http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-12/24/c_132060612.htm

but then I’m not sure how reliable the article is.

The person with unsupported opinions are right.

I guess I failed to take note of falling down that rabbit hole…

(And you’re from an institution of higher learning?)

I used the EIA LCOE projections. http://en.openei.org/apps/TCDB/

—

“If wind is so cheap why does it require government subsidies?”

Wind needs a few more years of support in order to get the needed infrastructure in place. Also, subsidies to wind and solar help offset the subsidies given to fossil fuels, helping to level the playing field.

Subsidies for wind have dropped its price by over 6x in the last 30 years. Subsidies for solar have dropped the price of solar panels by 200x over the same amount of time.

Subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear have been multiple times what renewables have received and except for fracking causing a temporary drop in natural gas prices we have seen the cost of fossil fuels and nuclear energy rise.

—

” And what about the cost of the coal or gas plants that need to run when the wind isn’t blowing?”

Forget coal. It’s a dead man walking. Gas is another way of producing electricity, we can use it when the Sun isn’t shining and the wind not blowing. It doesn’t add to the cost of wind or solar, wind and solar save us the cost of burning gas.

As we develop storage we’ll cut back on gas. Gas is only a temporary evil.
—

” Germany is replacing its nuclear power with coal. ”

That is factually incorrect. Germany’s new coal burning plants are replacing (not adding to) the older plants that either have been or will soon be decommissioned. Moreover, by 2020, 18.5 gigawatts of coal power capacity will be decommissioned, whereas only 11.3 gigawatts will be newly installed.

Furthermore those plants will be more efficient, releasing less CO2 per unit electricity produced than are the ones they are replacing.

Those replacement coal plants were undertaken prior to the decision to close nuclear plants.

—

“The U.S. is burning fossil fuels for power thanks to the anti-nuclear demagogues that prevented further development and research of nuclear power.”

Another incorrect claim. The US has continued to spend large amounts of money on nuclear research.

The reason that nuclear plants have not been built is because they are not financially viable. The only place we’re seeing new reactors built in the US is where the state government allowes the utility company to seize customer money for construction costs and where the eventual higher price of electricity can be rammed down consumers’ throats. That wouldn’t work in a free market.

—

“Nuclear power has proven to be thousands of times safer than any other power generation method.”

Again, you post the incorrect. Nuclear is safer than coal. No one argues against that, but coal is not one of the energy choices we are considering.
Nuclear energy is very dangerous. Take in evidence containment domes, emergency pumps and generators, public evacuation plans, squads of armed guards, …. Wind, solar, geothermal require none of that.

Wind and solar workers work in full exposure to their fuel source with no more protection than sun screen and a wide-brimmed hat.

The “leftover fuel” from wind and solar create no disposal issues.

—

Hansen knows a lot about climate. He’s not well informed when it comes to nuclear energy.

—

Sorry, you seem to have drunk from the radioactive Kool Aid cup.

Or more hypotheticals?

Remember, hypothetically nuclear energy is “too cheap to meter”….

http://www.thoriumenergycheaperthancoal.com

The fact that thorium reactors can be used to create material for nuclear weapons makes them problematic. It’s not the sort of thing we would want to see happening in some parts of the world.

I’m also aware that the lower cost of thorium did not make the reactor competitive enough to cause others to be built.

Thorium reactors probably can’t compete with renewable energy. It’s not the fuel cost, it’s the construction, financing and operational cost of reactors. If/when someone builds a modern one we’ll have a better idea but right now you will notice that exactly zero US utility companies are building thorium reactors.

The cost of renewable energy is low and will continue to drop. If we get affordable/cheap storage then there is no way that nuclear can compete.
Wind is on its way to 3 cents per kWh, solar to 5. No one suggests that the cost of nuclear energy could be less than 10+ cents. Consider the math….

When we get better storage technology I would expect China to quickly move into the lead there as well.

If someone builds a thorium fueled reactor that produces cheap electricity then we can consider adding them into the mix.

Same goes for fusion. If/when…