
To Slow Global Warming, We Need Nuclear Power (Op-Ed) - jseliger
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/opinion/to-slow-global-warming-we-need-nuclear-power.html
======
niels_olson
My undergrad is in Physics and I took engineering classes in Rickover Hall. I
was stationed on a nuclear ship. Even after deploying for the Fukushima
disaster, I am a fan of nuclear power. But I have a hard time justifying new
investment in an era where solar is competitively priced. The downside of
solar is approximately 0 compared to the downside of a reactor accident.

I'll even allow for the high, high likelihood that more people will die
installing roof-top solar than will ever die in the lifetime of all nuclear
reactors combined. The political capital lost in a reactor accident isn't
worth it. The lost of faith in technology, the loss of trust in science. The
mass hysteria just isn't worth it.

~~~
afterburner
Don't even bother talking about political capital. Nuclear is a worse option
because it is overpriced, period. It's not just the downsides that are
subsidized by the government, the actual running cost is hidden behind reams
of bureaucracy, hidden program budgets, optimistic amortizations, and
underestimated decommissioning costs. And even then the reactors still manage
to go massively over budget with the initial construction.

People like to feel superior to others by citing fear as the reason nuclear is
being avoided, but the real reason anyone should oppose it is straight up
costs, without even any disasters factored in. Any other choice with the
current and next-3-decades technology is just pissing money away, when it
could be spent continuing renewables' rapid decline in cost.

~~~
mseebach
First, there can be little doubt that a substantial fraction of the high cost
of nuclear is down to almost the entire west being scared stiff of the stuff
for thirty years. If we gave actual scientists and engineers a real mandate to
come up with a pragmatic, realistic (ie accepting a small amount of risk as
acceptable, perhaps something on the scale of a single Fukushima every 30
years, just like we accept a small amount of risk everywhere else - driving,
living in hurricane country, even flying isn't perfectly safe) regulatory
regime, costs would surely come back down.

Second, funny how costs suddenly matter when it's about nuclear. Barely a
month goes by without some new unimaginable mind numbing (wholly impractical)
'solution' to climate change that we're being implored to consider, because
it's about saving the planet for our children. Nuclear is a perfectly
practical, _much_ cheaper (if still very expensive), 80% solution to climate
change that we can actually start implementing today, but somehow it's not on
the table. Somehow it doesn't seem all that plausible that cost is really the
issue.

In short, climate change is the biggest issue facing the world (except nuclear
and fracking). I'm very excited that the NYT is being practical here.

~~~
patall
It is interesting how you say that nuclear might be cheaper and at the same
time accept an incident like fukushima every 30 years like you pay 1000
peanuts and that it alright again. Maybe you will allow a nuclear plant in
your backyard but most people already have a problem with wind power. This has
nothing to do with fear about the technology itself but about the decrease in
property value in vicinity of the plant. So, may be your intention is good but
not realistic as the Hinkley Point C plant for 30+ billion pound in england
shows.

So if I have two solutions that are equally expensive but one leaves me with
radioactive waste, why would you chose that one? And while I agree that we
need some back up plan to stabilize the net load, that also wont be nuclear
power as those plants are not fast in start up managment either.

~~~
witty_username
Any such decrease in property value is precisely because of the irrational
fear of nuclear power.

> So, may be your intention is good but not realistic as the Hinkley Point C
> plant for 30+ billion pound in england shows.

Government should not fund or provide any guarantees to such projects; we
should tax carbon and let people decide what to do (in which case, we wouldn't
even need to argue which is cheaper and we can just let power companies figure
it out).

> So if I have two solutions that are equally expensive but one leaves me with
> radioactive waste, why would you chose that one?

Isn't solar more expensive when you factor in the cost of batteries (which
would be required if solar scales up; i.e. a diseconomy of scale)? Please
correct me if I'm wrong.

~~~
Retric
It's completely rational to reduce property values when there is a risk you
will be forced to move and lose all your possessions. If the risk is say 0.3%
over the next hundred years paying every homeowner ~20,000$ within 40 miles
when the plant is built to offset that risk is completely rational, but would
make nuclear Even less viable.

~~~
mason240
>there is a risk you will be forced to move and lose all your possessions.

Can you give me a street address for somewhere that this isn't a possibility?

My house is heated by natural gas - it could literally explode while I'm at
work today.

~~~
Retric
Risk X exists has nothing to do with risk Y. Nuclear powerplants increase
risks so the local population should be compensated.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Hard to assess that risk. No modern plant has had catastrophic failure like
that. Essentially there's no data to extrapolate from.

