# Still support nuke power plants? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 14, 2011, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647 "2011-03-14T11:56:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 66
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2011, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1301 "2011-04-02T22:22:48Z")
Nuclear is already scaled up. To find a large scale plant, you merely need to look. Good luck getting people to live like they do in the developing world. That’s a realistic winning campaign if I ever saw one. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2011, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1302 "2011-04-02T23:37:02Z")
> [@WarmNPrickly](#): > > … Since nobody has provided any scaleup numbers in terms of materials, labor, and manufacturing capability on any alternative to nuclear power, I can only assume favorable numbers dont exist… Actually they have been provided several times in this thread. It’s just a bit boring to search the thread to find them and post them again. No one really seems interested in them anyway. The bottom line on costs was lot of overlap, depending on the assumptions made and the particular circumstances. As [a cite provided by Whack-a-Mole](http://www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/ElecCostSUM.pdf) put it: > [@](#): > > … none of the traditional electricity generating technologies can be expected to be the cheapest in all situations. The preferred generating technology will depend on the specific circumstances of each project. The study indeed supports that on a global scale there is room and opportunity for all efficient generating technologies. Those calculations do not monetize greenhouse gases or perceived safety risks. **WarmNPrickly** , you really must realize that the nuclear industry is in no position to displace many coal plants right now. IF we monetize GHG emissions AND subsidize the industry by guaranteeing their loans, etc., THEN maybe, just maybe, we can get enough plants in America to replace the plants that are due to age out. These 104 American nuclear power plants were designed to have 40 year lifetimes and the average age is about 30. ([source](http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html)). Yes, many are being given 20 year extensions, but the risks, which we must recognize are nonzero and potentially catastrophic, [do go up as they get older](http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/us-nuclear-plants-in-the.html). > [@](#): > > Today’s aging reactors, and any reactors granted 20-year extensions to their current 40-year operating licenses, face the high-risk wear-out segment of the bathtub curve. Despite efforts to monitor the condition of aging equipment, there are recent age-related failures caused by monitoring the right areas using the wrong techniques and by monitoring the wrong areas using the right techniques. In addition, nuclear plants seeking license renewal conform not to today’s safety standards, but to a unique assortment of regulations dating back nearly 40 years with countless exemptions, deviations, and waivers granted along the way. While each individual exemption or waiver may be justified as not reducing safety margins, the cumulative effect of so many exceptions can adversely affect safety. And the 20 year extensions obviously only buys a little time. We will need to be taking a large share of these 104 plants off line in the next several decades. “Pushing” new nuclear _might_ keep up with that, replacing aging older plants with newer safer ones with improved designs, but it is not by itself going to make much net progress. You are also being dense if you believe that **lev** was proposing that we all “live like they do in the developing world” - the concept is that as _new_ systems are built they will be built with more efficiency and less waste as part of the design. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1303 "2011-04-03T07:08:25Z")
[QUOTE=DSeid] IF we monetize GHG emissions AND subsidize the industry by guaranteeing their loans, etc., THEN maybe, just maybe, we can get enough plants in America to replace the plants that are due to age out. [/QUOTE] Actually, I’d say that if you simply guarantee them that if their plan is approved they will, with 100% certainty, be able to build the things without interference, without lawsuits, etc etc, then they could be built today without any subsidies larger than for any project of this size. You wouldn’t need to guarantee loans if the folks making those loans thought the risks were less…the risks that, having invested millions or billions of dollars that the project might get canceled because of pressure applied by groups opposed to the construction. Or that the time to build it would be stretched out, making just starting to recoup the ROI longer…and longer…and longer. Yeah…the things are expensive. No doubt, they are a large upfront capital cost. But they have life spans defined in decades, and the costs of running them, once built, are pretty small. The REAL risk, however, comes from how much resistance the company trying to build the things will get to, well, building the things. Take that out of the equation and I think that nuclear becomes viable right there. Of course, that’s the kicker, isn’t it? You can’t really take those factors