Considering options for reducing environmental impact of energy, it seems it would be both more economical and more environmentally sound for a large group of people to get together and invest in a nuclear power plant than for each of them to individually install solar panels on their roofs. Taking the USA as an example, the typical home consumes about 15,000 kWh/year and an average home solar installation providing this power would have a total cost of $30,000, or about $12,000 after city rebates and tax credits. It would provide power for about 20 years without extensive maintenance. If a million people got together and paid $5000 each, however, they could fund a full-size nuclear power plant and get the same amount of power for 60 years (they would actually get about 18,000 kWh/year, and the excess capacity could be sold off to fund power plant maintenance).
A number of small towns in North Carolina invested in nuclear plants a few decades ago. They regretted it and have recently been getting out of the deal.
The towns had invested in power plants as a hedge against unpredictable energy costs, but their economic bet backfired when nuclear costs skyrocketed in the wake of the 1979 nuclear accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania.
That agrees with my previous impression, which is that nuclear power is currently too expensive to be viable without government subsidies. But I guess passive_fist is comparing nuclear against solar power, rather than against the cheapest available power, so nuclear could still be the better choice between the two.
Definitely. I’m not proposing that as an actual realistic plan. It’s just interesting to compare cost vs. utility (both in terms of power generated and impact on the environment) of the different energy sources. The only real way to put the plan into action would be government subsidies on nuclear power plants.
Really though? My intution is that democratic governments are very sensitive to issues that lots of people care about, particularly if they show that they care about them by paying real money.
For comparison, the National Rifle Association has 5 million members, and a revenue of $256 million (so ~$50 per member), and is considered to have a big influence in politics. Google’s online petition against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) gathered 7 million signatures ($0 per signer), and the act failed. This “build your own powerplant” movement would be similarly sized.
It would pay off immediately (well, as soon as the power plant is built, but most power plant construction delays are due to funding delays, which would not be an issue here). The investment isn’t that large; $5,000 would pay itself back for the average household in 1-4 years of power bills.
The investment isn’t that large; $5,000 would pay itself back for the average household in 1-4 years of power bills.
If that’s true why can’t some company get 20% per year on their capital by building a new nuclear power plant? Anything with predicted return well over the 10% should get funding.
If that’s true why can’t some company get 20% per year on their capital by building a new nuclear power plant?
Who says that they can’t do so, rather than that they haven’t noticed they could do so, or can’t persuade people to get over their phobia of nuclear power and let them do so?
Considering options for reducing environmental impact of energy, it seems it would be both more economical and more environmentally sound for a large group of people to get together and invest in a nuclear power plant than for each of them to individually install solar panels on their roofs. Taking the USA as an example, the typical home consumes about 15,000 kWh/year and an average home solar installation providing this power would have a total cost of $30,000, or about $12,000 after city rebates and tax credits. It would provide power for about 20 years without extensive maintenance. If a million people got together and paid $5000 each, however, they could fund a full-size nuclear power plant and get the same amount of power for 60 years (they would actually get about 18,000 kWh/year, and the excess capacity could be sold off to fund power plant maintenance).
A number of small towns in North Carolina invested in nuclear plants a few decades ago. They regretted it and have recently been getting out of the deal.
This thing? The key sentence seems to be
That agrees with my previous impression, which is that nuclear power is currently too expensive to be viable without government subsidies. But I guess passive_fist is comparing nuclear against solar power, rather than against the cheapest available power, so nuclear could still be the better choice between the two.
If a million people paid $5,000 each, no power plant gets built because the government won’t allow it.
A million people wouldn’t pay $5000 each without a coordination mechanism.
Definitely. I’m not proposing that as an actual realistic plan. It’s just interesting to compare cost vs. utility (both in terms of power generated and impact on the environment) of the different energy sources. The only real way to put the plan into action would be government subsidies on nuclear power plants.
Really though? My intution is that democratic governments are very sensitive to issues that lots of people care about, particularly if they show that they care about them by paying real money.
For comparison, the National Rifle Association has 5 million members, and a revenue of $256 million (so ~$50 per member), and is considered to have a big influence in politics. Google’s online petition against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) gathered 7 million signatures ($0 per signer), and the act failed. This “build your own powerplant” movement would be similarly sized.
Yes, if only we could get the population of a large city to all agree to pay 5000 dollars for a plan that would pay off in 60 years!
It would pay off immediately (well, as soon as the power plant is built, but most power plant construction delays are due to funding delays, which would not be an issue here). The investment isn’t that large; $5,000 would pay itself back for the average household in 1-4 years of power bills.
If that’s true why can’t some company get 20% per year on their capital by building a new nuclear power plant? Anything with predicted return well over the 10% should get funding.
Who says that they can’t do so, rather than that they haven’t noticed they could do so, or can’t persuade people to get over their phobia of nuclear power and let them do so?
Can you show your estimates behind that claim?
Does the solar power estimate include the cost of batteries for providing electricity at night?
Yes.