Wait, what? :smack:
“Yeah, so nuclear kills fewer people. But is it safer?”
You must have a different metric on how safe something is than the rest of the world.
As far as I understand it, fissile material is created by finding naturally occurring radioactive ore. We then process the ore to remove everything that isn’t radioactive.
Once we have the radioactive fuel, we let it burn itself down, so that it’s less radioactive than it used to be.
Which means, at the end of the day, we’ve created nothing radioactive in any of this - we’ve merely harvested it - and the resulting waste is less radioactive than what we started with. If we mixed it all back in with the original rock and other minerals that we started with and put it back into the mine, that whole section of Earth would be less radioactive than it had been when we started.
The problem of storing it is really just a problem of diluting it and convincing people that the diluted form isn’t “toxic waste” as well.
Compared to massive oil slicks in places like Nigeria, or underground coal seam fires that expel astonishing amounts of waste into the atmosphere, nuclear waste storage seems like a comparatively minor issue.
We have fought wars over oil and the fallout from those wars continue. But none of that is relevant to the safety of nuclear plants. This isn’t some simple issue based on comparing random unrelated values. There technical considerations, political considerations, ecological considerations, economic considerations, and the limits of our ability to predict the future. We have a better handle on those factors for the traditional methods of power generation than we do for unbuilt nuclear plants, this argument is largely about the devil we know vs. the one we don’t.
Nuclear waste storage seems like a minor issue because we’ve put a lot of thought, regulatory control, and technical effort into addressing the very real hazards of the release of both short term nuclides and long term high level waste; even at that, there are substantial costs and unresolved issues (at least on a logistical and political standpoint if not technical), not to mention the fact that we waste more than 95% of the potential energy available by nuclear fission in our current once-through enriched uranium power cycle. However, if we treated the atmospheric carbon emissions, spillage and natural gas release hazards, and the release of embedded radiation from coal burning with the same degree of scruitiny and remediation, the effort and cost would be very substantial and fossil fuels would look much less attractive by comparison.
There is no question that humanity at large has to transition away form the use of fossil petrocarbon and coal energy production, and that with extant technology, renewable sources such as wind, wave, solar, and hydroelectric are not going to replace more than a modest fraction at best, nor can we wait until workable and cost-effective nuclear fusion is practicable. Given that, nuclear fission is an inevitable and significant component of future energy production, and given the appropriate regulatory controls, failsafe efficient designs, fuel processing and disposal infrastructure, and probably most importantly, the political and educational support to establish and maintain the ability to build nuclear plants in technically suitable sites and operate them with a well-regulated competent workforce, there is no reason that nuclear fission can’t be safe, significantly cleaner, and relatively cost-effective.
But that won’t happen overnight, nor will blasély ignoring the technical and logistical challenges of safety and waste disposal with a wave of the hand make that happen. Nor can we assume that we can build this kind of infrastructure from virtually nothing and then turn off all fossil fuel plants with anywhere near enough expediciousness to minimize atmospheric carbon emissions; instead, we need to evaluate means to reduce carbon emissions by point-of-source sequestration and greater efficiency while building a base of nuclear energy production capability, and at the same time developing the next generation of energy production and management technologies (nuclear fission and otherwise) that realize greater efficiency and safety gains. The current regulatory and educational system is wholly inadequate for this effort, nor are free market contractors who have historically struggled to realize a net profit in nuclear energy production and are understandably relucant to adopt novel technologies that may require a deep investment in research and prototype construction going to step up and invest the trillions of dollars over the next couple of decades.
What is really needed is a WPA/REA-type of effort combined with a government agency with the authority not just to license and regulate operators but to select technically appropriate sites for nuclear energy sites, fuel processing facilities, and long term storage/remediation/reprocessing facilties with the ultimate power of eminent domain regardless of the political strength of local and regional authorities. Everybody wants power, nobody wants to be home to a nuclear plant, fuel processing facility, or disposal site, but in the end, everybody needs to accept responsibility for some portion of the risk and effort rather than dumping waste in a hole of a politically-ineffectual state and calling it good. Similarly, the risk and costs of safety need to be equitably shared, along with legal culpability for lapses in security and safety that are a periodic highlight of issues with nuclear energy facilities.
Stranger
True - it is a fairly complicated issue based on comparing different industries with the same standard. One good standard might be number of death and amount of pollution produced per kilowatt-hour of energy produced. By that standard, and by pretty much every other one, nuclear comes out way ahead of any reasonable alternative. Fossil fuels produce greenhouse gases, which I think we want to avoid. The cost of harvesting sunlight is too high to be practical, wind doesn’t work anywhere like well enough to be anything but a niche, and fusion is fifty years away (as it was fifty years ago).
It depends on what you mean by “traditional methods”. If you include fossil fuels, then we allegedly know about that devil - AGW is the latest Satan, and we want some form of energy production that will scale up to replace fossil fuels. Compared to fossil fuels, nuclear comes out ahead, since it kills fewer people per kilowatt-hour even with current designs, and doesn’t produce greenhouse gases as much as solar would.
