Is nuclear energy one of the cheapest ways of producing electricity, even cheaper than solar or wind based?

Answer 1

Roy clearly doesn't understand the various methods available for harnessing renewable energy. There is more than just wind, and more than enough energy in DAILY processes that will occur no matter what. Wind generation is just one of many, and even if the wind is not blowing one day, that's what batteries are for - storage.
Ignorance is a large barrier. Nuclear power should be left to blueprints and no more, we do not need it, and it is HIGHLY unsafe if a castatrophe occurs, e.g. Chernobyl. Our safety measures are safer, but in science we cannot operate on 100% certainty, 99.9% at best. There is no suite of safety measures that will ensure safe nuclear power indefinitely.
Nuclear power MAY be cheaper today than implementing solar/wind/tide/geothermal/wave/ocean thermal gradiant etc. because of the structure of the economy. The nuclear power facilities and technology are implemented at a larger scale than green sources, and thus may be cheaper. If we shift from non renewable to renewable, the economic structure/process will shift to make renewable energy infrastructure much cheaper than a rarely used nuclear plant.
It's totally in the hands of our leaders, and our own purchasing habits. Unfortuantely, not enough people are willing to make a change, but it may occur.

Answer 2

One of the biggest expenses for a nuclear power plant is cutting through all the red tape to get one built.
Everyone wants clean, cheap energy but no one wants the power plant in their back yard.
Nuclear power is our best chance. I wish people would stop refrencing Chernobyl as an example. Yes it was a catastrophe. However, it was in a country that has very very different standards. they didn't even build a proper conatinment structure. They had it in a building that was the equivalent on a tin can.
If you want a more accurate comparison look at the 3 Mile Island "disaster". Which really wasn't a disaster because the containment building, that was properly designed, contained the radiation.
Wind and solar work well on a small scale but they actually become very expensive when you think about how many wind mills or solar panels are needed to power a city.

Answer 3

They are cheap until you add the cost of decommision at the end of thier lives, and the proper storage of the radioactive waste, which only Switzerland has bothered to do.

The 'greens' only support it as a short term measure, 'till we get renewables and eficiency sorted out.

If you after a direct comparison then it is a bit irrelevant as they fulfil different functions, Nuclear is suitable as a 'base load' that is on all the time, including the night when there is very low demand. Wind and solar are weather dependant and are therefore limited as to how much it canadd to the grid without causing unwanted fluctuations, at the moment they are balanced with fossil fuel stations. Tidl power is looking good for a reliable, always on source of power.

Micro generation, domestic wind and solar, is expensive and inefficient compared to centralised generation.

Answer 4

Nuclear energy is only cheap after you have built a power plant and before you have to deal with the waste. It only costs about 3 cents a kilowatt to generate using nuclear. But the construction costs (in the billions) and the disposal costs (unknown since we have no way to dispose of the waste yet) make it more expensive than either solar or wind.

The advantage of nuclear compared to solar or wind is that it can generate consistently at a high level, and similarly does not contribute carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Answer 5

No, its actually fairly expensive. It used to be a little more expensive than using coal, in fact. With the skyroketing price of fossil fuels, though, its now cheaper.

In the next few years, we are almost certainly going to see more nuclear plants built--and since they'll have 30 years of technology and knowledge that wasn't available wen the existing plants were built, they should be more cost-effictive.

Currently other things--solar, wind, etc. are not ceap--though they've dropped a lot in price (about half in the last few years). Oprating a sollar powersystem is cheap--VERY. But the up front cost is high. They will pay for themselves in time--but a lot of people can't--or won't --invest the $15-30,000 in a solar power system that one big enough to meed an average home's needs costs.

That is changing--with new technology being developed, we will soon see solar power systems at very low prices--well within most people's price range.

Answer 6

nuclear energy cheapest ways producing electricity cheaper solar wind based

Answer 7

Wind turbines are uncertain in the production of electricity - do you fancy being told there is 'no dinner today' because the wind is not blowing?
Both turbines and solar electric panels are very costly.
Coal fired power stations are not clean. In fact they emit MORE radiation than nuclear ones - bound up in the coal.
Nuclear electricity should not be judged on what happened 25 years ago. Control systems are much better now and over-ride idiots trying their own experiments on them - Chernobyl.
The future is nuclear fusion not fission but that requires money which governments will not spend.
Anybody who only wants electricity from renewable sources should be prepared to bear the consequences and get very little power - only their share of the windmills output. This also applies to those who sign up to 'green' electricity which merely means they get it but other have to use more from other sources.
We use electricity from French nuclear stations - do you strust them to be more careful than us or to supply us if there is a shortage?
I should cocoa!
RoyS

Answer 8

For right now, yes.

Solar and wind need more development to be able to replace most of our fossil fuel use. We need to do that fairly rapidly, to reduce global warming.

A reasonable goal would be to have a one time construction of nuclear plants, and, as they wear out, replace them with improved solar and wind plants (and maybe other new technologies).

We can make nuclear plants that are safe and safe from terrorism. We're very good at that kind of engineering.

We've demonstrated we can bury the waste safely, it's just a political problem to pick a site.

http://www.wipp.energy.gov/

Answer 9

How you figure? You can purchase your own solar/wind generators and have a check cut back to you in about five years, when nuclear will always cost you. Besides nuclear plants cost millions to build and run. So to answer your question giant wind turbans are cheaper for the cost to electricity production ratio.

Answer 10

Much of the expense derives from the cost of safety and regulation. Nuclear plants cannot even be built in cities where the power will be used (cost: transmission lines to the customer). The industry is also paying (in advance) for things like Yucca mountain, and insurance.

Nuclear plants can "burn" both uranium and plutonium. The plutonium gets used in a technology called "MOX". Enriched uranium is always desired.
Depleted uranium can be used to make plutonium, or in heavy-water reactors.

There is still "high-level" waste, but not as of what would be of interest to terrorists, and some of us consider pounds of high-level waste preferable to tons of carbon laced with mercury.