~~~
natch
TEPCO had a modern plan to fix the issue before it happened. They decided not
to act. Nuclear power takes the decision out of your hands, and puts it in the
hands of organizations like that. I prefer something like solar which keeps
power in my own control, local, decentralized, not decided by some huge
behemoth that is driven by money and actuarial charts.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Yet the topic is, will future nuclear plants be needed to slow global warming?
Future plants (indeed all current plants) will include safety plans and
devices. Such plants have not had catastrophic events.

------
fgpwd
The initial estimates for the cost to repair the damage caused by Fukushima
were as far as I remember, around 50 billion dollars. According to a recent
news article [1], the costs are now estimated at 250 billion dollars. They
just keep on increasing. And then there is also the human/environmental damage
to consider.

I have been excited about nuclear since my school days, but at this point the
downside if something goes wrong is imo just not financially worth it. I would
much rather pay 2x for a safer solar plant with similar output than invest
something this high-risk. It's like selling uncovered options, with no way to
set a stop-loss or to recover if anything goes wrong.

I think it is likely that at some point the global community will also realize
that the cost considering the risks is just not worth it and begin to move
away from nuclear fission. Especially if any another incident like Fukushima
happens in the next decade or so; that could have big implications on nuclear
policy.

[1]:[http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-17/fukushima-
nuclear-c...](http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-17/fukushima-nuclear-
clean-up,-compensation-costs-nearly-double/8127268?pfmredir=sm)

~~~
underrun
The advantages of advancing technology and building smaller safer reactors
would go a long way to avoiding such disasters. Because things can go wrong is
not a reason to stop research into making them better and safer. The real way
to keep ahead of this is not to extend the life span of existing reactors but
to build aggressively in order to take older ones offline as newer smaller
safer reactors are ready.

And keep doing that.

~~~
MichaelApproved
Iterating aggressively is great when the consequences aren't as dire as
nuclear mistakes.

The last thing I'd want is more plants built aggressively when stupid mistakes
happen at the non-aggressive rate, such as installing the reactor backwards.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station#Safety_issues)

~~~
shawn-furyan
+1

Design is not actualization.

So the salient question becomes:

How robust are modern reactor designs to
manufacturing/construction/installation/etc. errors?

------
blondie9x
You need a combination of solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and yes
nuclear. What some forget is base load power. One of the main reasons natural
gas is used as an alternative for coal despite still producing carbon
emissions is because it also can be used as a base load electric grid fuel.
Nuclear can provide clean base load power.

I understand many are concerned, especially after the terrible tragedy at
Fukushima; however there are ways we can prevent that tragedy from ever
reoccurring. By transitioning to nuclear technologies utilizing fuel cycles
that consume nuclear waste or use fuels capable of reducing risk of meltdown
accidents, we can get closer to both clean energy and safety. We don't
primarily need nuclear but it should be considered in the mix at least for
baseload considerations.

------
spodek
When will the mainstream consider it acceptable to talk about reducing
consumption (without confusing it with lowering the standard of living) and
reducing the population (without confusing it with eugenics)?

We waste incredible amounts and a lower population means more goods for
everyone.

I'm not saying they solve everything. I'm just asking when we can talk about
these issues that are a lot easier to implement than splitting atoms.

~~~
DennisP
We've been splitting atoms for 70 years. France has run its electric grid on
80% nuclear power. What's our track record on reducing consumption and
population?

Not saying we shouldn't do them all, but I don't think nuclear is the most
difficult of these three.

~~~
smaddox
France was able to run at 80% fission because they were selling excess
production at low domestic demand times to adjacent territories. If you want
to use nuclear for more than base load, you run into similar
storage/transmission issues to solar/wind.

Either way, we need a larger and more capable grid, so that production and
demand can be balanced over larger areas.

~~~
DennisP
Modern nuclear plants are able to load follow [1]. The main reason we use them
for base load is that nuclear's cost is mainly fixed, so it makes economic
sense to run them at full capacity and follow demand with fossil, which has
lower fixed costs and higher variable costs.

Molten salt reactors would be quite good at load following, because the
reaction rate slows down so much as the fuel temperature increases. If you
draw less power, you apply less cooling, so the fuel heats and the power
output goes down. For example, the IMSR, likely the first MSR to be
commercialized, is naturally a load-following reactor [2].

This doesn't mean it wouldn't make economic sense to, say, run nuclear for
baseload, add solar for extra daytime demand, and use storage to smooth out
the remaining demand mismatch. But that's a matter of economic optimization,
not a technical limitation of nuclear.