out, since the well has been so completely poisoned by the various anti-nuclear groups out there, and the public has been so indoctrinated with how dangerous nuclear power is, that it would be impossible to take those sorts of obstructions out of the mix. -XT ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1304 "2011-04-03T14:33:51Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Actually, I’d say that if you simply guarantee them that if their plan is approved they will, with 100% certainty, be able to build the things without interference, without lawsuits, etc etc, then they could be built today without any subsidies larger than for any project of this size. You wouldn’t need to guarantee loans if the folks making those loans thought the risks were less…the risks that, having invested millions or billions of dollars that the project might get canceled because of pressure applied by groups opposed to the construction. > -XT Are you unaware of the problems Areva has had? The [cost over-runs](http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-24/areva-s-overruns-at-finnish-nuclear-plant-approach-initial-cost.html) are now about as big as the original estimated cost. And the problem wasn’t from pressure from opposition groups. [It was](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html) inspectors finding things like “cracks in the concrete base and steel reinforcements in the wrong places”. That sort of “interference” is not the sort you’d want to guarantee them they could avoid. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1305 "2011-04-03T16:41:22Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Are you unaware of the problems Areva has had? The [cost over-runs](http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-24/areva-s-overruns-at-finnish-nuclear-plant-approach-initial-cost.html) are now about as big as the original estimated cost. And the problem wasn’t from pressure from opposition groups. [It was](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html) inspectors finding things like “cracks in the concrete base and steel reinforcements in the wrong places”. > > That sort of “interference” is not the sort you’d want to guarantee them they could avoid. The nuke industry would never do any cost cutting that would be harmful. It is the evil citizens and regulators that don’t give them the trust they have earned. Just have faith in nuclear plant construction companies and operators and all will be well. Are you suggesting Bechtel, and GE and other construction companies would cut corners? Shame on you. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1306 "2011-04-03T16:49:43Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Actually, I’d say that if you simply guarantee them that if their plan is approved they will, with 100% certainty, be able to build the things without interference, without lawsuits, etc etc, then they could be built today without any subsidies larger than for any project of this size. That is the most frightening thing I have ever heard. Subsidies for projects of this size? Huh? A 1000MW nuclear plant isn’t the Great Wall of China or the pyramids of Egypt, for Chrissysakes. Well, apparently it is, but it sure as heck shouldn’t be, when wind and solar are regularly adding 1000MWs here, and another 1000MW there, quietly, without all this ridiculous fuss we’re getting from the nuke industry. The nuke industry is an anachronism. The leaders of the nuke industry actually think they have the government and the citizenry by the balls. You need our precious invaluable energy, so you’re going to pay for it. Oh boy are you going to pay for it. It simply isn’t true. The nuke industry was already a failure, but then global warming comes along and they think they’ve got us by the balls again, with their lofty pie-in-the-sky stories of cheap, limitless energy. The US government isn’t falling for it anymore. More and more governments around the world aren’t falling for it anymore and they’re finally starting to take a sober look at what they’re being sweet talked into. The nuke industry does not have us by the balls. We don’t have to play the game by the rules they set. We can shop around now, like we’re supposed to be able to. That’s the American way. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1307 "2011-04-12T23:37:08Z")
After all the time that has passed it’s disappointing to see the situation develop into a Chernobyl level event. With all the planning Japan put into their early warning system for tsunami’s there was substantially less forethought put into the effect on the power plants. ---
