Comments dezakin has made

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

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

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

On discounting and economics

People who decry discounting never seem to see their prophosies of doom come to pass.

On a side note for the mark versus the dollar... Such a currency collapse is impossible. The Weimar republic owed their debts not in marks but in foreign denominated currency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discount

Here we could also do it this way. Build a lot for storing nuclear waste. Put some cash in an account that pays interest on paying the upkeep for it.
On Join me for some navel gazing! posted 2 years, 8 months ago 69 Responses

Indeed a poor analogy.

I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.  There's no analogy here.

Enrichment is still a minor cost.

If you do the math with those numbers and factor in the plant in the report is over 3,000 MW, you come up with a figure of roughly .9 TWh, compared to the annual output they list of 23 TWh.  This is almost a 4% net loss in the output of the plant just for the enrichment process, not counting construction of the facility or any of the other life cycle costs.

Even still with diffusion enrichment it only represents half the cost of the fuel.

Modern gas centrifuge plants require only about 50 kWh per SWU, and provide 65% of the enriched uranium globally today anyways.

The notion that nuclear power is in any way an energy sink is profoundly flawed.On Join me for some navel gazing! posted 2 years, 8 months ago 69 Responses