@wildgrasssaid If you strip away the massive subsidies, nuclear energy is cheaper. People are irrationally afraid of it, so it doesn't benefit from subsidies like coal does:
From a strictly cost-centric standpoint, fossil fuels are not a logical solution.
(the "radiation in a banana" study was posted above in reply to your earlier post).
What subsidies? I didn't see anything about subsidies in your link.
It looks as if the future projected costs of coal are determined by a carbon tax in your article. Did I read that right? Did it say that CO2 is the cost because of a solution imposed by politicians in the future?
Nostradumbass strikes again?
"the "radiation in a banana" study was posted above in reply to your earlier post"
Can't find it. I'm wondering if some bananas are being grown in radioactive soil. Surely not all bananas are like that.
@metal-brainsaid What subsidies? I didn't see anything about subsidies in your link.
I'm positive that you can find that answer by googling "coal subsidies". Last I checked taxpayers cover something like $80 billion per year for fossil fuel-based energy production in the US alone. It's 10-fold more than nuclear.
@wildgrasssaid I'm positive that you can find that answer by googling "coal subsidies". Last I checked taxpayers cover something like $80 billion per year for fossil fuel-based energy production in the US alone. It's 10-fold more than nuclear.
If you have to tell me to google it you are not positive. Don't give me a general fossil fuel number when we were talking about coal, a specific fossil fuel.
Mining coal is not as risky as drilling for oil and gas. If there are subsidies I doubt it is very much.
BTW, stop posting links unless you read them. The last one was absurd and a waste of my time. You still have not posted the banana link you claimed was in your last post and was not. Is that because it was an absurd link as well?
@metal-brainsaid If you have to tell me to google it you are not positive. Don't give me a general fossil fuel number when we were talking about coal, a specific fossil fuel.
Mining coal is not as risky as drilling for oil and gas. If there are subsidies I doubt it is very much.
BTW, stop posting links unless you read them. The last one was absurd and a waste of my time. You still hav ...[text shortened]... a link you claimed was in your last post and was not. Is that because it was an absurd link as well?
I read everything I post before posting, and I found that last one compelling. Strip the subsidies away and the cost of coal skyrockets. You don't appear to know what you are talking about regarding the "cheap" cost of energy.
@metal-brainsaid You still have not posted the banana link you claimed was in your last post and was not. Is that because it was an absurd link as well?
Very interesting actually. You keep spouting off about the "natural" causes of climate change but ignore the fact that radiation is natural, too. The vast majority of man-made radiation comes from medical equipment and devices, as well as electronics like TVs.
@wildgrasssaid I read everything I post before posting, and I found that last one compelling. Strip the subsidies away and the cost of coal skyrockets. You don't appear to know what you are talking about regarding the "cheap" cost of energy.
Do you not know how google works?
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/
Renewable energy sources get 6 times the subsidies as coal.
Now that I know this I think getting rid of subsidies for both is a great idea.
@wildgrasssaid Very interesting actually. You keep spouting off about the "natural" causes of climate change but ignore the fact that radiation is natural, too. The vast majority of man-made radiation comes from medical equipment and devices, as well as electronics like TVs.
@metal-brainsaid Renewable energy sources get 6 times the subsidies as coal.
We were comparing fossil fuels vs. nuclear. You thought fossil fuels were the best because they were cheaper. But fuel cost of coal is higher. Facilities cost is higher. They receive $1.3 billion in subsidies on a good year. That was my point.
Many other studies (beyond the one I presented earlier) have shown that the marginal costs of nuclear is lower than coal. Pages 6 of this report, for example: https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf
Who is telling you coal is cheap? Where are you getting that information?
Let's nuke climate change!
08 Jan '19 21:301 edit
Back to Top