Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
offshore wind probably costs double what (reaonably well-run) nuclear costs today, on a per MWh basis.

But it will still cost the same in 20 years (or probably much less, as economies of scale kick in and operating costs go down some more), and requires no cooling water, no mining of uranium in far away places, no costly decommissioning, and no waste to store.

It's not an unreasonable trade off. Both are needed.

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 11:14:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Lifecycle Cost is becoming a more important metric in many areas, but the media still don't get it. LCC is a social metric. It can include not only end-of-life disposal, but also safety factors such as loss of life (e.g. coal mining), employment, risk of catastrophe etc.

The LCC for wind power, as you point out, must be one of the lowest per MWh of any energy source, except hydro and maybe wave power.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 12:25:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I meant to add that offshore wind should be using the LCC cost benefits more forcefully in arguments in favour.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 12:27:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Life cycle costing has been used in renewables for decades, and is widely accepted.  The problem comes in determining how to include externalities, and what do they actually cost.  For example, what (roughly? exactly?) is the cost of a coal miner's life?  What is the cost of a gulf or two?  What are the long term costs of isotope storage, factoring in the cost of capital over a few millenia, give or take.

Thus it always comes down to the politics.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin

by Crazy Horse on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 12:45:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
For example, what (roughly? exactly?) is the cost of a coal miner's life?  What is the cost of a gulf or two?  What are the long term costs of isotope storage, factoring in the cost of capital over a few millenia, give or take.

Thus it always comes down to the politics.

Ultimately we can only estimate, however that has benefits.

Why not require that companies engaged in harmful resource extraction like this be required to contribute 2.5% of revenues towards a compensation fund?

  1. This would billions to cover the costs created externalities from operations.

  2. Some portion could be used to fund the development of alternatives, including loan guarantees for renewables, etc.


And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 01:03:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It may be accepted in the industry, but my general review of media and politics is that the point is not made strongly enough to voters. How to do this is another matter; but to me it seems it should be an easy sell. The benefits are clear.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 01:51:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Impeachment gets real

by ARGeezer - Jan 17
9 comments

A Final Warning

by Oui - Jan 10
97 comments

Environment Anarchists

by Oui - Jan 13
4 comments

More Spanish repression

by IdiotSavant - Jan 6
8 comments

Occasional Series