The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investment Analysis Clubs / Macro Economic Trends and Risks
|Subject: Re: The “second rent”||Date: 3/24/2013 11:08 AM|
|Author: jaagu||Number: 418740 of 465391|
As CO2 emitted continues to influence our climate and the problems become more "soon, salient and certain"-Revkin, the subsidy to the CO2 emitting power generators will be revoked, removed or in some other way cancelled out.
Companies involved in nuclear energy will then move up in value.
There isn't a tax, but there will be SOMETHING and when it shows itself
the fossil fuel based companies will suffer and the nuclear based power suppliers will prosper.
Nuclear power provides at most 20% of all electrical power generation in US. But electrical power is only 40% of the total energy usage in US. Thus nuclear only provides 8% of the total energy usage in the US. We need to take care of CO2 coming out of transportation, industrial and residential also. If we doubled the number of nuclear power plants in US we could get nuclear to provide 16% of the total energy usage. Is this realistic? Do the American people have the will and the money to invest in doubling nuclear energy and wind/solar energy so that each generates 16% of our total energy usage?
In countries like China and India nuclear energy does not even provide 1% of the total energy usage now.
Currently US is shutting down nuclear reactors faster than it is replacing them. The closures are due to old plants needing more repairs, utility blunders, equipment failures, Fukushima lessons learned capital costs and O&M costs. Crytal River and Kewaunee are closing. Vermont Yankee and San Onofre unit 3 are in discussions for closing. Fort Calhoun and San Onofre unit 2 may never operate again. More plant closures may be announced in the next couple of years.
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|