Sure, why aren't they being built like mad?
Because of certain lobbyists, politicians and certain people *cough* who keep going on about nuclear power as if it's the only option we have.
Beautiful, 100% in, 70% out, on a good day. Plus of course the increased cost per kwh to the home.
True, but this is ofcourse a back up, and if you combine the use of multiple alternatives, you probably won't need to store energy at all. (Just trying to make a point to the people who were talking about power outages!)
Wow, don't know where to start with that. In Europe, all nuclear plants have a cleanup fund that has to be funded before construction can begin.
True, but have you looked at these funds? These funds are nowhere near sufficient to clean up the mess. Have you looked at the so-called insurances for nuclear power plants? No insurance company wants to insure these guys! Same story, they have an insurance policy, backed by the government and business ofcourse, but again these funds are nowhere near sufficient to cover in case of a worst-case scenario. (I guess they're keeping their fingers crossed nothing will happen?)
It's factored in to the pricing. The coal market is fairly volatile, and it's getting much more expensive year on year to burn coal.
I'm aware of that, and to me that's good news!
Not following you here. Wouldn't that be a bit dangerous?
What's dangerous about adjusting electronic equipment, so that it can work on a lower Voltage? We could adjust most of our electronic equipment so that this would use up less Amps and Watts aswell. We could even install two seperate powergrids in a house. (One for low power.) Oh, and you could also choose to put solar panels in parellel, instead of in serial, which will provide a higher voltage. (I'm sure Electricians will understand my Dutch?)
Nuclear isn't the long term end all answer. But we need energy right now, and gas and coal are quickly becoming unacceptable.
Europeans could build dams too if they really wanted it. The Itaipu dam for example, took 11 years to complete. If we would build smaller ones, and with today's construction methods, we might be looking at 5 or 6 years? Ambitious, I know, but the results don't lie. One dam could easily compete with 8 to 10 reactors. 8 to 10 reactors will cost billions, and a dam will cost billions aswell, but a dam will be cleaner, safer, reliable, produces no waste, will not damage the environment, needs no delving, or the transport of materials and resources and will have a lifespan of atleast a few hundred years if built well. So yeah, I'm all for water, because it's without question, the most powerful solution.Who's afraid of water?