[1] [http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/02/14/responding-to-system-
de...](http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/02/14/responding-to-system-
demand/#sthash.VRgqQpEI.dpbs)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSR#Control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSR#Control)

~~~
smaddox
IMSR looks like promising technology, but it's not yet proven. I'm hopeful
Terrestrial Energy succeeds in commercializing it and competing with existing
energy sources (without subsidies). Even if they do, it will not be a one size
fits all solution, though.

In contrast, we know with near certitude that investment in basic
infrastructure, such as a capable and robust power grid, will promote a
plurality of solutions and pay for itself over time.

------
mkandes
We will probably have no better production-ready, scalable, (minimally)
carbon-free option for energy production to combat climate change in our
lifetimes.

If you don't believe me and you haven't seen a real scientist explain the
scale of the energy problem in a cogent way, you should watch Nathan Lewis:

2005: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUKqx2uk-
Gs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUKqx2uk-Gs)

2014:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16IQhTiN6OI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16IQhTiN6OI)

If he cannot sell you, no one will ... and he's a solar guy.

~~~
adrianN
I'm not that old. I believe that I'll see a fusion reactor connected to the
grid.

~~~
mkandes
Maybe one day. My bet is that, at best, a commercially built one won't be
switched on before 2065. ITER [1] is and will continue to be behind schedule
and over budget, pushing back any follow on plans for DEMO [2], let alone the
subsequent commercialization of that technology. Of course, there's always
hope for a breakthrough.

[1]

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

[2]

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

------
kogepathic
Had to look up the writers of this op-ed: they're Lamar Alexander (R-TN)[0]
and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)[1].

Not sure if they're in the pocket of the nuclear industry or not, but given
the (correct) points by others that nuclear is more expensive than other
renewables, it wouldn't surprise me if there is an ulterior motive to this op-
ed than stopping climate change.

Specifically, I'd have to disagree with this statement:

> For one thing, we should extend existing reactor licenses from 60 to 80
> years, in cases where the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it is safe to
> do so.

In almost no cases should reactors that are 60 years old have their operating
licenses extended. These are almost all Generation II reactor designs [2]
which have the same safety faults as Fukushima. For example, the Generation
III design includes facilities designed to contain a melted core [3]. While
these obviously haven't been tested with a real core melt-down, these kind of
improvements could have made Fukushima arguably less of an environmental
disaster.

I really wish the US would look into LFTR again, as they did in the 70's and
China is doing now [4]. LFTR have some distinct safety advantages to the
PWR/BWR designs favoured by the industry. Unfortunately, all the big money is
behind PWR/BWR and no one wants to take the risk and invest in developing LFTR
reactors for civilian use in the USA.

Costs less to modify the flawed but time tested PWR/BWR designs than to risk
investing in designing an LFTR reactor that no utility would every pay money
for due to the lack of a proven track record.

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

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Whitehouse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Whitehouse)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_II_reactor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_II_reactor)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reacto...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor)

------
Altay-
Per-capita energy usage is already falling across the developed world. And
that's just with current trends. We could easily tax electricity far higher in
most countries, mandate higher efficiency (the US still uses giant furnaces
and hot water heaters) and tax carbon.

Why do people on Hacker News seem so drawn to Nuclear? Its insanely expensive,
it takes forever for a plant to come online, and worst of all for an industry
that likes to remain 'boring' \-- it draws too much public attention.

Why fight all that? WHY?

~~~
jagger27
Because when a super volcano eruption blocks out the sun for 6 months we could
still have a stable baseline.

------
jcoffland
For those of you suggesting solar as a better solution read this article [1]
about the toxic waste (silicon tetrachloride) produced in solar panel
manufacturing. Add to that the storage problems [2] [3] and impact of land use
of massive solar installations [4] and it's no longer a home run even if the
price is coming down.

[1] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/03...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html)

[2] [http://www.npr.org/2015/08/04/427734398/when-relying-on-
the-...](http://www.npr.org/2015/08/04/427734398/when-relying-on-the-sun-
energy-storage-remains-out-of-reach)

[3] [http://www.businessinsider.com/renewable-energy-storage-
prob...](http://www.businessinsider.com/renewable-energy-storage-
problem-2013-11)

[4] [https://carnegiescience.edu/news/solar-
energy%E2%80%99s-land...](https://carnegiescience.edu/news/solar-
energy%E2%80%99s-land-use-impact)

------
f_allwein
Nuclear power also leaves behind waste that is hazardous for between 10.000
and 1.000.000 years (
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste)
), i.e. has t be stored safely for that amount of time. Most countries using
nuclear power haven't even found a site to store waste permanently (e. g.
Germany), let alone figured out how to tell future generations to stay away.

~~~
lkbm
This sounds crass(?) to ask, but if we already have some, does more make it
much worse?

At this point we HAVE some nuclear waste already. Safely storing nuclear waste
is an extremely difficult problem, and one we have yet to fully solve.

But if I have X tons to store for 10k+ years, what's the marginal cost of
increasing X by a factor of two, or ten, or a hundred? (And what sort of
increase in X would we be looking at?)

If someone told me to figure out how to affordably and safely store five
megatons of nuclear waste (rough number from a quick Google search), I'd spend
a lot of time with lots of experts figuring something out. If partway through
you came back and said "oops, make that ten megatons", I might say "oh snap,
our current site/plan doesn't scale", but I feel like it's more likely that
I'd say "well, the bulk of the solution scales just fine". (Maybe the site
wouldn't scale and the political NIMBY part would have to be redone, though,
which is not a small problem.)

But I don't know! The fact that we haven't figured out the problem means maybe
we should put some effort into that, but we if we're going to scale up
nuclear, we should probably do it _soon_. Probably twenty years ago or so.

------
beders
Just to remind the nuclear fans here: cost of Chernobyl: estimated around 201b
euros, cost of lives: between 4000 and several hundred thousands indirectly,
the area is a radioactive wasteland for centuries to come, the reactor still
needs additional protection. The effects are still measurable all over Europe,
resettlement of thousands of people.

That is ONE reactor gone wrong.

Why anyone would build another one when solar is down to .21 per watts is
beyond me.

~~~
hguant
> That is ONE reactor gone wrong.

That is ONE reactor that was of a design many years out of date at the time of
the failure, a failure where the people at the controls turned off the safety
controls, then turned off the back up safety controls, then intentionally put
the reactor in an unsafe state.

France gets 76% of its power from nuclear energy and has never gone above 4 on
the INES scale, with an average clean up cost of 24.7 million USD[1].

There needs to be a Godwin's law for the Chernobyl. There are so many caveats
and "yes buts" and weird political contexts to everything about that accident
that it really isn't helpful when talking about nuclear reactors (unless
you're talking about how politics and human intervention can screw up the best
laid plans of mice and men).

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accident...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country)

~~~
lukealization
> That is ONE reactor that was of a design many years out of date at the time
> of the failure, a failure where the people at the controls turned off the
> safety controls, then turned off the back up safety controls, then
> intentionally put the reactor in an unsafe state.

Yes, reality exists. The existence of reality and all the flaws that come with
it is another argument of many against nuclear fission.

------
mmmBacon
I was in kindergarten about 13 miles away when the Three Mile Island (TMI)
accidentally occurred. I recall people being panicked about it and my
neighbors jamming up the roads trying to get away. There was great controversy
when they wanted to restart the undamaged reactor. Most of the controversy
surrounding whether the operator could be trusted to run the plant safely as
the accident was largely the result of poor management and inadequately
qualified operators at the controls.

Despite having lived through all that I still support nuclear power. I think a
standardized design approach like they have in France is the right way to go
as it can lower costs and improve safety. I think standardization can also
improve trust by reducing the likelihood that human factors could cause an
accident.

------
maroonblazer
One of the best retorts to the anti-nuclear position comes from Richard
Rhodes, author of "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" on an episode of "Book TV"
on C-Span in response to a caller asking/warning about nuclear waste.[0] In
this 3 minute clip he lays out a very compelling argument for nuclear power.

Here's the article in Foreign Affairs he references in the clip (registration
(free) required).[1]

[0][https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4639510/richard-rhodes-
nuclea...](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4639510/richard-rhodes-nuclear-
power)

[1] [https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2000-01-01/need-
nucl...](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2000-01-01/need-nuclear-
power)

------
philipkglass
Third generation reactor designs like the AP1000 and EPR were, prior to actual
construction, promoted as increasing safety _and_ reducing construction
costs/time via standardization and simpler passive safety features, compared
to older Generation II/II+ reactors that currently make up most of the world's
operating reactors. Now that they're actually under construction these reactor
designs too are terribly over-budget and over-schedule, just like the 1980s
reactor projects that burned US utilities bad enough to scare them away for a
generation.

AFAICT "late and over budget" _usually_ happens with megaprojects of all
kinds, and unfortunately commercial power reactors are only available in
"mega" sizes. The AP1000 and EPR especially were designed larger than median
Gen II units, for economies of scale, but seem to be reaping anti-economies of
scale. Small modular reactors with a faster learning curve and more units to
learn across might finally tame schedule and cost problems... but it's hard to
find investors optimistic and deep-pocketed enough to spend a decade iterating
on the concept with real hardware. Most "nuclear startups" are stuck at
nothing but simulations and PowerPoint.

Shouldn't government be making these sorts of high-risk, high-reward, long
term investments? They should, but unfortunately political opposition to
nuclear power is much more concentrated, if not more broad, than support.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
The UK government just made a big commitment to a new nuclear power station at
Hinkley Point C, largely funded by a high guaranteed cost per unit of
electricity.

I'm doubtful it will ever go live though.

------
humbleMouse
Not all nuclear energy is the same. I encourage people to check out Thorium.

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

[http://energyfromthorium.com/](http://energyfromthorium.com/)