The devil we know looks pretty damn good, by any reasonable standard. Why should we wait on the off chance, based on no evidence, that there might be a slightly different devil thirty years down the road?
Tell it to Harry Reid, Bernie Sanders, and the rest of the no-nuke-nuts.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s pretty cool. It SOUNDS like it would be great, depending what the capital costs are and if it proves as sound in practice once they scale it up.
What it will really involve is to actually allow new plants to be built without all the hurdles and hoops and lawsuits stopping them and driving up their costs. That last new plant in the US was built in the freaking 90’s and as far as I know no new plants are seriously being planned that will actually be produced any time in the near future. Even without all the road blocks eco groups put in the path of any new construction it takes years and lots of up front capital to build a ‘new’ plant. And since we aren’t building the things and since they are such a political dead end in the US we aren’t exactly on the cutting edge of the next generation technologies possible for fission power plants.
We do? Who’s ‘we’?
The costs of solar power has dropped for decades, from a very high base where it was only economical for pocket calculators. But now we are at the point where solar is beginning to become competitive.
David Roberts:
[INDENT][indent]In 2007, there were zero utility-scale solar power plants in the US. Today there are hundreds… What’s more, there’s a ton of utility solar in the pipeline. …
A new report from GTM Research is also optimistic about utility-scale solar passing something of a milestone in 2016.
For years, the growth of big solar was driven by state-level renewable energy mandates; utilities had to build these plants. This coming year, GTM expects more than half the growth in big solar to come outside those mandates. [/INDENT][/INDENT]
The cost of utility scale solar has halved since 2009 and continues to fall: there are hopes of getting it down to $1 per watt. As a part of our energy portfolio is has the advantage of long run predictability in price once it’s installed (i.e. very low) and well known challenges with storage.
Nuclear power also has its features: it is good for baseload power though it remains expensive. Personally, I think ordering a Manhattan Project scale pursuit of nuclear power would be highly unwise without first establishing rational pricing of greenhouse gas emissions. As of today, nuclear power units are being installed in the US in regulated utility environments (where market pressures are competitive financiers aren’t interested). I approve of that and think it should be expanded. But I doubt whether any single technology will be our savior.
The price mechanism permits the application of hundreds of technologies to reduce emissions. Automatically. We should reach for that first.
The US currently has 5 nuclear plants under construction, following additional subsidies extended during the Bush administration. The Obama admin has up to $12.5 billion of loan guarantees available (if I’m reading that cite correctly).
The Watts Bar 2 plant in Tennessee is under construction. Headline: Cost of Watts Bar nuclear reactor rises by $200 million to $4.7 billion. Not atypical for nuclear power: cost overruns occur routinely around the world.
In Georgia, 2 nukes are under construction. Back in 2013 the utility was arguing with the manufacturer who was to blame for the cost overruns. Westinghouse clashes with Georgia Power over nuclear plant cost overruns | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
“One of the biggest budget busters in state history”: http://www.myajc.com/news/business/delays-rising-costs-invite-questions-about-vogtle-/nkPPt/
Roundup: http://chronicle.augusta.com/topics/organizations/businesses/vogtle-nuclear-power-plant
I still support these projects though they are expensive. The US has a portfolio of energy sources, and it makes sense to have it diversified. A small nuclear construction program gives us the option for more rapid expansion later. I doubt that will happen though, as the technology is currently a bit of dud. Next generation plants are another matter.
Again though, I don’t believe in picking winners from my armchair. We should charge folk for the damage they do with greenhouse emissions as a first and necessary step. Over time, they will make the proper adjustments. If current generation nuclear power becomes the dominant power source, fine. I very much doubt that will happen though if by dominant you mean >50% of US energy use any time this century. Not if pricing is rational.
Well, except for all that CO2 that’s been left around.
Most of these reactors (the 5 that survived from the original 25 proposed), from what I recall, have been delayed, and won’t be completed at a minimum until the 2020’s (if they ever are). They will not even make a dent in replacing reactors going off line due to age. So, again, who is this ‘we’ you speak of? The US isn’t even trying to even maintain it’s nuclear power system…even if all 5 reactors are actually completed, which isn’t a given, it’s not even going to come close to even maintaining the current percentage of power derived from nuclear.
Which means that the reality is we will continue to use fossil fuels for the majority of our power generation for the foreseeable future. C’est la vie.
[del]We have[/del] The US has a modest nuclear construction program. ISTM that we are closing plants faster than we are building them (though existing plant licenses do get extended). Nuclear plant construction delays are typical worldwide, driving up costs. Which is part of the reason why existing technology is so expensive. I’m somewhat skeptical regarding the whining about regulation, given the periodic plant accidents that the existing regulatory regime nonetheless produces.
I can’t say I’m too unhappy with the nuclear status quo, as there are cheaper methods of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. But I would like a somewhat larger effort at next generation plant research.
What US plant accidents are you referring to?
