# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 1194
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1194 "2011-03-30T03:31:22Z")
> [@Rantings about stupid nuclear reporting, and I want to bitchslap somebody, also other crap](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rantings-about-stupid-nuclear-reporting-and-i-want-to-bitchslap-somebody-also-other-crap/576077/340): > > I cited [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13603443&postcount=905) that nuclear power, when all things are considered (construction, operation and so on), is about as cheap as it gets except for coal. I took care of this in the other thread. Your cite was out of date, so I found you a newer version of your report. I showed that the survey you cited does not say nuclear is cheaper. It compares various energy sources and concludes that no one technology is cheaper than others, until you take a WHOLE BUNCH of political, economic, and geographic factors into consideration and then make your own best choice under your own circumstances. That’s not really news to me. Your study also admits it excludes the largest markets for renewables from the study when estimating out much renewables will cost. Wha??? > [@](#): > > We also cited in the other thread that there are new designs which are inherently safe. Physics itself prevents a meltdown. No need to worry about human error because a human could not make it melt if they tried. Do these new designs include spent nuclear fuel? No? Where are they going to store the spent nuclear fuel? In pools? That’s not safe, no matter how “safe” the designs are. > [@](#): > > It was also noted in the other thread that green energy, while it has its place and can be useful, can come nowhere near meeting the energy needs of the planet. You’ll have to be clearer. There’s more than enough wind off the coast of New England and sun hitting the southwest to power the US, and probably the whole world. The problem isn’t availability of energy or generating it, it’s about which technologies are going to make the most sense right now, and then on to the future. I’d also like some cites about what are future energy demands are actually supposed to be, and what those guesses are based on. I keep hearing over and over about our growing, future energy demands but it seems like something everybody just keeps repeating without much of a source. > [@](#): > > Natural gas has maybe a 30-50 year horizon till the fuel starts to become too expensive for “cheap” power production. Oil has similar problems. I’m not as confident as you stating what NG is going to be doing in 30-50 years. First it’s running out, then it’s in so much abundance nuclear plant designers start jumping out corporate windows. I dunno. Keep in mind nuke is at a disadvantage regarding future energy prices. It has to charge a certain minimum amount to recoup its costs and make a profit, and if for some reason energy prices don’t climb as fast as they think, they are big-time screwed and you’re looking at bailouts, bankruptcies and really expensive shut downs and closures. As for oil, there are lots of unused sites the oil companies could already be exploiting, but aren’t. The oil industry is in a position to spike oil prices or send them plunging and there’s only so much we can do about it. I really don’t believe much of what they say about future availability. I think it’s really important to wean ourselves off oil, and take back more control over our energy costs, and sources. > [@](#): > > That leaves coal and nuclear as the major power sources for the future. Coal for sure, for the foreseeable future. Nuclear doesn’t contribute that much at the moment, and I don’t see any compelling reasons it should contribute more in the future. If you’re talking 100 or 200 years from now sure, maybe small ultra-safe nuke plants will be built right into office buildings and large industrial plants or something. That’s too far in the future to really speculate. > [@](#): > > Care about global warming? Coal plants are already the major contributor to that and our resident expert on power said that scrubbing CO2 from industrial sized coal power plants is not feasible short of some magic, not-yet-invented technology coming along. Coal and cars. They both gotta go, in there present forms at least. I don’t have a good answer for that. Decentralized, distributed power generation using as large a variety of energy sources as we can is about the best we can do. Germany’s feed-in tariff plan is something I seriously think we should emulate. The big power companies hate it and fight it like you’re rarely seen them fight, but that’s not surprising. Tell people if they generate power and feed it back to the grid, they will get a nice, fair guaranteed price the big power companies can’t manipulate for 10 or 15 years. Overnight you’ll see individuals and communities teaming up and making more power than they consume. I think we’ll be really surprised at how efficiency-minded people become when they are the power company, and wasteful energy use is money directly out of their pocket. > [@](#): > > What do you think will happen when India and China add massive power generation capacity using coal (they need lots of power). Think China cares overly much for environmental concerns? If the world gets really crappy weather-wise, China is going to have to suffer too. If they don’t care about environment concerns, I’m terrified at the idea they are eventually going to have 100s of nuke plants. China seems to largely follow the US, so in terms of taking the lead, setting an example etc, it would be great for us to tell Westinghouse to fuck off with their stupid nuclear power and show China how to meet its energy needs with much safer, easier to handle energy sources. > [@](#): > > That really leaves nuclear power as the main source of future energy 50+ years out. I may live another 50 years to see it. Kids today certainly will so it is not the unimaginable future. Given the time needed to build a nuclear plant and test some of the new nuclear technologies starting on them right now would not be a bad idea. Nuclear made its promises 50 years ago. Now it’s 50+ years out. We are that 50+ years out. Nuke hasn’t delivered on any promises other than yes, you can generate electricity with fission. That’s about it. It hasn’t solved any problems at all and instead has become more complicated and expensive than ever. I’m not falling for that again. We’ve got spent fuel rods piling up at nuke plants all over Japan and the US. That was never going to be a problem “in 50 years” yet here we are, up to our necks in fuel rods. I don’t believe nuclear is capable of actually carrying out any of its promises. The whole scam is based on “don’t worry, in 50 years… we’ll all have flying cars!” I’m too old to fall for that crap again. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647)._