
Is Nuclear Power Vital to Hitting CO2 Emissions Targets? - jseliger
http://www.wsj.com/articles/is-nuclear-power-vital-to-hitting-co2-emissions-targets-1479092761
======
acidburnNSA
Nuclear Engineer here. I like to point out a few things that this article kind
of gleans over about nuclear energy. In particular it bothers me that the
Sierra Club made that Bugs Bunny quip. The fact is, nuclear fuel has ~2
million times more energy in it per mass than fossil fuel, and while splitting
atoms intrinsically requires no carbon emissions, combusting fossil fuels do
Carbon+Oxygen = CO2 + energy. When your fuel is 2 million times denser, you
need 2 million times less mining, less transportation, etc. And if you run
your enrichment plants off of nuclear reactors (like France does), then that
process is low-carbon too. Nuclear is extremely clean and very low carbon.

Anyway, the nuclear scorecard is:

* Nuclear is currently producing 60% of the USA's carbon-free electricity (the article nailed that one)

* Nuclear worldwide has saved 1.8 million lives net by displacing air pollution

* Nuclear worldwide has prevented the emission of 65 billion tonnes CO2-eq

* If you got all your energy for 80 years from nuclear you'd make 1.3 soda cans of waste

* Advanced nuclear makes additional advances in already-fantastic safety and can improve cost

* Nuclear scales well (demonstrated in France)

* Nuclear is great for regions that get winter storms, lots of darkness, hurricanes, hail, very little wind, etc. while wind and solar are good in places that do not have those. Also recall that wind and solar are collecting a very non-dense (but free) energy so they need lots of material and land footprint.

~~~
cm2187
I agree with all of these points and am rather a pro-nuclear myself. But the
Chernobyl / Fukushima risk cannot be dismissed. What would be great is a form
of nuclear energy that doesn't run this meltdown risk. I hear contradictory
opinion on Thorium. Does Thorium eliminate this risk?

~~~
snuxoll
Molten-salt reactors like LFTR's are extremely safe against catastrophic
meltdown and are probably the best path forward, but we still need to actually
put theory into practice with them. Gen IV traditional reactor designs are
much improved over what was used in Fukushima as well, but with that said
there has probably been fewer casualties from nuclear energy disasters than
people that have contracted illnesses or died from our use of coal in
particular.

~~~
cm2187
Casualty count is one thing, but transforming entire regions into no man's
land is not a small price to pay.

Can Molten-salt reactors be used with uranium too or do we need to develop a
Thorium based industry from scratch?

~~~
snuxoll
Thorium is just one choice for a molten-salt reactor, U-235 is a feasible fuel
source as well.

Also, as far as the "no-mans land" comment, there's only been two incidents in
our entire history of using Nuclear energy that did this: Chernobyl and Three-
Mile Island. Both of which are horrible losses, but Fukushima is not anywhere
near as disastrous. The region will be essentially uninhabitable for 30 years,
but after that the half-life of the longest-lived element from the disaster
will have decayed naturally. Not great, but considering the much longer impact
global warming will have a 20Km radius of land being unusuable for 1/3 of a
century doesn't seem so bad in comparison - of course, with modern reactor
designs (Fukushima was built in '67!) this whole thing could have been avoided
entirely even though it was in a Tsunami zone (although a MSR could have had
negative consequences, there would have been no issue just pumping seawater in
immediately to cool the reactor and stop the reaction - it would have
contaminated the water and possible corroded the containment, all of your
critical reactor would be dead stopped and the rest of the radioactive
material sealed in a giant chunk of salt instead of blown/washed away ending
up in the soil).

~~~
sandGorgon
Are there any live MSR ? I was under the impression that this was a research
phase reactor...and only China was ahead of anyone else (only India and China
have substantial thorium reserves)

~~~
snuxoll
Not that I know of, hence why my first comment said "we need to put theory
into practice". The concept and design is sound, but paranoia has been putting
a huge damper on modern reactor R&D.

~~~
sandGorgon
I think I read that practical MSR are about 20 years away. China has invested
about a billion dollars [1] for research in this area and is headed by none
other than Jiang Mianheng, the son of China's former president Jiang Zemin [2]

I dont these reactors are practical immediately. Which changes the whole
argument IMHO. [1] [https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542526/china-details-
next...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542526/china-details-next-gen-
nuclear-reactor-program/)

[2] [http://www.zdnet.com/article/son-of-chinas-ex-president-
thor...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/son-of-chinas-ex-president-thorium-will-
help-shape-countrys-energy-future/)

------
tombert
I don't fully know why people are so anti-nuclear in general.

I'll be the first to admit that wind and solar are what society should aim
for, but I don't full that, with our current implementations of them, that
they're quite ready for a 7-billion-people level of energy needs.

I feel like nuclear could be a good way to get us using (relatively) clean
energy _and_ get people using electric vehicles in the relatively short-term.

~~~
Roritharr
I remember writing a similar HN comment shortly before Fukushima, feeling very
smart at the time.

Well Fukushima happened and left me wondering if we as humans are able to
maintain something that can generate so much potentially irreversible damage,
with our tendencies to cut-corners, wing-it and just being less than perfect.

I hang my hat in shame over that comment everytime I read of more irradiated
water leaking into the Pacific.

~~~
adrianN
You have to weigh the alternatives. Continuing to use coal for base load is
much worse for almost everyone compared to nuclear.

~~~
Roritharr
Almost everyone living right now. And yes you are right, coal is horrible. But
atleast i can imagine some piece of technology sucking co2 and other toxic
gasses out of the atmosphere. Less so with irradiated Elements. How to get
radioactive saltwater out of the Pacific? Can't imagine how one would go about
cleaning that mess up.

Think of the near SciFi Solutions Tepco tries to Contain the irradiated
groundwater. If you have to spend the Energy equivalent of another nuclear
powerplant trying to create artificial Frozen earth barriers just to
POTENTIALLY contain the mess you've made... Things get surreal.

~~~
adrianN
Burning coal releases plenty of radioactive ash right into the atmosphere.

------
spenrose
Maintaining existing nuclear power is very important and politically
difficult:

[http://www.utilitydive.com/news/atoms-for-green-energy-
what-...](http://www.utilitydive.com/news/atoms-for-green-energy-what-role-
should-nuclear-power-play-in-decarbonizat/422985/)

New nuclear would be great in the long term. It's not the heart of what we
need, but a useful part of the portfolio. The heart of what we need is
integrated transmission supporting rapid rollout of all clean sources:

[https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/does-denmark-
ho...](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/does-denmark-hold-the-key-
to-integrating-large-amounts-of-intermittent-rene)

In the US, the new administration is vociferously opposed to any progress. Do
NOT let them use nuclear as a wedge issue. They oppose targets in principle:

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-
top-c...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-
skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/)

Nuclear AND wind AND solar and especially long term planning are all good.
Keep your eyes on the prize.

------
lmm
> Finally, there’s one big falsehood at the core of arguments for nuclear:
> that it’s “clean.” The full life cycle of nuclear power—from mining,
> milling, the separation of the uranium from the ore, to ultimate plant
> decommissioning—collectively generates vast amounts of carbon dioxide.

This is of course even more true for wind and especially solar.

~~~
AcerbicZero
I also did a bit of a double take upon reading that. It seemed like a
questionable position to try and take up in an otherwise reasonable-ish
debate.

------
Retric
Nuclear power is extremely expensive and does not allow for peaking power. In
the US company's are shutting them down early because operation costs are to
high, let alone construction. So, on the surface it seems relatively useless
for meeting our long term energy needs.

The only 'advantage' seems to be making money for companies that build or
operate nuclear power plants. Thus, there are going to be plenty of experts
backing them.

PS: While the carbon in natural gas produces CO2, the hydrogen atoms in it
combine with Oxygen to form water making it a lower carbon source than Coal.
If the goal is a rather arbitrary 32% lower emissions then natural gas can
help reach that goal.

~~~
robohamburger
I didn't know they were bad at peaking but that makes sense.

The way I understood nuclear plants is they are enormous capital expenses and
thus a utility is going to shy away from them because of that. I wonder how
much they compare to a new coal fire plant though.

~~~
AstralStorm
Not badly even considering the political issues and expense up front.
Maintenance is not that expensive.

Utilities mostly shy away because of politics, not cost.

------
jbandela1
One way to look at it is from a risk balance perspective. Let's say that with
increased nuclear use we would have a Chernobyl every 10 years. So between now
and 2200 we would have 20 such disasters. Reading about the Chernobyl disaster
and multiplying by 20 still results in orders of magnitude less damage both to
humans and the environment than the projections of what will happen if we
continue on our present course.

In addition, taking a realistic view, we will not be able to control climate
change at this point just from a reduction in emissions. We will likely need
to remove atmospheric carbon which will likely be very energy intensive.
Having the extra power that nuclear brings to the table would be useful in
this scenario.

~~~
snuxoll
While I agree with you, saying "If Chernobyl happens every 10 years..."
probably isn't going to be a good way to sell nuclear energy :)

~~~
AstralStorm
But it should be. We get Chernobyl every year from coal plants.

------
jerven
Sometimes it is worth looking at what if we go all in on a technology, what
happens and how will that play out.

So lets assume we are going nuc crazy and are ordering a 10 GW of plants. Can
any nuclear power plant builder actually build this within 5 years? 10 years?
Areva can't, Westinghouse seems to take 8. Who is going to man them, where is
the training capacity for that many engineers.

Consider that if a grid is full nuclear, capacity factors drop to 50%. Unless,
you have lots of storage i.e. same as wind and solar.

If I order 30gw of solar today, who can build that out in 10 years? lots of
companies can. First Solar, Panasonic, LG and many more If I order 30gw of
wind today, who can build that out in 10 years? lots of companies can. e.g.
Vesta, Enercon, GE and more

Nuclear construction capacity has dropped over the years and will take
significant time to rebuild and re-equip. That takes significant financial
resources. Can anyone afford that at this time considering the competition of
solar and wind?

Basically, isn't wind+solar+storage a lot cheaper and easier to finance than
nuclear? So why go for the big central plants with lots of project risks.

~~~
tristor
This is the long-tail effect of society being irrationally anti-nuclear for so
long, despite all the favorable evidence. I think being able to be 100%
wind/solar is a pipe dream with the continued growth in power usage especially
by data-centers. It makes sense to start making decisions now that will
continue the positive impact, even if those plants aren't able to come online
for 20 years. The additional capacity will still be useful.

------
rdtsc
> Meanwhile, the price of solar took just five years to drop almost 70%, and
> it continues to fall at record rates.

Wow that is a surprising number. That looks encouraging. What is the
expectation there? Is there a currently known limit that we expect to hit.
(say the scarcity of some rare metal). Or it is easily possible to see another
70% drop next 5 years.

To my uninformed mind, advanced nuclear seems like a good way forward. Is
there a way to make reactors smaller, "burn" the waste, Thorium seems popular
and there were many articles on it.

I grew up not far from Chernobyl when it happened. So it would seem I should
be vehemently opposed, but I believe with each accident we'd learn from the
past what not to do.

~~~
philipkglass
There is no near/medium term limit to PV manufacturing volume from materials
scarcity. The rarest material used in a typical crystalline silicon solar
panel is silver, part of the conductive pastes used to make electrical
contacts on cells. Limits on silver availability could limit annual production
rates with present mainstream designs. But manufacturers have found many ways
to economize on silver use so that total PV silver consumption rose only
slightly from 2011-2015 even as annual production volume rose 80%.

