I am under the impression that the amortised capital costs of nuclear are too expensive compared to renewables (windfarms and solar, for example) and thus isn't really financially viable.
I'd prefer using the lower-cost windfarms and then supplementing with coal when the wind dies down. Since weather can be predicted, we'd idle the coal plants unless they are needed. We don't need to move to ZERO CO2 output, just less. And then we should start sequestering the coal-produced CO2 as we learn how.
Too often with the debate of nuclear vs. wind, we see the nuclear lobbyists using operating costs and the wind lobbyists using capital+operating costs. Nuclear doesn't seem viable, financially.
Finally, with the less-developed world, wind is more portable. You can ship a couple turbines to supply a village much more cheaply than you can lay cable from a distant powerplant to a village
I'd prefer using the lower-cost windfarms and then supplementing with coal when the wind dies down. Since weather can be predicted, we'd idle the coal plants unless they are needed. We don't need to move to ZERO CO2 output, just less. And then we should start sequestering the coal-produced CO2 as we learn how.
Too often with the debate of nuclear vs. wind, we see the nuclear lobbyists using operating costs and the wind lobbyists using capital+operating costs. Nuclear doesn't seem viable, financially.
Finally, with the less-developed world, wind is more portable. You can ship a couple turbines to supply a village much more cheaply than you can lay cable from a distant powerplant to a village