dezakin’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Omissions and Statistics.

  You think I didn't read the paper? The study admitted to a very low sample size with a variety of issues that interfered with the final costs of each plant.

  Also from the same paper:

  'If we examined the cost of construction for a coal or wind plant, we would expect to find similar cost increases'

  But the study did not examine the cost of construction of either. You're lying about making a valid comparison. The grid integration costs for wind would be huge for the simple reason  that supplying the dispatchable power (often in the form of pumped hydro or natural gas) incurs much higher capital costs than nuclear. On So says a new report posted 2 years, 5 months ago 44 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Discounting and waste

  Fretting about several thousand tons of spent fuel is innumeracy at its finest. Anyone who understands the very basics of discounting can see why.

  Stick the dry storage casks in a parking lot. Check on them in another 100 years an reseal if necissary. Chances are in several hundred years at the very latest we'll strip out the actinides for fuel anyways, in addition to the xenon and platinum group fission products.

  Geologic repositories are misdirection solutions to a nonproblem. They arent necissary and never were.On So says a new report posted 2 years, 5 months ago 44 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Makes the flowers grow

  In comparing costs of wind to costs of nuclear, you're being incredibly disingenuous. You're taking the worst experiences reactor cost overruns in a heavily regulated environment prone to disruption and capital mismanagement with low expected reactor lifetimes and comparing them to the best anticipated scenarios for wind. You're anticipating a ridiculously high interest rate and very long build times, and yet with wind you're anticipating everything working smoothly, that supply chain disruptions will fix themselves where for some reason they wont with nuclear power.

  And still not factoring in additional infrastructure cost for dispatchable storage to counter winds behavior as a negative load rather than a base supply.

  Experience with massive nuclear infrastructure projects in France shows nothing of the 8-11 cents per kw/hour that you're inventing, and yet wind shows no sign of being less expensive baseload than nuclear anywhere.

  In short... you're lying; Cooking the books for a desired outcome.On So says a new report posted 2 years, 5 months ago 44 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  No leukemia/spent fuel link

  Every onsite lot for dry casks is a repository, and good enough for centuries to come. Geologic repositories are a waste of time and money.

  And where in the New Scientist article (not exactly lacking in sensationalism) are there any links for anything related to leukemia caused by spent fuel or even mine tailings. The most there is mention of is nominally highe rate of lung cancer by uranium miners... not necissarily caused by what we normally define as nuclear waste unless you consider granite a nuclear waste also with it feeding radon into unventilated basements.On So says a new report posted 2 years, 5 months ago 44 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Leukemia and waste?

  Could you post a cite to something that isn't sensationalism? I've seen no epidemilogical studies linking spent fuel or nuclear waste to luekemia.

  The only thing that has direct correlation in nuclear power production is when Chernobyl blew in an area with iodine deficient children with no stay indoors orders; A thyroid cancer spike. But this isn't indicated in any studies from spent fuel or more generic nuclear waste.
  On So says a new report posted 2 years, 5 months ago 44 Responses