This is where even a tiny movement to go to renewables and disconnect, boycotting power companies until they pay for renewable kwh generated by customers, could really be effective.  Many areas only allow offsets, which can only reduce the customer's bill to zero.

It would further panic investors.

Then a demand to free the grid could be made, allowing renewable energy generating customers to sell their kwh to like minded consumers of renewable energy.  One could put power into the grid to charge up your own car remotely for instance.  Or members of renewable energy coops could transport power to one another.

As the cost of capital goes up and up for nukes and coal plants, distributed renewable generation and storage would drop in price as mass production efficiencies took hold and home and business owners rushed to capitalize on this new source of revenue.

Time to take the big sleep old line corporate polluters.  You're time has almost passed.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Count on amazngdrx to live in his own world, untroubled by the realities that the rest of us face.

Charles Barton

to beat the price of burning coal in China.

I can not touch the price of efficiency.

Competing with the price of civilian nuclear is easy.

John, the estimated construction costs of mass produced AP 1000 is One Billion Dollars + Financing charges.  This actually will bring the price of the AP 1000 in at under the cost of a coal fired power plant.  Considering that we will need the equivelent of 280 AP 1000's in new generating capacity in the next 25 years, the economies of scale in producing AP 1000's may bring the price in well under One Billion per unit. Of course before the 25 year cycle is over, Generation VI reactors will be coming on line, and they promise to be even cheaper than AP 1000s.

Charles Barton

Karen -

I won't repeat your error of trying to speak for other countries' outlook on nuclear power,
as your information is just patently wrong about my country.

Here in the UK I haven't seen ANY public  discussion
of replacing coal power with still more nuclear fiascos,
let alone any official decision to do so.

What Blair, (who used to be anti-nuclear before getting bought),
has done for the industry is a delight.

Admittedly, when it went bust he baled it out with £400Mn of taxpayers' money,
but since then, as a lame duck PM he's had the hubris
to try and push the replacement of old nuclear stations onto an unwilling public.

It is now becoming crystal clear just why, in Blairs decade of power,
sustainable energy has received such paltry govt. support -
those energies' success will be nuclear power's demise.

So, far from your nonsense of the UK "replacing coal with nuclear"
it is looking increasingly unlikely that we shall even renew the nuclear plants we have.

Given that their decommissioning is expected to cost over £60Bn,
our 60Mn population will pay over £1,000 of tax per head to do so -
and you really think we want more of them ?

In reality, the global nuclear industry remains just one bad accident from global abandonment.

It is the classic C20 titanicist folly, and it has had its day.

I suggest you get over it.

Regards,

Bill

Your favorite nuclear contractors will leave you twisting in the wind.  As they continue to break promise after promise on cost, waste disposal, and safety.

Nuclear power is a dead end.

Get on board the conservation and renewable distributed generation and storage juggernaut.  It's going to be an exciting, booming ride.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog