Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The EPA carbon plan: Coal loses, but but who wins?

Lasrick (2629253) writes | about 4 months ago


Lasrick (2629253) writes "Mark Cooper with one of the best explanations of some of the most pressing details on the new EPA rule change: 'The claims and counterclaims about EPA’s proposed carbon pollution standards have filled the air: It will boost nuclear. It will expand renewables. It promotes energy efficiency. It will kill coal. It changes everything. It accomplishes almost nothing.' Cooper notes that although it's clear that coal is the big loser in the rule change, the rule itself doesn't really pick winners in terms of offering sweet deals for any particular technology; however, it seems that nuclear is also a loser in this formulation, because 'Assuming that states generally adhere to the prime directive of public utility resource acquisition—choosing the lowest-cost approach—the proposed rule will not alter the dismal prospects of nuclear power...' Nuclear power does seem to be struggling with economic burdens and a reluctance from taxpayers to pay continuing subsides in areas such as storage and cleanup. It seems that nuclear is another loser in the new EPA rule change."
Link to Original Source

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Answer: We all loose! (1)

Obscene_CNN (3652201) | about 4 months ago | (#47283531)

Answer: We All Loose!! no matter how you slice it it means higher prices, which means fewer jobs and lower pay. We All Loose!!

Re:Answer: We all loose! (1)

Obscene_CNN (3652201) | about 4 months ago | (#47283561)


Water Reactors are teh suck (1)

Scottingham (2036128) | about 4 months ago | (#47284113)

Of course nuclear loses in this plan. They're only figuring in the economics of the current pressurized water 2% enriched dinosaur reactor types. Those are insanely expensive to run, not to mention inherently dangerous and able to melt down (albeit very very unlikely).

There should be an apollo-style program to get fast reactors online. One particular design that I've recently come across is the dual-fluid molten salt reactor. []

It addresses a lot of the problems the LFTR reactors have (like not using sodium as the coolant!) and it can provide a wide range of operation types from breeder to 'waste' incineration.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?