[ RadSafe ] cost per kilowatt ratio

[Steven Dapra]

Feb. 10

         This ratio question is a ridiculous question.  No industrialized 
country can exist on a wind and hydroelectric grid.  The question does not 
even rise to the level of being hypothetical.  It is sheer fantasy, and 
even if someone could devise a plausible ratio, the ratio would serve no 
practical purpose.

         What forms the basis for your "reasoning," James?  What are your 
assumptions about costs, and have you done the calculations to arrive at 
the "three times as expensive" claim?

         Keep in mind that the cost of wind power can only fall to a 
certain level, because there are certain fixed costs that it will always 
incur.  Those giant windmills can not be manufactured, installed, 
maintained and decommissioned for nothing.  (Nobody cares about your 
political and social leanings.  However:  I note that you said you are "a 
fiscal conservative," and that you also favor a "single payer health 
care."  These two positions are contradictory.  Single-payer means 
socialized medicine with its attendant astronomical costs.  No fiscal 
conservative can support socialized medicine.  This is not an invitation 
for a debate about socialized medicine.  I am merely pointing out that your 
two positions are contradictory.)

         So what if "the uranyl ion was used to stain DNA before the 
structure of DNA was even known."?  This proves nothing.  Why should "It 
should not come as a surprise to learn that it affects chromosomes and 
causes birth defects."?  Are you suggesting that using a substance as a 
stain automatically means it will affect chromosomes and cause birth 
defects?  Besides, I don't think you (or anyone else) have shown that 
uranyl does cause birth defects.  If someone has, please present citations 
to primary source material.  If it becomes necessary, I will be glad to 
withdraw my skepticism about the uranyl-birth defect connection.  First I 
want to read some studies.

Steven Dapra
sjd at swcp.com



At 12:46 AM 2/10/07 -0800, James Salsman wrote:
>What is the ratio between the cost of a 75% wind, 25% hydroelectric
>(including pumped hydro storage) electricity grid, and one with 100%
>nuclear power?
>
>According to my reasoning, if you include waste disposal costs,
>nuclear is much more than three times as expensive.  If you do not
>include waste disposal, and even grant Price-Anderson indemnification
>and assume the total cost to the government for cleanup is zero (which
>is absurd) then it is still more than twice of expensive, according to
>the market at present.  There is little evidence that the cost of
>nuclear energy will fall, and a lot of evidence that the cost of wind
>power will continue to fall, and a lot of evidence that hydroelectric
>and pumped hydro storage will remain about the same.
>
>However, I am in favor of nuclear power in outer space.  I believe
>that is the only correct place for it, and that it is necessary there.
>I am a moderate liberal conservationist, a fiscal conservative,
>pro-choice, pro-single payer health care, anti-Republican Party, and
>in favor of instant runoff voting and choice voting on optical scan
>ballots.  I am also an agnostic quaker, but not superstitious to the
>extent possible.  I also believe that low-hanging fruit is important.
>I am also in favor of the use of nuclear medicine.  On that note, I
>would remind readers that the uranyl ion was used to stain DNA before
>the structure of DNA was even known.  It should not come as a surprise
>to learn that it affects chromosomes and causes birth defects.  What
>should come as a surprise is how often so-called health professionals
>ignore and suppress that fact.
>
>Sincerely,
>James Salsman