~~~
NolF
Thorium still has some major technical issues such as corrosion from molten
salts though.

------
wamatt
It's kind of unfortunate that the label "nuclear power" seems to inevitably
bundle both nuclear _fission_ and nuclear _fusion_ into the same public policy
debate. Their respective safety profiles couldn't be further apart.

While the economic risks for a failed nuclear fusion strategy can be argued,
given even a modest chance for eventually producing large amounts of clean and
safe energy output 24/7, should we not be pursuing fusion more aggressively?

~~~
Twisell
Last year I met a doctor that work at the experimental ITER fusion plant. He
was pretty optimistic about the technology but totally desperate about budget.

It's an international initiative and US are actually one of the country that
pay the least compared to its Income per capita...

By today funding it's clear that real solutions won't be ready until 2050,
hence fission is still required in the mix until then. I don't get how people
can blinding defend that renewable alone is the answer, because once you do
the math it just don't work.

~~~
clarkmoody
From a few weeks ago on HN, I watched this video[1] that made me much more
optimistic about fusion. The bottom line is that the ITAR direction is
misguided since superconducting technology has come so far in recent years.

The video is worth the watch.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4)

------
tim333
If you just extrapolate the exponential improvements we've seen with solar and
batteries for another decade or two they'll be way cheaper than fission
plants. And it'll take a good decade for them to come on line.

The outlook for fusion is surprisingly positive. I never thought I'd see it in
my lifetime but there have been a bunch of breakthroughs recently. See the
"Breakthrough in Nuclear Fusion?" talk from Dennis Whyte, head of Nuclear at
MIT. The main bit 00:26-00:30 - they just have to build a reactor the size of
the JET reactor (existing near Oxford) but with the new REBCO tape (also
existing and available) and you could have a funtioning power generator
[https://youtu.be/KkpqA8yG9T4?t=26m6s](https://youtu.be/KkpqA8yG9T4?t=26m6s)

They should crack ahead and build one of those.

------
aamederen
The thing I worry about nuclear power is that, with the latest events in 2015
and 2016, once again we saw that, we are still pretty bad at preventing
terrorist attacks and I cannot think about how a terrorist attack to a nuclear
plant end up? I am even surprised that no big attack has been made to such a
dangerous facility.

~~~
aninhumer
I think you might be overestimating the risk here.

A nuclear power plant is essentially a massive concrete bunker. It's designed
to contain a nuclear reaction, so I suspect you'd need a phenomenal amount of
explosives to cause any damage, and if you have those, there are likely much
more effective ways to use them for terrorism.

If instead you attack the facility to attempt to gain control and cause a
meltdown, you'd need to gain access to all the various safety overrides, and
then hold that position for as long as it takes the reactor to meltdown. And
that's assuming there are no absolute fail-safes that can't be disabled.

And all this is assuming that the failure mode of the reactor is even bad
enough to cause significant damage, which is less the case with newer
reactors.

------
jlj
Is it technically possible to have a global power grid, where solar generated
on the sunny side of the earth can be used on the dark side, eliminating the
need for energy storage?

~~~
niftich
Massive infrastructure costs, the need for political coordination, and
transmission losses [1] make this scenario unlikely.

