Why not Nuclear Energy?

[Travis Retriever]

Wind or Nuclear? by Ray Harvey

That explains why we don't use nuclear and what Shane meant when he spoke of doing stuff (can't remember the exact word he used) to the nuclear waste so we can reuse it.

So how much cheaper would electricity be if we had a free market in it?

[AHPMB]

Nuclear Energy was on the decline BEFORE Three Mile Island, and certainly well before Chernobyl.  This is due to the fact that coal production has become so incredibly inexpensive that nuclear power just hasn't been economically feasible.  Nuclear requires a great deal more infrastructure than coal.  You have to enrich the material, you have to build a much more complex reactor, and you need storage for the waste.  This is why several nuclear plants under construction in the 80s were converted to coal plants.  Coal is cheap, easy to mine, and has been getting progressively cleaner over the last two decades.  It had nothing to do with anti-nuclear demonstrators.  Nuclear power has already made a comeback in countries which aren't sitting on gigantic coal beds, especially in places like Japan, where natural resources are scarce.  It will make a comeback in the United States when prices demand it.

[Travis Retriever]

Once the Nuclear plant is built, it's cheaper to run than a coal plant.
Also, as Shane and the article linked pointed out, one of the reasons nuclear power is so expensive is because of the prohibitions on enriching (or whatever) the used fuel.

[AHPMB]

Cheaper to run is not the same as cheaper to build.  We have an infrastructure built to support coal, coal is easier and cheaper to mine than uranium, and certainly easier to transport.  The enrichment process isn't just expensive due to government regulation, but because it requires engineering expertise and high tech equipment.  Even the Iranians, who are furiously working to develop a bomb before the Israelis attack them, have only enriched to about 20% which is just above what you need for medical use.  You have to take in the subsidiary costs as well as the cost of maintaining the plant.  There is no foreseeable coal shortage in the near future, and the United States is still sitting on the largest coal bed in the world.  I'm not saying that I'm anti-nuclear, I'm saying that the decline in nuclear power within the United States is the result of perfectly reasonable market forces, rather than some government conspiracy.  Look at any country that heavily relies on nuclear power and you'll see the same thing, a shortage of other resources that makes nuclear not only viable but necessary.  This is especially true in heavily industrialized nations like Japan.

The real injustice here is not the complications on nuclear enrichment, but the ban on the development of new coal sources of energy and coal based fuels by the EPA.  We're talking a cheap easy to produce source of fuel that burns cleaner than petroleum.  But oooooh it just looks so ugly, so we'd better regulate the hell out of it, and trust in statist boondoggles like solar instead.

[Travis Retriever]

Cheaper to run is not the same as cheaper to build.

I never said it was...

[Gumba Masta]

Well, powering giant death lasers with the power of the sun sounds somewhat ironic.

[Travis Retriever]

We have an infrastructure built to support coal, coal is easier and cheaper to mine than uranium, and certainly easier to transport.

So?  Can you show me that a free market in electric power production would involve nuclear power production being more expensive?  I really don't see how us simply having an infrastructure now makes it better.  By that logic, we didn't have an infrastructure in computers for a while because it wasn't feasible.
Yes that stuff might be true, but then the extra energy you get per kilogram of uranium would make up for that.

The enrichment process isn't just expensive due to government regulation, but because it requires engineering expertise and high tech equipment.  Even the Iranians, who are furiously working to develop a bomb before the Israelis attack them, have only enriched to about 20% which is just above what you need for medical use.

And you only need about 3% for use in a nuclear power plant.
Also, most of this applies to any power plant (e.g. the engineering expertise and high tech equipment).

You have to take in the subsidiary costs as well as the cost of maintaining the plant.

We still built up coal.  I'm still not convinced we couldn't do the same for nuclear.  Or that in a free market, nuclear would be as cheap as, or at least competitive with coal.

There is no foreseeable coal shortage in the near future, and the United States is still sitting on the largest coal bed in the world.  I'm not saying that I'm anti-nuclear, I'm saying that the decline in nuclear power within the United States is the result of perfectly reasonable market forces, rather than some government conspiracy.

False conspiracy fallacy.  I NEVER said there was a conspiracy.  Stop that.  It's no more a conspiracy than distortions in stock prices because of inflation is.  Where you get that out of my post, I'll never know...
I hope your point isn't "well we aren't using it because it's not cheap enough" because by that logic, solar and wind are cheap that's why we use them (even though the gov't subsidizes them...).

Look at any country that heavily relies on nuclear power and you'll see the same thing, a shortage of other resources that makes nuclear not only viable but necessary.  This is especially true in heavily industrialized nations like Japan.

Sounds like an appeal to common practice to me.
Not sure how this is relevant, given the vast distortions in the market of electric power, I don't find current policy to be a very strong argument for feasibility.  I don't know how it works in Japan or Europe, but I do know that in the USA, many power providers are local monopolies, courtesy of our elected officials for example.  Or that most of the industry (along with roads) was seized by the government by eminent domain many years ago.  Given the huge distortions in the market, this is a very weak argument.
Unless you can show me a free market in electrical energy production and distribution having similar issues, this isn't a good argument.

The real injustice here is not the complications on nuclear enrichment, but the ban on the development of new coal sources of energy and coal based fuels by the EPA.  We're talking a cheap easy to produce source of fuel that burns cleaner than petroleum.  But oooooh it just looks so ugly, so we'd better regulate the hell out of it, and trust in statist boondoggles like solar instead.

And let's not forget wind farm and solar power subsidies, or corn subsidies for ethanol production, a process that uses up more power than it generates.

[Gumba Masta]

Look
Why don't you two duke it out in real time?
http://science.discovery.com/tv/powering-the-future/power-planets-game/
Here, you can thank me after you've wiped the blood of off your goiters.

[Travis Retriever]

That game doesn't load, dude.

[Gumba Masta]

It loads perfectly for me, it must be your fault. As always.
Maybe it's because you don't have a facebook account?

EDIT:
I did delete my Facebook account and now the game does'nt load for me too so yeah, that was it.