# Why haven't we switched to nuclear fission power? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 27, 2017, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-we-switched-to-nuclear-fission-power/783137 "2017-03-27T12:36:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2017, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-we-switched-to-nuclear-fission-power/783137/41 "2017-03-31T07:37:35Z")
See Toshiba/Westinghouse Electric Westinghouse Electric bet the rent money on nuclear - they tried to build exactly TWO reactors in the US - the result? Not only did Westinghouse Electric go bankrupt, it went bankrupt is such a manner as to take its owner - Toshiba - down with it. Neither of those companies was a tiny startup which couldn’t take a hit - they were both massive, well-financed, old-line companies. For two projects to bankrupt them both, something about nuclear power is flat out IMPOSSIBLE AT THIS TIME. It doesn’t really matter why they failed - financial, technical, or just wrong design at the wrong place. Nobody is going to look at that disaster and think, “Yeah - but I can do it and make a profit!” ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2017, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-we-switched-to-nuclear-fission-power/783137/42 "2017-03-31T14:16:24Z")
> [@usedtobe](#): > > See Toshiba/Westinghouse Electric > > Westinghouse Electric bet the rent money on nuclear - they tried to build exactly TWO reactors in the US - the result? > Not only did Westinghouse Electric go bankrupt, it went bankrupt is such a manner as to take its owner - Toshiba - down with it. > > Neither of those companies was a tiny startup which couldn’t take a hit - they were both massive, well-financed, old-line companies. > > For two projects to bankrupt them both, something about nuclear power is flat out IMPOSSIBLE AT THIS TIME. It doesn’t really matter why they failed - financial, technical, or just wrong design at the wrong place. > > Nobody is going to look at that disaster and think, “Yeah - but I can do it and make a profit!” In any kind of real world scenario, this would appear fairly obvious. I guess it’s just not in theoretical amateur internet discussion. As others posts have alluded to, it somewhat depends on the national context. The US is mainly the default country of discussion on this English language forum. There’s plenty of government influence on power generation in the US. But, it’s somewhat indirect and diffuse. If there was a specific national policy to greatly boost the % of power generation from nuclear in US, that could be done at a feasible cost, timeframe and effect on the power system overall (which is not apparent for _large_ boosts in the % of wind or solar power). However it’s putting the cart in front of the horse to debate that statement without assessing how likely that kind of power policy is in the US at all. In the existing situation power companies have to assess an again diffuse and uncertain set of government policies. That includes policies and decisions from their regulatory commissions and state governments not just the federal government. They have to navigate the civil legal system themselves as to NIMBY issues. Then they have to risk at least in large part their shareholders’ capital on the big and often uncertain upfront cost of nuclear plants v uncertain future govt mandates and uncertain costs of alternative forms of power. Principal among those is the degree of economic superiority of gas fired combined cycle plants. Coal is mainly a straw man here. Gas fired plants are a cheaper way to generate electricity in the US, with any realistic assessment of the cost/risk of huge nuclear upfront investment, and they also don’t kill anyone except for much more speculative (even compared to coal death counts) estimates of death due to climate change. Nuclear is just a hedge against _possible future_ punitive measures against the GHG emissions of gas fired plants. Under current policies in the US it makes no economic sense compared to gas. Against that on the positive side there’s a likelihood of continued subsidy of nuclear capital cost/uncertainty v govt loan gtees, that federal taxpayers will shoulder some of the waste disposal costs, and that local utility ratepayers (rather than utility shareholders the managers answer to) might be forced to bear some nuclear cost overruns. But overall even with the last paragraph, nuclear makes little sense in the US right now under the hybrid private capital/govt reg/mandate system of making those decisions. And it makes significantly less sense than it did a few years ago due to a) the fracking revolution, and b) the recent demonstration that a new generation of nuke plants have the same big achilles heel of the previous ones: not safety issues, but cost overruns. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2017, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-we-switched-to-nuclear-fission-power/783137/43 "2017-03-31T14:44:05Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Fission has a lot of marks against it: > > [ul] > [li]Targets for terror attacks[/li][li]Natural disasters (like the Tsunami in Japan) can cause a nuclear leak[/li][li]Nuclear meltdowns due to human operator error[/li][li]Nuclear costs (far) more in initial capital than most other forms of energy[/li][/ul] Nuclear power is helping to bankrupt the Province of Ontario. Of course, wind and solar power are also helping to bankrupt the province. However, the province was well on its way to a fiscal disaster by virtue of its decision to rely on nuclear power. In theory, nuclear power is inexpensive, relatively speaking. In practice, it’s a government operation and is exactly as efficient as you’d expect. Ontario’s nuclear power plants are giant holes into which money has been poured. They are very, very expensive to run even if you do it extremely efficiently, and if you don’t do it really efficiently, woe to you. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2017, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-we-switched-to-nuclear-fission-power/783137/44 "2017-03-31T14:58:16Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Nuclear power is helping to bankrupt the Province of Ontario. > > Of course, wind and solar power are also helping to bankrupt the province. However, the province was well on its way to a fiscal disaster by virtue of its decision to rely on nuclear power. > > In theory, nuclear power is inexpensive, relatively speaking. In practice, it’s a government operation and is exactly as efficient as you’d expect. Ontario’s nuclear power plants are giant holes into which money has been poured. They are very, very expensive to run even if you do it extremely efficiently, and if you don’t do it really efficiently, woe to you. nvm ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2017, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-we-switched-to-nuclear-fission-power/783137/45 "2017-03-31T15:10:39Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The supply of uranium is not really an issue - at current rates of consumption, we have enough for over 200 years. If we used fast-breeder reactors, we have enough for about 60,000 years ([cite](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/)). > > As **naita** mentions, the objections are political and emotional rather than based on cost-benefit analysis. The word “nuclear” is scary, and people prefer technologies that kill a hundred people a year for a hundred years over technologies that kill a thousand people every hundred years. > > Regards, > Shodan Agree 100%. Coal plants are guaranteed to increase mortality. With nuclear, it’s a tiny chance. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2017, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-we-switched-to-nuclear-fission-power/783137/46 "2017-03-31T15:45:29Z")
I follow some science boards, including a few that are focused on the future of nuclear energy, including new technologies and reactor designs. One of the things that has some of them excited is the possibility of relaxed regulations of the nuclear industry. This would make it much easier to build and test new designs that are currently nearly impossible to build under current regulations. This may be a good thing for nuclear, as there are quite a number of designs that have not been tried out in the US that could have some very useful potential that never would have gotten off the ground with the current NRC. Of course, loosening regulations on nuclear could also lead to poor results. I actually do think that those building nuclear plants will probably follow best practices even if they are not required to by regulation, as the cost of a screw up is tremendous compared to most other industries, where contaminating the environment with a fly ash spill or other types of chemical contaminants, even if the company is on the hook for the cleanup, is just a cost of doing business. A fairly small nuclear incident can end up costing billions very quickly. That said, another TMI level incident, or worse, a fukushima or chernobyl, will likely cause regulations to be restricted again to the point where innovation become difficult. Smaller, more modular designs that have better inherent safety features (LFTR for instance, can’t melt down, it’s already melted; it has a useful property where when it heats up, the fluid expands, causing less fuel to be in the reactor, which lowers the reaction rate, cooling it down; it can easily be drained into a drain tank, etc.) are difficult to prototype and build with current regulations, much less build up into the scale needed for commercial electricity production. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2017, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-we-switched-to-nuclear-fission-power/783137/47 "2017-03-31T16:57:49Z")
> [@usedtobe](#): > > See Toshiba/Westinghouse Electric > > Westinghouse Electric bet the rent money on nuclear - they tried to build exactly TWO reactors in the US - the result? > Not only did Westinghouse Electric go bankrupt, it went bankrupt is such a manner as to take its owner - Toshiba - down with it. > > Neither of those companies was a tiny startup which couldn’t take a hit - they were both massive, well-financed, old-line companies. > > For two projects to bankrupt them both, something about nuclear power is flat out IMPOSSIBLE AT THIS TIME. It doesn’t really matter why they failed - financial, technical, or just wrong design at the wrong place. > > Nobody is going to look at that disaster and think, “Yeah - but I can do it and make a profit!” It is impossible due to anti-nuke morons running up the costs due to protests, lawsuits and the like. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-we-switched-to-nuclear-fission-power/783137.md?page=2)