[1] [http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-
how-...](http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-much-
electricity-disappears-between-a-power-plant-and-your-plug/)

~~~
mikeyouse
Transmission losses aren't the restriction that many people imply. Modern HVDC
lines have less than half the losses as compared to a similar-length AC line.

There's a cable under construction from Scotland to England that will have a
2,200MW capacity, will run over 400km, and will have losses under 3%.[1]

Brazil finished a 7,700MW line that runs _2,400km_ from a series of
hydroelectric dams to major population centers with something like 8% losses.
Sure, 8% of 7,700MW is a ton of energy lost, but 8% for moving power from the
equivalent distance of Denver to NYC is pretty damn good.

It's not out of the realm of possibilities to build a HVDC line from England
to the US within the next decade or two. If you figure 6,000km and 1.5% losses
per 1,000km, you might be able to keep the total loss below 10%. Run an 800KV
line (or a pair of 800KV lines) and you could probably install a 15+ GW of
transmission capacity.

[1] - [http://www.eaem.co.uk/news/world-beating-%E2%82%AC11bn-
under...](http://www.eaem.co.uk/news/world-beating-%E2%82%AC11bn-under-sea-
cable-connect-england-and-scotland)

------
EGreg
I used to think that global warming was a slam dunk.

But then I looked at the data... the carbon makeup of the atmosphere hasn't
changed much at all, and we have already reached peak oil. If the carbon sinks
(oceans etc.) can hold 2x the current amount they absorbed without much
trouble then we are in the clear.

Perhaps CFCs and Ozone Depleting Substances present a danger but we have
largely reduced their use since the 90s.

So I am not sure anymore than people will mess up the ATMOSPHERE globally.
Locally - yes. And that doesn't let people off the hook when it comes to
overfishing, logging forests, destroying ecosystems such as rainforests, wild
bees and monarch butterflies, introducing new predators into oceans, non-
biodegradable plastic, turning the world into farms etc etc.

Having said that, where is the data showing humans having a huge effect on the
atmosphere composition??

~~~
SapphireSun
Were these the graphs you were looking at?

global temperature anomaly since 1880 --
[http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/)
carbon dioxide for last 400k years -- [http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-
signs/carbon-dioxide/](http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/)

One person I met seemed to think that CO2 would be balanced by algae blooms in
the oceans, but he wasn't a climate scientist. Nonetheless, if the ice caps
melt enough before CO2 is compensated for, they'll release tons of methane
which is an order of magnitude more potent than CO2.

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

Here's NASA's site on the evidence for global warming:
[http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/](http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)

Here's a site that discusses the evidence that humans are at fault:
[http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/sci...](http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-
contribution-to-gw-faq.html)

~~~
EGreg
See my reply to a sister comment for the data I am speaking of.

I agree that currently we have some _correlation_ of global warming and CO2
increase, but this doesn't prove causation esp considering the 70s experienced
global cooling.

[https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-
co2-enha...](https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-
greenhouse-effect.htm)

AND the main point is that there is a limit on how much more Co2 can be
released: roughly the same amount that already has, if we reached peak fossil
fuels. To put things in perspective, that's going from 0.03% to max 0.06%
concentration. CO2's effect as a greenhouse gas should be measured as a
function of its concentration relative to the TOTAL atmosphere. Maybe it rises
exponentially, but maybe not. Like putting layers of paint on a window. We'd
need hard numbers.

Meanwhile... no matter what you do, carbon credits or not, eventually ALL the
fossil fuels WILL be burned up so it's only a matter of time. Better to learn
to build artificial carbon sinks and methane sinks to capture the CO2 back
underground. It's called forests and algae. Want to save the world? Plant
forests!

[http://www.americanforests.org/magazine/article/north-
americ...](http://www.americanforests.org/magazine/article/north-american-
forests-in-the-age-of-man/)

On the other hand we CAN reduce the amount of methane by reducing the amount
of cows we raise for hamburgers etc.

~~~
wahern
I presume you're trolling, but I still think it worth pointing out that no
science proves causation. The scientific method, for example, only rejects
null hypotheses--that is, alternative explanations. Scientists and society
writ large come to tentative, qualified conclusions about causation by
assessing, among other things,

    
    
      1) consistency with observed phenomena, especially
         consistent, multi-dimensional correlations
      2) predictive strength, including accurate and
         precise predictions (direct or indirect) coming to pass
         that demonstrate the explanatory power of a theory
      3) lack of alternative, more persuasive theories
    

None are necessary and none are always sufficient to cause us to tentatively
adopt a theory of causation. But the stronger the evidence the better. Note
that all three are, strictly speaking, categories of correlation; all are
circumstantial. Therefore all science is fundamentally based on correlation.
There's always the possibility of some kind of hidden structure or alternative
explanation; you cannot rule out all such possibilities, only a subset. You
select a working theory, if at all, from among the remaining, proposed
explanations by heuristic and probabilistic methodologies.

