# \*sigh\* We're losing the battle for nuclear power **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 21, 2016, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982 "2016-06-21T20:04:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/21 "2016-06-22T05:23:37Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I support nuclear for a financial incentive. The cost of electricity, the cost of transportation, the costs of food are all dependent on the cost of energy. The price of energy will not go down if we stay on fossil fuels, and will go up if we try to replace them with “renewable”. You don’t have to own stock in a nuclear company to have a very strong financial incentive to support it. I totally agree. [And California’s electricity costs are already among the highest in the nation](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a). If they continue shutting down nuclear power and resisting hydro and fossil fuels, those costs can be expected to go higher still. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/22 "2016-06-22T05:41:15Z")
[@mods - I’ve put a Mod inside the quote box.] > [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > **What we really need to do is… um… er… well, hell, I don’t have an answer for that. Every option we have sucks in some way or another**. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/23 "2016-06-22T07:49:55Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > There’s also no good way to deal with nuclear waste. > > But then, fossil fuels aren’t all that great either. You can at least make the argument that nuke plants keep all of their pollution in one spot. Not so with fossil fuel plants. This is how I feel in a nutshell. With nuclear, we have to worry about what to do with the toxic byproducts. With fossil fuels, we just pump them into the air and call it a day. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/24 "2016-06-22T08:42:02Z")
This seems unbelievably stupid. I’m a fan of nuclear power but at the same time I’m not blind to its problems. It has high capital costs, high decommissioning costs, a huge NIMBY problem, lots of regulatory hassle, and other stuff. But almost none of these problems are avoided by decommissioning a plant _early_. Once you’ve built it, you may as well at least get as much use as you can out of it. Oh well, solar it is. There is still no real solution to the base load problem and so I expect the grid to get substantially less reliable over time. At least it’s carbon-free. And we do have a shitload of high insolation, low productivity land. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/25 "2016-06-22T08:53:30Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Prepare to be even more amazed. [More than 50% of the electric power in the province of Ontario](http://www.opg.com/generating-power/nuclear/Pages/nuclear.aspx) (population 14 million vs. Arkansas 3 million) comes from nuclear (most of the rest comes from hydro, and increasingly from wind and solar). OPG’s Pickering and Darlington nuclear plants have a total capacity of 6600 MW and Bruce Nuclear alone has a capacity of 6272 MW; its 8 CANDU reactors make it currently the largest nuclear power facility in the world. > > P.S.- Nothing has exploded yet. 😃 So that’s why they can’t get it going in the states. People want safe, efficient nuclear technology and what’s the answer? No CANDU. ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 9:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/26 "2016-06-22T09:38:22Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > Personally, I’m not impressed with nuclear power. > > As long as we have nuclear power plants, we will have nuclear accidents. Anyone who tells you otherwise is fooling themselves IMHO. > > There’s also no good way to deal with nuclear waste. > > But then, fossil fuels aren’t all that great either. You can at least make the argument that nuke plants keep all of their pollution in one spot. Not so with fossil fuel plants. > > So-called green energy sources don’t really help that much. Many of them aren’t quite as green as some folks think (hydroelectric dams wreak havoc on the environment, for example), and most of them don’t produce anywhere near enough power. > > What we really need to do is… um… er… well, hell, I don’t have an answer for that. Every option we have sucks in some way or another. > > Nuke plants ain’t the answer. They are just a different problem. People are working on third and fourth generation nuclear plants that should solve both safety issues and even the waste issues via reusing the waste as a fuel source again, which current reactors are unable to accomplish. That is a quick summary of one type of reactor people are working on, it's an older clip so some of the stats are out of date, like the fracking boom increasing natural gas stockpiles. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/27 "2016-06-22T13:00:31Z")
We will need the nuclear power long before we can get the plants built safely. When the Big Energy Crunch[sup]©[/sup] comes, we’ll have to just throw these plants up as fast as we can, throwing safety to the wind. There will be accidents … there will be lots of accidents … the good news is that it’ll be of children who pay the costs. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/28 "2016-06-22T14:16:45Z")
