Top arguments concerning fuel cell vehicles?

[Jeff Miller]

You omitted to mention the price-tag on these plants, which is extremely high (in large part because of the inefficient regulation by the NRC). Unless one imposes a substantial carbon tax, no for-profit non-regulated company would build a nuke in the US under current market conditions.

That's right. We need to put a price on carbon if we want to decarbonize the entire energy system (not just the current grid) in the next few decades. If we don't do that, coal, gas, and oil will with near certainly remain the top sources of energy for a very long time, the rapid growth of renewables not withstanding.

I agree that a more functional NRC would help reduce nuclear costs. Also if we decided on a design and built lots of plants to the exact same specifications rather than making every new plant a one off, we would make approval easy (just needs to be approved once) and also presumably get economies of scale, assuming we were to build hundreds of new plants in the US.

Do you have an estimate for the minimum tax that would be required per ton of CO2 to make building a new nuclear plant cost competitive with coal and gas?

 

[wycolo]

There is no Top Argument for Fuel Cells, just the hope of another national boondoggle for free-riders to hitch onto.
--

 

[stopcrazypp]

You omitted to mention the price-tag on these plants, which is extremely high (in large part because of the inefficient regulation by the NRC). Unless one imposes a substantial carbon tax, no for-profit non-regulated company would build a nuke in the US under current market conditions.

The lead time is longer too than fossil fuel plants (esp. once you include all the regulatory processes too). A combined cycle can be built in 3 years, nuclear plants are more like 4 years at the quickest (and usually behind schedule).