From Wildcat Forever............
https://www.facebook.com/JohnStossel/videos/369144724571717
The nuclear option will become an option when it can compete with solar and wind, and in regions not likely affected by catastrophic earthquakes.
Right now price-wise it cannot compete, regardless of earthquakes, unless you are prepared to pay 3.75 x for the privilege of clean nuclear power over clean wind power. Clean nuclear power comes with the additional price tag of safe storage of spent fuel rods, not considered in this equation. I am not opposed to nuclear because it is a viable clean energy source, but get your wallet out. There are more efficient sources of energy with less risk, and no requirement of safe storage of spent fuel rods. Stossel included a lie in this video. He said improving technologies made wind and solar as cheap as nuclear. Wind and solar is way way, way cheaper, and less risky. I am not opposed to nuclear except where it is too dangerous - like at Fukishima on an earthquake risky area. And, I have an economics B.A., and while theoreitcally I am not opposed to nuclear generation, as a practical matter, how can one justify a nuclear power plant when wind and solar are about 60% less, and there is no additional cost for storage of radioactive material?
What Stossel said about economics of nuclear power is a crock. Right now, nuclear is the most expensive recognized electrical power source in the world. Spending money on nuclear power is like paying a very very expensive tax. If your monthly electric bill is $110, and your local utility builds a new nuclear power plant, expect a bill of $350 - 400 per month.
That said it is a great power source for the United States Navy, and could be for NASA.
Regardless of expense, factor in risk. In a war, or without a war with terrorists, is it safe to store fuel rods on-site in pools of water at the local power plant, or if you think it is, articulate how when the Cordova nuclear plant, or your other nuclear power plant, is bombed?
