For the most part, candidates checked their partisan rhetoric at the door to concentrate instead on
nuclear cost recovery, spring protection zones, and canopy roads.
Before people shoot their feet
about nuclear costs and problems, please study the Chinese nuclear progress even over the last decade.
If we want to reduce global emissions we need to
make nuclear cost competitive everywhere, especially in the poor and developing nation states.
This has been described as a case of «negative learning by doing»,
with nuclear costs increasing as capacity has grown.
Back to Peter's question: The only immediate and practical way of
getting nuclear costs down relative to coal is to make coal more expensive by internalising its non CO2 emissions costs and, further, requiring that CO2 is captured and sequestered too (or taxing it).
Current wind, solar and
nuclear cost significantly more than fossil fuels, can not reduce sufficiently in cost at current rates of improvement and all have significant sustainability issues if scaled to these levels.
To
reduce nuclear costs - and project times - three things need to happen: access to cheap financing should be facilitated, regulatory barriers should be lowered, and industry should improve its performance.
McIntyre has asked for another 30 days to review a controversial push for coal and
nuclear cost recovery, as comments pass the 1,500 mark.
The CCCs figures are broadly in line with other authoritative sources, and endless repetition of memes
about nuclear cost is not going to change that.
Some would argue that the markets are working: Gas is cheap,
nuclear costs are high, and government has decided not to prop up nuclear.