
Ask HN: Is it realistic for nuclear power to replace fossil fuels? - dmos62
A negative assessment of nuclear power&#x27;s capacity to replace fossil fuels[1].<p>[1] http:&#x2F;&#x2F;energyskeptic.com&#x2F;2017&#x2F;nuclear-power&#x2F;
======
philipkglass
That post makes two correct observations about social issues with nuclear
power: it is expensive to build new plants and the latency for building a new
reactor is high, 6-10 years.

It also makes a neither-here-nor-there argument that nuclear power does not
_directly_ replace liquid fuels that are currently critical to transportation,
but this is true of any electricity source.

The rest of the arguments presented are lousy ("too dangerous", "peak
uranium", "low EROEI", and "breeder reactors are too dangerous" which is a
repeat of "too dangerous"). There's no sign of peak uranium and it takes some
real gymnastics to argue that nuclear power has low EROEI (energy returned on
energy invested). The danger of nuclear power pales compared to unmitigated
global warming or the widespread societal collapse that the Energy Skeptic
site seems dedicated to prophesying. But if you've already made up your mind
about conclusions, like the Energy Skeptic apparently has, you'll deploy
whatever arguments you can scrape up to justify it. Even if they are poor
arguments.

~~~
dmos62
Thank you for the assessment. Sorry for the late reply, I've been away.
Motivation to bring up referenced article comes from not being able to refute
statements in it. To be honest, I find the form of writing of the article
distasteful.

Related question. You mentioned that nuclear energy mitigates global warming.
How much heat does a nuclear plant release compared to fossil fuel engines or
plants? Or is the noteworthy advantage of nuclear energy in that it doesn't
produce green house gases?

~~~
philipkglass
Current nuclear plants produce somewhat more heat (primary energy) than a
fossil plant of equal electrical output. The noteworthy advantage is that it
doesn't produce greenhouse gases.

Current radiative forcing induced by anthropogenic CO2 emissions is on the
order of 10^15 watts. Current direct thermal output from human combustion of
fossil fuels is on the order of 10^13 watts, only 1% as much. That's why CO2
reduction is so important for limiting global temperature rise. Amplifying the
warming effects of the sun makes fossil plants warm the globe _much_ more than
a nuclear plant that injects somewhat more waste heat into its local environs.