The problem with “I read an article about this cool new reactor that’s just gonna be awesome” is the industry has been pumping out those articles since the 50’s, and still no awesome new reactors. The industry needs to put up the money, actually build one and show us it’s safe, doesn’t create tons of plutonium we have nowhere to put, doesn’t need to be built on rivers or coasts and doesn’t devour tons of increasingly important water and show they can do it economically, without massive government subsidies, funding and the public isn’t shouldering all the liability because it doesn’t look good when the industry itself won’t accept liability. How much faith should we have in a technology the industry itself won’t finance? Insurance companies don’t want to touch these things. If they can design and build a safe reactor that produces cheap energy and doesn’t add to nuclear proliferation by all means do it. It’s not just the US. Lots of countries are studying these miraculous next gen power plants and yet we’re still just building old fashioned reactors. I think the public is tired of hearing about awesome new technologies that “could theoretically be built in 20 years.” Solar and wind aren’t waiting. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/29 "2016-06-22T15:55:41Z")
The technology is promising, but safe nuclear plants isn’t just about the technology. People haven’t become any smarter or more reliable, and the world is a dangerous place. It’s another one of those ‘if we can put a man on the moon’ things, we can’t put a man on the moon right now, it’s just not practical. And even if we felt that we could build safe nuclear plants here in the US we still have the rest of the world to worry about. Nuclear just won’t happen until we’ve used up and maximized all other sources of energy. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/30 "2016-06-22T16:43:57Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > [@mods - I’ve put a Mod inside the quote box.] Meh. Might as well be antimatter. Fusion is like strong AI and nanotech and room-temperature superconductors, it seems always to be 10 years away. ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/31 "2016-06-22T17:08:16Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > We will need the nuclear power long before we can get the plants built safely. When the Big Energy Crunch[sup]©[/sup] comes, we’ll have to just throw these plants up as fast as we can, throwing safety to the wind. No, it will be a long time before there is a Big Energy Crunch–there are massive amounts of coal and natural gas available. Instead the problem is Climate Change. A 5C degree increase (or 9F degree increase) in temperature will possibly happen this century. The best program to deal with carbon change is a major carbon tax–and this would make nuclear much more feasible. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/32 "2016-06-22T17:36:01Z")
> [@PastTense](#): > > No, it will be a long time before there is a Big Energy Crunch–there are massive amounts of coal and natural gas available. Instead the problem is Climate Change. A 5C degree increase (or 9F degree increase) in temperature will possibly happen this century. > > The best program to deal with carbon change is a major carbon tax–and this would make nuclear much more feasible. I see your point, however we still have a quarter the world’s population to hook up to these energy sources {[Cite](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electricity-gap-developing-countries-energy-wood-charcoal/)}. So, unless you’re suggesting we keep these people in the dark forever more {[Image](http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00363/VIDEO_EARTH_AT_NIGH_363137a.jpg)}, then perhaps our reserves won’t last as long as you think. The problem with a carbon tax here in the USA is that it will be up to Congress to spend it … and that’s a really really _really_ bad idea. Better to make Big Oil be more environmentally friendly, but either way, the cost of energy will go up. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/33 "2016-06-22T17:49:57Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I see your point, however we still have a quarter the world’s population to hook up to these energy sources {[Cite](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electricity-gap-developing-countries-energy-wood-charcoal/)}. So, unless you’re suggesting we keep these people in the dark forever more {[Image](http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00363/VIDEO_EARTH_AT_NIGH_363137a.jpg)}, then perhaps our reserves won’t last as long as you think. That is one of the most silly ‘reaching for a straw’ cite I have seen, particularly when the article is talking about not using coal much: > [@](#): > > \*\*Replacing wood and coal \*\*with electricity could help reduce poverty and pollution And that is because the writers are aware of leapfrogging efforts to bring solar and wind power to poor nations, meaning that if some gas (or coal) is still used it will not be in the high quantities as many think it will be needed to give electricity to all in the poorest nations. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > The problem with a carbon tax here in the USA is that it will be up to Congress to spend it … and that’s a really really _really_ bad idea. :rolleyes: Same thing was said about cap-n-trade when dealing with acid rain. The point is that taxes, fines and the expense of not trading creates pressures for all industry to avoid using fossil fuels or to control their emissions. What congress would do with the revenue is secondary but of course it **should** depend a lot on the politicians that do think that we should prepare for the changes instead of the politicians that continue to deny the issue. > **[Science Committee Seeks to Squash Exxon Investigation](https://thinc.blog/2016/06/18/science-committee-seeks-to-squash-exxon-investigation/)** > > Reuters: A Republican-led congressional committee sought on Friday to assert oversight over inquiries that about 20 states are making into Exxon Mobil and climate change, reiterating demands to kno… ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/34 "2016-06-22T18:09:31Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Funny how the utilities themselves conclude nuke plants aren’t worth the hassle and decide to shut them down but sneakily make it sound like the hippy protesters did it. Yes, "Not worth the _hassle"_- the hassle is being done by the “hippy protesters” and Sierra club. Which club, incidentally is also _anti-solar._ ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/35 "2016-06-22T18:09:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is one of the most silly ‘reaching for a straw’ cite I have seen, particularly when the article is talking about not using coal much: > > And that is because the writers are aware of leapfrogging efforts to bring solar and wind power to poor nations, meaning that if some gas (or coal) is still used it will not be in the high quantities as many think it will be needed to give electricity to all in the poorest nations. Nice strawman, **Gigo** , my claim is that a quarter the world’s population doesn’t have electric power … whatever you’re refuting, there’s still a quarter the world’s population without electricity … unless _SciAm_ isn’t reputable, and you might be right there. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Same thing was said about cap-n-trade when dealing with acid rain. The point is that taxes, fines and the expense of not trading creates pressures for all industry to avoid using fossil fuels or to control their emissions. What congress would do with the revenue is secondary but of course it **should** depend a lot on the politicians that do think that we should prepare for the changes instead of the politicians that continue to deny the issue. > > [Science Committee Seeks to Squash Exxon Investigation – This is Not Cool](https://climatecrocks.com/2016/06/18/science-committee-seeks-to-squash-exxon-investigation/) What makes you think industry won’t pass the extra cost of carbon taxes on to the consumer? In less than 14 years, it will be illegal for Oregon electric utilities to purchase coal-fired electricity, maybe your problem isn’t in Washington DC but rather your own State House. I know you’re a big fan of nuclear power and you make a convincing case, that plant near you is a great facility and I agree we should be building more like them. But the older, unsafe plants do need to be decommissioned or reworked. We’ve learned a lot these past decades and going forward I think nuclear is one of our best options … at least until we unlock solar energy. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/36 "2016-06-22T18:11:58Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > Personally, I’m not impressed with nuclear power. > > As long as we have nuclear power plants, we will have nuclear accidents. Anyone who tells you otherwise is fooling themselves IMHO. > > There’s also no good way to deal with nuclear waste. > > But then, fossil fuels aren’t all that great either. You can at least make the argument that nuke plants keep all of their pollution in one spot. Not so with fossil fuel plants. > > So-called green energy sources don’t really help that much. Many of them aren’t quite as green as some folks think (hydroelectric dams wreak havoc on the environment, for example), and most of them don’t produce anywhere near enough power. > > What we really need to do is… um… er… well, hell, I don’t have an answer for that. Every option we have sucks in some way or another. > > Nuke plants ain’t the answer. They are just a different problem. It’s\* all\* trade-offs, TANSTAAFL. But over all, considering carbon and global warming, nuclear is jut about the best. Fossil Fuels kill more people than nukes. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/37 "2016-06-22T18:30:07Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, "Not worth the _hassle"_- the hassle is being done by the “hippy protesters” and Sierra club. Which club, incidentally is also _anti-solar._ Yeah, damn Sierra Club. They killed off solar. It would have been nice if we’d developed solar but Sierra Club killed it off. Now we’re doomed. Damned Sierra Club. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/38 "2016-06-22T18:33:09Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Yeah, damn Sierra Club. They killed off solar. It would have been nice if we’d developed solar but Sierra Club killed it off. Now we’re doomed. Damned Sierra Club. They are doing their part to kill it. Oh and wind power is bad also. So is hydroelectric. Fossil fuels= bad. Nukes are\* super\* evil. :rolleyes: Ignorant Luddites. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/39 "2016-06-22T18:41:03Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > They are doing their part to kill it. Oh and wind power is bad also. So is hydroelectric. Fossil fuels= bad. Nukes are\* super\* evil. :rolleyes: > > Ignorant Luddites. Well, my point is I think you’re giving hippy protesters more credit than they deserve, and the nuke industry loves to blame things on hippy protesters and not mention the fact that their various projects were canceled before the hippy protesters showed up. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/40 "2016-06-22T18:45:00Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Well, my point is I think you’re giving hippy protesters more credit than they deserve, and the nuke industry loves to blame things on hippy protesters and not mention the fact that their various projects were canceled before the hippy protesters showed up. Maybe. But the Sierra club can & has added millions in legal fees to the cost of many power plants. They need to figure out which power they are backing and do that, rather than fight _all_ of them- which is just plain foolish. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982.md?page=3)