If you reject climate change because it doesn't prove causation, then you're
literally rejecting all of science. There is no scientific theory nor any kind
of empirical "fact" that you cannot cast doubt upon in such a manner.

I won't even touch your other points.

~~~
vixen99
The point about a scientific theory is that you test it and if its predictions
do not agree with the observed facts - it's wrong. No ifs or buts. Back to the
drawing board. At least that should be the approach.
[https://youtu.be/EYPapE-3FRw](https://youtu.be/EYPapE-3FRw).

What do we see in climatology?

"The IPCC have produced 102 climate models to predict our future climate. The
world’s meteorological organizations use weather models to forecast and
predict weather and have been for many years. They have proved to be very
accurate over 4 days and reasonably accurate over a week. The IPCC’s climate
models are notoriously inaccurate. We’ve had these models now for some 30
years and we now have 30 years of data to compare them against. They are not
even close to accurate."

Facts trumped by theory? Looks like it these days!

[https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/21/homogenization-of-
tem...](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/21/homogenization-of-temperature-
data-by-the-bureau-of-meteorology/)

~~~
EGreg
As ever, activists take over institutions by pushing an ideology or agenda.
And then when people try to inquire about the holes and bring up facts, they
start personal attacks and bullying, while providing very little in on-point
substantive answers.

"Troll", "Racist", "Creationist", "Climate change denier".

So much easier than just engaging with the substance and proving people wrong
with facts, answering questions, admitting when we don't know and being
intellectually honest.

Reasonable people are open to being proven wrong. But throwing an epithet
while providing inadequate answers does the opposite. "Oh, I'm a troll? Ok I
changed my mind I am convinced! Thanks!" _That 's not how it works._ You're
covering up your own lack of knowledge with emotion.

------
Animats
There's interest in small and medium nuclear reactors, including interest from
Trump's transition team. The IAEA has a brochure on the 40 or so competing
designs.[1] A few are under construction. None seem to be operating yet.

Russia is building more nuclear powered icebreakers. Those are close to
completion. One with a new reactor design was launched in 2016 but is not yet
operating.

2017 may be a good year for nuclear power. A few plants are scheduled to come
on line.

[1]
[https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/SMR/files/IAE...](https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/SMR/files/IAEA_SMR_Booklet_2014.pdf)

------
Wissmania
One advantage of nuclear power relative to other renewable sources is that it
that unlike wind/solar, it can provide consistent energy 24/7\. Our energy
storage solutions are simply not good enough to provide sufficient power in
downtimes.

If your concern is safety, then nuclear power seems to be the best choice:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents)

------
flukus
Assuming nuclear can slow it, we needed it 20 years ago, not now.

~~~
leodeid
Yes, yes, the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second best is
today. Is nuclear any different? I am unaware of anything about nuclear energy
that would have worked 20 years ago but is a bad idea to do today.