SunPower uses plated copper for electrical contacts instead of silver pastes.
Their modules are also the most efficient on the market. But the high
efficiency and avoidance of silver come at the price of higher process
complexity during cell manufacturing which leads to higher costs per watt of
capacity. SunPower is at least an _existence proof_ that you can produce
modules at large scale, at high efficiency, from abundant elements. I expect
other manufacturers to substitute away from silver too if increasing demand
pushes silver prices up too high.

Sometimes you'll see people claim that solar can't attain really large volumes
because of dependencies on "rare elements." Those claims are probably
referring to the tellurium in cadmium-telluride PV modules and/or the indium
and gallium in copper-indium-gallium-diselenide modules. But you can safely
ignore those worries because CdTe and CIGS together account for a very small
share of the market; crystalline silicon dominates PV at over 90% share.

~~~
rdtsc
Thank you for explaining. The future sounds exciting.

I especially like the "Solar Roof" from Tesla that is probably what was needed
to make it mainstream. When building a house customer has a checkbox to a
regular roof or solar roof, but otherwise it looks about the same. One day the
solar roof might be the default choice in many areas of the country probably.

------
niftich
The case of Slovakia and Hungary is interesting: they are two of the top 4
countries where the share of nuclear generation is highest (and above 50%)
[1]. Slovakia is largely devoid of fossil fuels, while Hungary produces
lignite, oil, and natural gas, but both are reliant on gas imports (mostly
from Russia).

As such, they generally can't afford to not consider nuclear, despite being
small countries where an accident would damage a sizeable chunk of the
countryside. Despite their Russian-made reactors, and usually Russian-sourced
fuel, the domestic production of more than half the countries' energy needs is
simply a national security issue with the useful side-effect of reducing
carbon emissions than if imported natural gas was used for a much higher share
of production.

[1]
[https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/NuclearShareofElec...](https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/NuclearShareofElectricityGeneration.aspx)

------
piotrjurkiewicz
It is totally mind-boggling for me that the same people who are the strongest
advocates of CO2 emission cuts are usually, the same time, the strongest
opponents of nuclear power. Nuclear power, which is the only one economically
viable way to achieve serious CO2 emission cuts they advocate.

~~~
mason240
And hyrdo power. I've seen zero discussion on building new dams. The PNW is
bragging now about their clean energy, but they spent decades trying to get
all those dams removed.

~~~
hangsi
I imagine there are a couple of points that play into this:

1) The good dam spots are occupied, to put it lightly.

2) Hydroelectric dams aren't exactly built to be replaced

3) The technical side of hydroelectric power generation hasn't changed much in
recent years; the old dams hold up pretty well for efficiency in taking energy
from the water flow.

Hydroelectric dams were great before global warming became an issue.

The effect of all the above points is that a modern dam would be situated in a
place either too small or too risky or too troublesome to put one before. With
the effects that dams have on the surrounding environment, it's unfeasible to
imagine a scenario without government on board.

Given that they must be involved anyway, the state's scarce resources might be
better placed in other energy investments than the remaining high growing
fruit left on the hydroelectric branch.

------
EGreg
Look, no matter what we do, eventually ALL the oil will be extracted fro the
ground. Alternative energy just isn't going to replace the oil fast enough.
Carbon credits or not, it doesn't matter.

And under President Trump, the US will be developing all the fossil fuels it
has. Great for economic independence and paying back sovereign debt. Bad for
the environment.

The best thing to do at this point is to invest in ways to capture the carbon
once it is released into the atmosphere.

Then of course there is this: [http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-
math/2012/04/economist-meets-...](http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-
math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/)

~~~
shuntress
Hopefully by the time all the natural oil is gone we will be able to
efficiently produce synthetic oil that is compatible with out current
infrastructure. Also we will, hopefully, have worked out the best way to
capture and contain/re-use the CO2 emissions.

Though obviously we would need nuclear/wind/solar power for that backbone that
facilitates oil synthesis.

------
leereeves
Nuclear would have been a great option 30 years ago when the public debate
about CO2 began.

------
Twisell
My two favorites vulgarization approach about nuclear radiation: \- The XKCD
radiation dose chart [http://xkcd.com/radiation/](http://xkcd.com/radiation/)
\- The pretty bad-ass documentary "Uranium: Twisting the Dragon's Tail" where
there presenter start by taking an radon bath in a Swiss SPA then travel
around to the most radioactive places on earth (and flip out when under
Pripiat hospital where he almost took too much risk)...

------
08-15
This article asks the wrong question. And answers an unrelated one.

First off, the question subtly implies that nuclear power should be the last
resort. That's already setting the stage for a slanted discussion. The correct
question is to ask whether we _want_ nuclear power in preference to coal, oil,
natural gas, and a little bit of solar and wind. As far as I can tell, the
answer should be an emphatic YES---but the point isn't the answer, it's the
loaded question.

Second, the WSJ asks what's necessary to hit emissions targets. That's dumb.
We ought to ask what's necessary to stop global warming. I don't know what are
the current targets, probably something like cutting emissions in half by
2050. I think we can do that by switching more industrial processes from coal
or oil to natural gas. But if the dire predictions of the IPCC are true, we're
still going to die, only a little bit slower. To stop global warming, we need
to get CO2 emissions to practically zero, and natural gas doesn't get us
there. Neither do unreliables (sun, wind) combined with natural gas backup,
nor the vain hope for a magic storage solution nobody knows yet.

And finally, the stupid environmentalist hack proceeds to answer a different
question. He tells us that nuclear power is expensive (still cheaper than wind
and sun, though), but if indeed it was "Vital to Hitting CO2 Emissions
Targets", we wouldn't care. We'd do it anyway, wouldn't we? But naturally, the
ecotard doesn't even listen to the question and just rattles off his canned
talking points...

------
wiz21c
Saying it's vital is not going to help. the question is : how much time and
money do we have to be carbon free. Is nuclear power helping to reach that
target or not ?

Saying it's vital is equivalent to saying "do we really really really want it
?" And of course, a lot of uniformed opinions will come up...

let me remind you that 1/ nuclear is bad when it breaks 2/ solar/wind is hyper
expensive to build in quantities large enough to cover our needs

So which evil will we choose ?

~~~
adrianN
How much time do we have left? About twenty years.

[http://trillionthtonne.org/](http://trillionthtonne.org/)

------
darawk
If Trump could somehow channel his disdain for environmental groups away from
coal and towards nuclear, he could actually end up doing a really great thing.
The fact that environmentalists have resisted nuclear power for so long is one
of the stupidest most self-defeating things in modern history.

If Trump took all his rhetoric and bullheadedness and focused it on making
nuclear great again, that would make me supremely happy.

------
iaskwhy
One thing I almost never see discussed is how expensive it gets when you have
to keep building nuclear power plants due to decommissioning. Most nuclear
power plants in use nowadays seem to have a 30 years life expectancy, new ones
get up to 60. It just seems hugely expensive.

------
Fej
Keep fighting for LFTR. We need to beat the CO2 targets, not miss them.
Unfortunately, even hitting the targets seems like a pipe dream at this point.

------
234dd57d2c8db
No one seems to be even considering fusion. I understand the tech isn't there,
but that's because of the "fusion-never" levels of funding. Can someone please
fund this!?

------
mnw21cam
Wow. Very light grey text, on a white background. Almost unreadable.

~~~
7Z7
OT: the irony.

------
sonium
TLDR: No, it is not.

Once again Betteridge's law of headlines holds.

------
swehner
The short answer is, no, it's not vital. (That was easy)

~~~
swehner
You (down-voter) guys really are the hoot!

