
Japan's nuclear technology faces extinction - Red_Tarsius
http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Trends/Japan-s-nuclear-technology-faces-extinction?page=1
======
itchyjunk
Although not the best comparison, oil industry has had some bad spills and
other negative incidents. But oil is treated as too crucial of a resource to
put too much restriction while nuclear power doesn't get much love.

This is part of the problem of having to rely on hype of general public with
short attention span. I am all for higher safety standards on nuclear power.
But when population loses interest, even critical technology will lack funding
and research.

I wouldn't mind seeing some molten salt reactors[0] though.

On the other hand, China seems to think nuclear power is unavoidable.

"While the construction of new nuclear power plants has mostly stalled in
industrial nations, China is pushing ahead to expand its nuclear power
generation capacity.

China accounted for six of the eight new reactors where construction began in
2016 and the first three months of 2017."

\---------------------------------

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor)

~~~
petre
> This is part of the problem of having to rely on hype of general public with
> short attention span

The nuke industry could hire some of the big tobacco lobbists to educate (as
oppssed to misleading) the public. Compared to oil and coal, nuclear power is
orders of magnitude cleaner. Closing nuclear power stations means burning coal
most of the time, because the coal power stations are already there. The only
renewable resources capable of providing base load that can replace _some_ of
the nuclear power are geothermal, but to use that you need a suitable site and
solar thermal with molten salt storage. Aging coal power stations could be
probably converted to biomass as well. But none of these are going to fully
replace nuclear power.

~~~
mohawk
Solar, wind & batteries will power the future. It is a question of when not
if. All others will fade into oblivion. So long, and thanks for all the
Joules.

~~~
Houshalter
This comment adds nothing and presents no argument. And I find this sentiment
really hard to understand. Why bet everything on solar? Nuclear technology
already exists now. In fact it's existed for quite awhile. We could have
gotten rid of coal decades ago, if not for irrational fear. It may already be
too late to stop climate change. Why wait another decade or two (or three...)
until the kinks in solar are worked out (if they ever are...)?

It's also a bit ridiculous to point out the improvement in solar technology,
and ignore everything else. Sure solar technology is improving over time. So
is nuclear. And it could probably be improving a lot faster if it got the same
level of interest. The major accidents everyone thinks of were all by decades
old reactors. We know of much safer ways to do things, and we've learned a lot
from those events.

Even coal will improve over time. All that discussion of the coming robot
revolution surely applies to coal mining.

~~~
mohawk
Ok, let's find some common ground: we agree current nuclear reactors "could be
a lot better". With very finite uranium, coal, and oil deposits on earth these
forms of energy generation are only a short-term solution. As an aside, it
would also be great to save those energy supplies for a dark and rainy day.

My prediction is based on Econ 101: the cheapest solution will win.

Nuclear reactors (and coal plants) are long-term investment projects with
payback over decades. If you're close to the equator, it doesn't even make
sense today. And the increasing cost differential between solar and
nuclear/coal will mean that zone is expanding towards the poles.

I'm sorry if you're financially or intellectually invested in nuclear, but
that's what i think will happen.

~~~
int_19h
Even if you look U-235 alone, we have at least a couple centuries of it using
conventional reactor tech, based on the known (explored) deposits, and very
conservative estimates of how many more we will discover once existing stock
starts to dwindle and prices start going up. Less conservative estimates give
it closer to 5-6 centuries.

Now, if we use the tech to its fullest extent - meaning U-238 breeder
reactors, rather than conventional U-235 ones - then fuel supply is infinite
for all practical purposes. It also by and large solves the nuclear waste
problem.

The main problem with nuclear isn't price per watt, it's the upfront cost. It
requires a massive initial investment before you start getting anything useful
out of it, and it requires an even more massive investment to start deriving
benefits from scaling up. Solar, on the other hand, can start with a very
small investment, and gradually ramp up, with a smooth curve of decreasing
cost as scale increases. That makes it more attractive to private sector.

Nuclear is something that pretty much requires very long term planning and
subsidies of the kind that only governments are really capable of, and in the
era of democratic governments and nuclear scare among the general public, it's
just not happening.

Well, except for countries that don't have to care about public opinion.
China, for example, is building a lot of new nuclear plants. They aren't
ignoring solar, either, and they're making massive investments there as well -
but they're not putting all their eggs in one basket.

~~~
mohawk
I'm happy to hear uranium will last for a long time, gives us a good
alternative if the sun ever stopped shining (e.g. massive volcano or
asteroid). But it doesn't really change the economics.

China's newly installed solar capacity in 2016 was 34 GW and growing fast,
they currently have 20 nuclear reactors under construction with a capacity of
20GW. So solar is quickly outpacing nuclear even in China, and the trend is in
solar's favor.

The only saving grace that nuclear has at the moment is the lack of massive
battery capacity. Electric cars are quickly changing that, and then it will be
game over for nuclear.

I think that potential investors of nuclear reactors see this trend now as
well, which is why interest in building new nuclear reactors in market-based
economies is quickly fading (of course it depends on latitude at which point
in time solar/wind dominance is reached). Quite substantial cost overruns are
also typical for nuclear power plants, but rare for solar/wind.

------
SagelyGuru
Uranium/Plutonium reactors are a dead technology. Toshiba lost vast sums of
money when Westinghouse Electric went bankrupt recently, mostly for not being
able to compete with more economical sources of energy.

That is not to rule out better (safer, simpler) forms of nuclear power, such
as Thorium reactors, which is what India is promoting.

Imho, anyone starting a major new nuclear power project today, with the
existing Uranium technology, has not done their sums right.

~~~
petre
Natural Uranium is also okay if used in a reactor with a good track record
like the CANDU. The problem is enriched uranium because:

\- you are basically burning a metal as scarce as platinum (U235)

\- nuclear proliferation risks

India doesn't have much Uranium, has mostly lost access to it because they
developed nukes and has abundant Thorium resources. Their Thorium reactor
design is based on the Candu PHWR which can run on natural uranium.

I wish the Indians the best of luck with their Thorium design, because then
they could re-license it to other countries like Japan who's nuclear sectors
went bust or are about to.

~~~
hansthehorse
Commercial reactors are enriched to about 3% plus or minus a bit. Military
(naval) reactors are very highly enriched to minimize the size needed. The
cost and availability of the uranium has never been the problem. The Carter
administration stopped the recovery of the unused uranium in spent fuel thus
making the waste problem much worse for the industry. We have decades worth of
perfectly good uranium sitting in spent fuel pools all over the country but
are unable, by law, to recover it.

------
philipkglass
New Japanese reactor projects face formidable headwinds:

\- Increasing efficiency and shrinking population (long term shrinking
electricity demand)

\- Intense public resistance in the wake of Fukushima

\- Should public resistance wane, there are dozens of functional but presently
idled reactors that could restart faster than you can build and pay off a new
reactor

------
Grue3
It would be quite ironic if irreversible climate change will come about
because of ignorance of "green" anti-nuclear activists.

