> Are there localities in the US where nuclear has beaten the cost-benefit curve?
Technically, pretty much everywhere. The health detriment from fossil air pollution (which is not in the markets at all) and the value of low-carbon energy (also not in the markets) means nuclear plants are providing great benefits pretty much everywhere! :)
But that's not what you're asking. Coal vs. nuclear have traded off through the years. They both got a lot more regulations and more expensive in the 1970s. Komanoff's book really treats this extremely well.
The US plants were not standardized. Places that standardize the plants have a much better time economically. South Korea. France. Russia.
Still, I would argue that while nuclear is indeed more expensive than fossil, the fact that it is nearly carbon free and air-pollution free while being 24/7 make it a good deal. All 100% decarbonized sources have extra fees.
Agreed. Utility execs only care about the bottom line.
If we can get markets to value low-carbon or low air pollution nuclear will compete today. Sadly, it doesn't look like this will happen anytime soon. Seems so obvious though.
Technically, pretty much everywhere. The health detriment from fossil air pollution (which is not in the markets at all) and the value of low-carbon energy (also not in the markets) means nuclear plants are providing great benefits pretty much everywhere! :)
But that's not what you're asking. Coal vs. nuclear have traded off through the years. They both got a lot more regulations and more expensive in the 1970s. Komanoff's book really treats this extremely well.
The US plants were not standardized. Places that standardize the plants have a much better time economically. South Korea. France. Russia.
Still, I would argue that while nuclear is indeed more expensive than fossil, the fact that it is nearly carbon free and air-pollution free while being 24/7 make it a good deal. All 100% decarbonized sources have extra fees.
http://komanoff.net/nuclear_power/