Regards,
Shodan
These ones. The list is international, but it includes 9 US civilian power plant incidents since 1970. I’m not getting hysteric about it. I’m not saying US regulation is wildly out of wack. I’m saying the US nuclear industry isn’t wildly over-regulated. I recall a reference I came across back during the 1990s which had a more rigorous treatment of US nuclear safety which pointed to similar conclusions, according to my tastes. Apologies for vagueness in preceding sentence.
Recall that the US nuclear power industry wouldn’t exist without massive federal subsidies. Furthermore, it’s mostly a creature of regulated utilities, not ones with deregulated price markets. So it’s appropriate to evaluate accidents that cost a great deal in terms of dollars, as opposed to human lives. Because it’s not like we have private industry taking the bulk of the financial risks, like we do in most other industrial contexts. We also have to consider the entire fuel cycle, which includes accidents in reprocessing facilities.
I still advocate a small nuclear construction program, much like what we have. I think we should increase R&D on next generation technologies. What I oppose is hand waving about the safety challenges. And I seriously doubt whether current generation nuclear power will solve our energy or global warming problems.
Part of the solution? Sure. Most of it? I doubt that. I’d be happy to be proven wrong though, which could happen if we had rational pricing of greenhouse gas emissions. Let the market decide.
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
These ones. The list is international, but it includes 9 US civilian power plant incidents since 1970. I’m not getting hysteric about it. I’m not saying US regulation is wildly out of wack. I’m saying the US nuclear industry isn’t wildly over-regulated. I recall a reference I came across back during the 1990s which had a more rigorous treatment of US nuclear safety which pointed to similar conclusions, according to my tastes. Apologies for vagueness in preceding sentence.
[/QUOTE]
Wow…that’s an excellent safety record. 9 events serious enough to make that page, yet only one caused a serious loss of life. I wonder what the number of deaths have been from coal fired power plants each year across a similar cross section (which seems to include most countries on the planet)? Heck…I wonder what the annual loss of life is due to either wind or solar across the planet. Probably not on par with Chernobyl from that list, but I’m guessing more than the rest combined (actually, I’m not guessing…it is. I’m just being factitious ;)).
If you consider the entire life cycle of solar and wind you will find similar trends. Heck, even coal and oil are subsidized. And we know that the cost of coal and oil are much harsher in terms of overall deaths and environmental damage than is reflected in the price per kilowatt hour…true?
I agree with this. Nuclear isn’t the whole solution. It’s part of it. But it’s a part that has been pretty much ignored in the US. And the main reason it’s been ignored isn’t due to the cost, but due to fear…fears fanned by the anti-nuclear crowd who have been able to push their propaganda to the public for decades pretty much unchecked.
If we ‘Let the market decide’ on this then we all know what that means…it means we will get pretty much what we have, with fossil fuels making up the bulk of our produced energy, nuclear and hydro as fading technologies with their percentages to the whole in a constant state of decline, and wind and solar as the niche energy producers they have been and will continue to be. The only large shift we are likely to see is from coal to natural gas. Perhaps in a decade or so something like what you linked to earlier…if it pans out.
This is what I find amusing. Nuclear power is safer than almost any industrial process and yet people still are afraid of it.
I strongly support nuclear power for most of the reasons already listed, but I also see it as a backdoor to socialism since their high start-up costs and need for regulation often discourage private investment, leaving it up to the State to not only provide funding but perhaps even run it as a public utility.
Solar and wind will almost certainly kill more than 1 person per decade. I remain dubious about substantially loosening US regulation of nuclear power, given the financial costs of Three Mile Island et al, costs which were are in practice absorbed by the ratepayer.
Certainly. That’s why we need rational pricing of CO2 and methane. It’s just that I’ve read that nuclear’s breakeven rate is at about $100 per ton of CO2. And there are a large number of ways to reduce CO2 emissions more cheaply.
No, it produces about 20% of our electrical power. Not ignored.
Garbage. Wall Street isn’t interested in nuclear power, because it is expensive. The only reason we have new plants is because of explicit Federal subsidies, implicit Federal subsidies and even then you need to have captive ratepayers to make it work. Since I don’t live in those sorts of states, I tip my hat to them but also shake my head.
By “Let the market decide” I mean “Slap a tax so high it will make your head spin, then let the market decide.” Or just settle for a politically palatable charge, then let the market decide.
I’m actually a slightly more optimistic about these issues. We have a number of patriotic capitalists who are focusing on global warming with technologies that include next generation nukes. Big portions of corporate America have come out in favor of Obama’s power plant plan. And of course, there’s a chance that Republican Luddites will suffer electoral collapse this Fall.
This is a big reason why I support Clinton over Sanders. Sanders’ position on nuclear power would set the industry back.
Looking closely at the Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States I see that many could hardly be blamed on the reactor, such as the guy who fell down a man hole and got electrocuted. Also a couple were in “Idaho falls” which really means the Idaho National Laboratory where they invented nuclear power so it’s not really fair to call them out since they were test reactors operating at the edge of the safety limit to see what would happen.