To: thackney
Do those figures, especially for coal, reflect the actual costs that are currently not internalized? I know in my area the local power company just reached a humongous settlement with the EPA for pollution control equipment, tens of billions of dollars. That’s going to drive the cost of coal-fired electricity way up, probably in excess of nuclear-generated power on a per kwhr basis. Unless there is some uniform way of internalizing costs that currently are not, we may be looking at apples and oranges. It bears remembering that nuclear is one of the few industries that fully plans for costs, from initial construction to fuel extraction and fabrication to waste disposal and retirement of facilities. All of that is reflected in the cost. I’m not sure that’s the case for other energy sources, and if it isn’t, that may change in the future.
23 posted on
10/11/2007 12:24:14 PM PDT by
chimera
To: chimera
The graph is a link to the source, click it for what information is available.
The second link is better descriptive and has more information. It compares a few options for new construction and operation of coal plants: Scrubbed Coal, Integrated Coal-Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), IGCC with Carbon Sequestration.
25 posted on
10/11/2007 12:29:31 PM PDT by
thackney
(life is fragile, handle with prayer)
To: chimera
It bears remembering that nuclear is one of the few industries that fully plans for costs Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Yucca Mountain are fully funded by utilities?
26 posted on
10/11/2007 12:32:16 PM PDT by
thackney
(life is fragile, handle with prayer)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson