In a word – yes. There are different costs associated with both though that do not have to do necessarily with the production of energy itself. With nuclear there is the cost of potential meltdown. While all plants have rigorous safeguards, they are not perfect and calamity is always a possibility. There is also the question of ‘people’ based currency. How educated is the served population? Are they qualified to run a nuclear plant as opposed to a coal burning plant? If not, what is the cost of recruiting outside talent. THis may affect other business relations in the process of getting permitted and actually building the plant.
This is all hypothetical. On a kw/h (kilowatts per hour) to kw/h basis nuclear energy is cheaper. Some areas are reluctant to switch to nuclear because of the different set of risks involved.
It is difficult to put a price on something when one does not know the full extent of the damage that has been caused by it, especially when that damage has occurred to someone else’s family hundreds or thousands of miles away. Nuclear power has a very dirty history. It is cheap because people have been exploited to mine it and store the waste for less compensation than they deserve. Coal also has a very dirty history, so it is difficult to say which one is ultimately worse.
Click here to cancel reply.
Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!
Don't have an account? Click Here to Signup
© Copyright GreenAnswers.com LLC