When In Doubt, Leave Stuff Out; In a Pinch - LIE

[Wolverine]

Interesting article from the NYT: Nuclear Energy Loses Cost Advantage

Interesting not so much in what it says, but in the "Editors Note Appended", where they reveal that the study in question was fully biased, written for a specific client, with a pre-determined conclusion.

Quote:

In raising several questions about this issue and the economics of nuclear power, the article failed to point out, as it should have, that the study was prepared for an environmental advocacy group, which, according to its Web site, is committed to ‘‘tackling the accelerating crisis posed by climate change — along with the various risks of nuclear power.’’ The article also failed to take account of other studies that have come to contrasting conclusions, or to include in the mix of authorities quoted any who elaborated on differing analyses of the economics of energy production.
Although the article did quote extensively from the Web site of the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, representatives of the institute were not given an opportunity to respond to the claims of the study. This further contributed to an imbalance in the presentation of this issue.

Solar IS much cheaper than nuclear - if you compare cost over the first-life of a solar install, excluding maintenance, including subsidies, forgetting that the old nukes are already being recertified for 20 years beyond their initial expected 40 year lifespan, then adding back in the burdensome '70's era gov regulations as the primary source of financial risk, yada yada yada. I can also prove that Women=Evil and Enron was profitable.

There are so many things willfully distorted or fundamentally wrong with this article that I can't begin to address them all. Just read and have a laugh.

 

[Flyer_PE]

Pretty interesting that part of that article is complaining about subsidies distorting the market in favor of nuclear while being silent on the subsidies supplied to solar. Looks like a fair and objective report to me.[/sarcasm]

 

[Capt Worley PE]

I'm surprised they bothered to put that note at the end. They must have gotten hammered in the comment section when published originally. I can't find a comment section now.

 

[EnvEngineer]

I am suprised how emotional many get when we try to push green technologies forward, they must not only be better but must cost less if we are going to save the enviroment, make no investment in the future of this country or planet. The thought of one of our selfish profit mongering corporations running a plant that could expose thousands to radiation is hard to swallow.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

I am suprised how emotional many get when we try to push green technologies forward, they must not only be better but must cost less if we are going to save the enviroment, make no investment in the future of this country or planet. The thought of one of our selfish profit mongering corporations running a plant that could expose thousands to radiation is hard to swallow.

Al? Is that you?

 

[maryannette]

There are so many things willfully distorted or fundamentally wrong with this article that I can't begin to address them all. Just read and have a laugh.

Agreed! But, it's not funny.