1) Extrememly high construction costs and cost overruns.
2) Requires more cooling water than any other power source.
3) Highly radioactive 'spent fuel' must be stored indefinitely.
4) Uranium ore mining and processing consumes significant energy, of the fossil fuel form typically.
5) Catastrophic failure scenarios (Fukushima, Chernobyl).
6) Major security issues with high costs.
7) Poor compatibility with intermittent and varying energy sources (i.e. solar, wind), as does coal.
Note the 'modular' concept is just as bad, as you still have all the security costs, waste storage costs, cooling issues, etc. just distributed in more locations.
All in all the nuclear experiment looks like a complete failure, and yes you can use solar/wind/storage at scale to generate all the electrical power required for human civilization - and yes, shutting down all the nuclear power plants in earthquake zones makes perfect sense.
As far as the 'you're exaggerating risks' comments, well, then, let's see the repeal of Price Anderson accident indemnity, which would require the owners and operators of nuclear power plants to pay full costs for disasters. Investors would flee en masse if that happened, of course.
I agree but Uranium has 1.000.000x the energy density of oil and 1.000.000.000x that of batteries.
If we are to stand any chance of avoiding the tail end of a net hubbert curve we need nuclear.
Fusion, thorium and 4th gen fission (France has cancelled both the super-phenix project and the modern revival of that initiative) are nowhere near realistic and/or deterministic dates, so we have to go with the 100 years of Uranium we have left.
This is the only descision where I'm against, but for, at the same time. There is no alternative except permanent crisis until civilization returns to the stone age.
Coming down from the massive bubble created by stored sunlight (coal, oil and gas) is not going to be a smooth ride any way we turn it.
Energy density doesn't seem all that relevant as long as you have a decent area collection system. Indeed, high energy density can create more problems than it solves (major problems with confining D-T fusion comes to mind).
I also have no doubts about running human civilization on sunlight and wind as long as you have robust electrical storage / chemical conversion / distribution systems. By conversion I mean using sunlight to reduce H2O to H2, then CO2 to CH4 or longer hydrocarbons. Notably this also works for fertilizer production, i.e. nitrogen + hydrogen -> NH3 etc.
Building millions of solar panels is an ecological disaster waiting to happen.
...not only for the destruction of natural habitats, but the CO2 emitted in manufacturing and replacing all those panels, and the garbage disaster of disposing of them.
This does not include the energy needed to mine and manufacture the raw materials needed to build the solar panels. Most of those rare-earth elements in photovoltaics comes from vast mining operations in China.
Even the limit oft cited of "100 years" only refers to current proven mines. It does not include any estimated reserves and the results of additional prospecting.
There are large swaths of nations that have never even been prospected for Uranium deposits.
> 1) Extrememly high construction costs and cost overruns.
This is partly because nuclear is unfairly maligned and is forced to do things with 10x the safety requirements of (e.g.) coal and partly because we have not tried a nuclear rollout at 'scale' (i.e. multiples of a standardized system being planned for construction).
> 2) Requires more cooling water than any other power source.
Fair enough, but this hardly seems like a show-stopper, especially with improved recycling methods.
> 3) Highly radioactive 'spent fuel' must be stored indefinitely.
This seems like a small price to pay to implement a solution that would save tens of thousands+ lives per year (i.e. storing the highly radioactive after-products in the air, as with burning massive amounts of coal).
From [0]:
>> In fact, the U.S. has produced roughly 83,000 metrics tons of used fuel since the 1950s—and all of it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards.
An oversimplification, perhaps, but still valid, especially since new reactors have been designed to reuse spent fuel (hinted at in [0]) anyway and it wouldn't likely need to be permanent storage.
> 4) Uranium ore mining and processing consumes significant energy, of the fossil fuel form typically.
This is not unique to nuclear energy and it would obviously use less 'fossil fuel form' energy with every new plant brought online.
Also fair, but any major center of infrastructure should have high security. The security issues that are more unique to nuclear can/have be/been addressed in new reactor designs (different fuel types, reactors that can't cause meltdowns/explosive scenarios).
> 7) Poor compatibility with intermittent and varying energy sources (i.e. solar, wind), as does coal.
I'm pretty sure this will be the case for any large, power producing center. Any large-scale solar or wind project will include battery storage anyway, which would act as a transitional buffer between the sources.
> 1) Extrememly high construction costs and cost overruns
This is like pushing someone off a cliff and then accusing them of being clumsy.
We MAKE nuclear plant construction expensive. We shut down storage facilities, we ban transport of fuel, we have environmental groups file lawsuits for even aspect of the environmental review, we have local mom's groups protest and sue for everything under the sun... we force reactors to meet 1970s rules on safety that no longer have meaning - we have local politicians rally and protest and cut funding whenever they can.
WE MAKE NUCLEAR EXPENSIVE.
China builds identical Gen III+ nuclear reactors for less than one-tenth the price - using Western construction companies. ...and they currently have 24 One Gigawatt plants under construction and due to complete this decade.
