact than nuclear power has received the lions share of non fossil energy subsidies for more than 50 years with no apparent payoff; for all the money we've spent we see a steadily escalating cost curve for nuclear. When we compare that to renewables we find that a small fraction of the total amount spent on nuclear has resulted in rapidly declining costs that for wind are already competitive with coal and rapidly declining costs for solar that are competitive with natural gas and will soon be less expensive than coal.

http://www.1366tech.com/cost-curve /


In other words: subsidies work to help the renewable technologies stand on their own but with nuclear they do nothing but prop up an industry that cannot be economically viable.

Full report: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nu...