The End Of The Nuclear Era

[Solitaire]

Germany Grows Greener (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1114/p07s01-woeu.html)

The Stade power plant closes Friday, the first step in a
two-decade program to wean Germany from nuclear power.

Here's the source of the problem.

Nuclear reactors, which are heavily subsidized by the government,
still provide the more stable source of energy, the critics say.

I've always wondered how a handfull of environmentalists could stop
nuclear power. The debates about safty do not really matter. If one can
produce energy for less cost than coal, then seek out sources of private
funding, build the plant, and make a really nice profit off the diferential.
Any old perpetual motion machine crank can rake in millions from private
investors, yet the industry looks for public funding. Why?

[Luke T.]

Is nuclear power the only source of power which receives public funding?

[geni]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Is nuclear power the only source of power which receives public funding?

In the UK wind, tide, wave and solar all recive public funding.
If there are any nuclear power companies left by then I will be buying shares in them in about 15 years time. while fosil fuels remain so cheap nuclear is not going to be able to compete.

[Luke T.]

Are any sources of power owned by the government? (Germany, UK, anywhere else)

[geni]

In the UK no sources of power are owned by the government (we execept a few small scale genorators). Nuclear was sold off about a year after the rest.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by geni
In the UK no sources of power are owned by the government (we execept a few small scale genorators). Nuclear was sold off about a year after the rest.

Well, the privatization of the power generating industry started a price war that has driven the nuclear company to the verge of bankruptcy. Goverment-bail-outcy ensued.

However, the price war drove the prices unsustainably low and they are now on the rise.

I dont think Im entirely happy with nuclear power plants in the hands of private companies, specially if you judge them by the standards of our privatised railways.

Least of my worries anyway. Halliburton now basically controlls our SSBN fleet.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Synchronicity
Germany Grows Greener (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1114/p07s01-woeu.html)

Here's the source of the problem.

I've always wondered how a handfull of environmentalists could stop
nuclear power. The debates about safty do not really matter. If one can
produce energy for less cost than coal, then seek out sources of private
funding, build the plant, and make a really nice profit off the diferential.
Any old perpetual motion machine crank can rake in millions from private
investors, yet the industry looks for public funding. Why?

Your quote says it: "Nuclear reactors, which are heavily subsidized by the government"
Nuclear energy does not cost less than coal; it is more competitive because it gets massive subsidies. Coal is also massively subsidized
Regenerative energies would look very good in comparison if either the subsidies were scrapped, or regenerative energies were equally subsidized.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Chaos
Regenerative energies would look very good in comparison if either the subsidies were scrapped, or regenerative energies were equally subsidizedOn the other hand, if regenerative energies were saddled with silly regulations born of political pandering to insane paranoia, they'd probably be somewhat more expensive.