**Author:** ![Kiwirish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@Kiwirish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kiwirish)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1308 "2011-04-15T06:54:09Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > The Japanese are having some trouble keeping a few of theirs from failing catastrophically, which indicates we aren’t able to build disaster-proof plants. Is the danger of meltdown still worth the benefit of clean(ish) energy in your opinion? The places where nuke energy would benefit us the most, namely dense population centers, would be the worst place for a meltdown to occur. Of course I still support Nuclear Powerplants. Look at Fukushima, a HUGE earthquake, couldn’t even take it down, the only thing that cause it to go into meltdown was a massive tsunami that hid it. Problem: Tsunamis hit the coast and [a lot of] our cities are on the coast, where to put a power plant? Solution: Chuck it in a valley somewhere, slightly inland, with a river tributary near it. As we know, a Nuclear power plant needs a lot of water, so thats why the river helps. And then you don’t even need it in a valley if it is 50 miles inland! And now we can go back to supporting the most reliable and cheap energy source that is worthwhile having. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1309 "2011-04-15T12:22:13Z")
Japan’s nuclear plants are neither cheap nor reliable. That’s the real problem. Always has been. Nuclear reactors are never cheap, nor is a nuclear power plant reliable. Especially in Japan, where just when you need power the most, they must shut down. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1310 "2011-04-15T14:09:40Z")
Why do people commend the Fukushima plant for surviving the quake? It doesn’t look it survived the quake very well. Have you seen it lately? Lots and lots of buildings in the same area survived the quake just fine. Check out videos from inside the evacuation zone. It was only the coast that got hit with the tsunami. The towns and buildings inside the evacuation zone look like they survived the quake just fine and everything is, or would be, business as usual, if it weren’t a radiation contamination evacuation zone, that is. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1311 "2011-04-15T14:15:14Z")
At first I though the people who claimed “the reactors survived the largest quake ever! And a huge tsunami!” were being ironic. Sarcastic. Now I think maybe they are serious. That makes them crazy people. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1312 "2011-04-15T16:04:56Z")
No, they are not. The fact is the huge quake did little to it at all. What took it down was the tsunami and even that would not have done so if disaster planning had been just a bit more robust. Interestingly two separate articles in the NYT today that complement each other well - [The T.V.A. released plans to spend “millions” to upgrade their nuclear plants.](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/science/earth/15nuclear.html) > [@](#): > > The authority said that none of its reactors are in areas where an earthquake risk is high. But it said it was looking at “potential vulnerabilities from a chain of events, such as damage from a tornado or earthquake combined with flooding from a dam failure.” > > Nuclear critics have argued that all plants should be required to undertake such analyses of simultaneous events, although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has generally rejected such hazards as too unlikely for such studies to be mandated. Perhaps the NRC may wish to revisit that position? And also in today’s paper, [T.V.A. to take 1,000 MW of coal fired capacity off line by 2018.](http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/04/15/15climatewire-tva-agrees-to-shut-down-18-coal-fired-boiler-72955.html) Not that they had much choice it seems. Still - > [@](#): > > To replace the electric capacity, TVA will look to “low-emission or zero-emission electricity sources, including renewable energy, natural gas, nuclear power and energy efficiency,” the utility said in a statement. > > Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and an unpaid adviser for a group that crafted a long-term strategy for TVA’s future resource use, estimates that the closures will shrink TVA’s carbon footprint by about 10 percent. … > > … The TVA deal put a variety of options on the table to move toward a cleaner energy future. It set up a framework for the construction of up to 4,000 megawatts of natural gas power plants to be part of the mix, according to EPA. > > Another option under the settlement agreement would be to move toward burning woody biomass and other waste instead of coal – though such biomass facilities have been a hot-button issue on Capitol Hill, as some groups question the carbon footprint of burning woody waste and say those plants could drive deforestation. > > “There are certainly many ways that we can use biomass to replace fossil fuels including coal and get real reductions in life-threatening carbon dioxide pollution and still protect our natural resources,” said Franz Matzner, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Climate Center. “What remains to be seen is what is on the table here. … We need to be very cautious with how we proceed with the catch-all ‘biomass,’” he said. The two articles a bit related, you think? ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1313 "2011-04-15T16:36:42Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > No, they are not. The fact is the huge quake did little to it at all. What took it down was the tsunami and even that would not have done so if disaster planning had been just a bit more robust. I can’t tell if the true nuclear defenders are actually ignorant of facts, or if they know but somehow suffer from some sort of delusion. Since March 11 the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant, the Fukushima Daiichi and the Fukushima Daini power plants are all unusable. Onagawa had already suffered two previous accidents so only one reactor was working on 311, but the turbine was damaged by a fire caused by the quake. Get that through your denier heads. Please. That’s three reactors down, and all three are at risk due to the loss of power. Fukushima Daini also lost all four reactors from the quake. Fires and turbine damage, as well as tsunami damage. Those four reactors and fuel rods are all still at risk, either from another quake or loss of power to the plant. The six reactors at Daiichi (which means one) we know more about, but there was a total of eight active reactors knocked out by the quake or tsunami damage. And currently there are 13 reactors at risk, at three plants. None of them are providing any power or relief to the damaged area. And Daiichi is causing all kinds of grief, harm and tension, due to the extreme seriousness of the disaster. Now you can still say “the reactors/power plants withstood the quake”, but you would be a liar. That is all. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1314 "2011-04-15T16:39:51Z")
You either do not read or do not understand what you read, **FX**. That is all. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1315 "2011-04-15T16:40:38Z")
A previous quake/tsunami on the other side of the island damaged another nuclear power plant on 16 July 2007. In 1983 and 1993 quakes also caused damage at nuclear power plants in Japan. It’s not like this is the first time a tsunami has damaged nuclear plants. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1316 "2011-04-15T16:44:01Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > The fact is the huge quake did little to it at all. What took it down was the tsunami and even that would not have done so if disaster planning had been just a bit more robust. Maybe you get your data from idiot media sources, I don’t know. The reason Fukushima 1 is in crisis, and lost all it’s reactors, and all the other disastrous consequences, was the quake. Earthquakes cause tsunamis, and the tsunamis damaged the cooling systems at Fukushima 1. The diesels couldn’t get cooling (so they won’t run), the fuel tanks were washed away, and even the cooling intakes and turbines were destroyed, by the quake. You can dance around it, say the tsunami did it. Like the tsunami isn’t part of the quake. If it makes you feel better, you go right ahead. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1317 "2011-04-15T17:00:49Z")
Yes, that is the part you do not understand of what you read. No one has stated anything that you seem to be responding to. No one has claimed that the plants are up and running and just fine. They are stating that the quake is one hit and the tsunami was a second hit. Disaster planning did not adequately plan for the tsunami but the massive ground shaking by itself didn’t do much harm. A wall a bit higher, or even just bit more protection of and redundancies of back up power, and the tsunami would have not done much harm either. The lesson to learn is that the NRC’s still extant position that mandated planning for “simultaneous events” is not needed because it is “too unlikely”, is untenable. TVA is anticipating the change and to their credit is smart enough to begin such an analysis before it is mandated. What with shutting down that much coal capacity they need to be ahead of the curve on reassuring people that their nuclear plants are safe. It is exactly at the time of one event that another event becomes less unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1318 "2011-04-15T17:06:19Z")
The extent of quake damage is still unknown, for all three power plants. Phrasing it as “the massive ground shaking by itself didn’t do much harm” is weasel words. It’s like saying “sure the house caught on fire, after being smashed by a 12 meter wave, but it wasn’t the ground moving that caused that. It was the gas leak.”. Get a clue. Please. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1319 "2011-04-15T17:19:34Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Cite the new power plants are unsafe. Cite a regulator was bribed in the BP spill. That entire disaster was a decision made in house by one person against the advice of other companies representatives. You have an almost psychotic distrust of anything that makes a dollar. > **[StockExaminer - AI-Powered Stock Chatbot](https://examiner.com)** > > Discover Stock Examiner, the AI-powered chatbot delivering instant, interactive stock charts, real-time financials, breaking news, stock screeners, and more—all in one seamless experience. What the hell do you read? This is not a secret. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2011, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1320 "2011-04-16T00:02:21Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > . . .but you would be a liar. > > That is all. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > You can dance around it, say the tsunami did it. Like the tsunami isn’t part of the quake. If it makes you feel better, you go right ahead. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Get a clue. Please. Between tiptoeing around calling other posters liars and generally snide behavior, you are out of line. Stop making this stuff personal and stick to discussing the facts. [/Moderating] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647.md?page=65) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647.md?page=67)