> 2) Requires more cooling water than any other power source
This isn't a severe problem. I'm not even sure why this is on your list. The water "used" by the reactor isn't consumed in any way. It goes in one side, and comes right back out the other side of the reactor chamber.
> 3) Highly radioactive 'spent fuel' must be stored indefinitely.
One barrel of spent fuel per reactor per year. That's it. You could put all the spent fuel from ALL the US reactors, even if we went to 100% nuclear in the ONE facility in Yucca Mountain. It's safe, geologically stable, and has more than enough space. This is not a science or engineering problem. This is a public ignorance problem.
> 4) Uranium ore mining and processing consumes significant energy, of the fossil fuel form typically.
Per unit of energy produced, it consumes far less than the manufacture of solar panels, wind turbines, hydro dams, or any other power source. This argument is a positive for nuclear.
This is like comparing leeches to penicillin. Fukushima and Chernobyl were designed in the 1950s. They were both the first generation of reactors which had poor safety designs. Today's GenIII+ reactors have passive safety systems that mean you need to actively keep the reactor from turning off. If the plant losses power, or is attacked by terrorists, or the entire population turns into zombies - the reactor turns off. These passive safety systems are now standard on all new reactors. The containment pool is so safe these days, that divers actually dive in the - you can literally swim in them.
> 6) Major security issues with high costs.
Is this a reference to possible theft of fissile material? Uranium fuel isn't kept in the plant, unless it's in the reactor. No one has ever broken into a facility to steal uranium to make a small dirty bomb (you cannot make real hydrogen bomb with uranium from a reactor). It would be easier to conduct a normal terrorist attack than to break into a nuclear plant, escape, and then assemble and deliver a bomb somewhere. This just isn't a very thoughtful idea. It would be easier to just shoot a bunch of people with a machine gun.
> 7) Poor compatibility with intermittent and varying energy sources (i.e. solar, wind), as does coal.
This is a commonly repeated lie. A nuclear plant can output whatever power is needed. There's no "compatibility" issue at all. The genesis of this notion is that once the Uranium is enriched, it's generating heat whether that's used or not - and that's true - but the point is the energy density of Uranium is so high, that this "waste" still makes it orders of magnitude more productive than any other source of energy.
> All in all the nuclear experiment looks like a complete failure
It looks more like the fearmongering has been a complete success. It's bizarre that people still believe the nonsense you posted here.
> ‘Baseload power stations’ are inflexible in operation, in the sense that they are unsuitable for following the variations in demand and supply on timescales of minutes and hours, so they have to be supplemented with flexible peak-load and slightly flexible intermediate-load power stations.
As far as why nuclear plays poorly with solar, for example, consider a PV system that generates, at noon, 100% of demand. You'd want to shut down alternative power sources at this time - that's not efficient at all with nuclear or coal.
As far as safety, what are your thoughts on cancelling Price-Anderson accident indemnity laws, and having owners and operators of nuclear power plants accept full liability, no pass-on to the taxpayer?
You do not need to power down/up the nuclear plants at all. This is a myth. It is cheaper to just throw away any excess power it generates.
Uranium is so energy dense that it doesn't cost anything to do that. This is amazing when you think about it.
If you really want to capture it - create battery systems.
> what are your thoughts on cancelling Price-Anderson accident indemnity laws
One of the biggest challenges of nuclear plant construction is all the frivolous lawsuits, so I would really really want to know the exact details before making a determination on those laws. Often they are sold as "safety", but are really just ways to obstruct the process.
Very well stated! I wish I had read this before posting my reply to the parent comment. I had the same thoughts about 7), but I wasn't certain of the 'ramp-up/down' time for nuclear plants.
Exactly - the plants don't need to ramp up/down. They just throw away the output. ...which is fine because the main cost of the plant isn't the input resource of uranium (which is insane if you think about it).
1) Extrememly high construction costs and cost overruns. 2) Requires more cooling water than any other power source. 3) Highly radioactive 'spent fuel' must be stored indefinitely. 4) Uranium ore mining and processing consumes significant energy, of the fossil fuel form typically. 5) Catastrophic failure scenarios (Fukushima, Chernobyl). 6) Major security issues with high costs. 7) Poor compatibility with intermittent and varying energy sources (i.e. solar, wind), as does coal.
Note the 'modular' concept is just as bad, as you still have all the security costs, waste storage costs, cooling issues, etc. just distributed in more locations.
All in all the nuclear experiment looks like a complete failure, and yes you can use solar/wind/storage at scale to generate all the electrical power required for human civilization - and yes, shutting down all the nuclear power plants in earthquake zones makes perfect sense.
As far as the 'you're exaggerating risks' comments, well, then, let's see the repeal of Price Anderson accident indemnity, which would require the owners and operators of nuclear power plants to pay full costs for disasters. Investors would flee en masse if that happened, of course.