~~~
jes5199
unlike 20 years ago, we're producing cheap solar panels faster than we can
install them

~~~
kalleboo
We're not building grid-scale storage at that rate yet though

------
pl-94
Unfortunately, we still need nuclear power: 1) Wind and solar are
intermittent. Even if you produce more than what you consume, you still have
to deal with the huge consumption peak of the evening. This is huge. No
solution for now about it. 2) Energy storage is not scalable. It is available
for smart homes, but there is just not enough lithium-ion on Earth to deal
with the evening peak. Flywheels have too small performances. 3) Germany
consumes more coals now that it has stopped its nuclear plants. 4) With
respect to coal and gas, nuclear power is better: less dependance to Middle
East, no CO2, very good EROEI, and actually, it is responsable for much less
deaths than other energy sources.

The real issues about nuclear powers are: 1) It provides less jobs than
renewable energies (mainly when people will produce their own energy). 2) It
will cost more than solar panels. But not yet.'

So. The solution is to continue the current nuclear plants for 20 years, not
to invest in new ones; and expecting in the meantime that storage is becoming
scalable.

------
Tepix
Before new nuclar reactors are built, the long term storage problem needs to
be solved. It's just unacceptable for future generations and makes cost
estimates impossible. For all we know, it will never be a solved problem and
the world will grow more unstable making highly radioactive nuclear waste
something that has to be heavily guarded, making it even more expensive.

------
Pica_soO
Im pretty sure, reading the comments below, i will find lots of engineering
solutions to make nuclear power saver. And those solutions will be good.

But how to make nuclear power saver, when the economy takes a downturn and
middle management at the plant closes both eyes to cheap, not on spec repairs
and not-so-excellent replacement solutions for the problems. How do you ensure
a constant high-maintenance machine against the corroding forces of the
market? State maintenance funds? But this would be unfair to any energetic
non-carbon replacement energy source. On the other hand, the rise of solar
could lead to a series of Chernobyl by economic neglect. And that is why i am
against nuclear- they are able to hold there economic surroundings hostage.

------
natch
I favor solar instead because it's not so subject to control by a centralized
power (corporations and governments).

Given the right conditions, any property owner can just add solar to their
property, generally at an affordable cost and with incremental rollout if
needed, and they have full control over at least that slice of their energy
use.

------
probablybanned
I'm not a nuclear engineer so I hesitate to shit up the thread with my
armchair opinion, but I'm a big fan of small, low maintenance reactor designs
like the Toshiba 4S. I feel like that's the way it ought to go: Away from
large stationary reactor installations that require a huge amount of skilled
labor on site for construction and maintenance, and toward modular banks of
reactors that can be taken offline and refurbished off-site.

With a smaller, one size fits all design, one might expect to find economies
of scale that don't currently exist. In much the same way, SpaceX seeks to
make Falcon launches routine and push down costs of their incredibly complex
machine through rapid iteration and refinement -- although reactor failures in
the field must not be of the "energetic" variety of course.

Are there limitations of physics that will keep nuclear power stuck in the
mainframe era, or might we see a commodity revolution?

------
techplex
Dr. Leslie Dewan has developed a Nuclear Reactor that can run on the Nuclear
Waste we currently have all around the world. Learn More:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UXXwWOImm8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UXXwWOImm8)

~~~
sschueller
Isn't the problem with these the extremely corrosive salt liquid that needs to
be contained and there isn't any reasonable solutions to do that at this time?

------
scurvy
Isn't nuclear still really expensive? I read that Entergy was shutting down
some nuclear plants they recently acquired because they had not-good track
records and it cost more to produce energy than what they could sell it for
[0].

In networking terms, nuclear energy always felt like Infinband or ATM to me.
In theory, superior in many ways but in reality a pain in the ass that never
really quite worked well. What the world needs is Ethernet and nothing more.
I'm not sure what the energy equivalent of Ethernet is, but I know it aint
nuclear.

[0] [http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/Nuclear-Plant-on-
La...](http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/Nuclear-Plant-on-Lake-
Michigan-Plans-to-Permanently-Shut-Down-405526615.html)

~~~
kashkhan
The expense comes from unwise regulation and lack of development i.e. pork.

It works perfectly fine in france which is 80% powered by nuclear.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#/media...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#/media/File:Electricity_in_France.svg)

~~~
scurvy
"We? No, we are not French. We're American, because you're in America, okay?
Greatest country on the planet." (movie quote before anyone gets too upset)

------
tomrod
Nuclear is only part of the solution. It doesn't scale up or down very
quickly. Solar, wind, and energy capture mechanisms are still very much part
of the solution. If we're efficient enough in the last three, we don't need
the first.

------
CurtMonash
For nuclear power to be feasible, we need different kinds of designs than the
historically common ones.

1\. Passive safety features are a must, period -- especially in a world full
of hackers and terrorists (or at least terrorist wannabes). Obviously, they
don't protect against all human error, accidental or deliberate as the case
may be. But they sure could lower the risks.

2\. We also need truly standardized manufacturing. It seems that the buzzword
there is "SMR" \-- Small Modular Reactor. This is for multiple reasons. Cost
and general safety are the most obvious. Further, site-specific safety
analyses would actually have a chance of being correct.

------
amai
And to even reverse global warming I suggest a full blown nuclear war. All the
CO2 producing industry will be destroyed and the nuclear winter afterwards
should be cold enough even for hardcore global warming alarmists.

------
shadykiller
Always been curious about this - wont nuclear plants increase thermal input of
earth ? True for fossil fuels too which were never burnt in such vast quantity

These energy sources are outside of solar energy so how much more can they
warm up the earth ?

~~~
kijin
All energy produced in any type of power plant eventually becomes heat. Fossil
fuels have the additional property of making Earth retain more of it.

Solar could also increase the temperature if it traps energy that would
otherwise be immediately reflected back to space. I'm not sure if the
difference is significant, though, compared to the effect of greenhouse gases.

------
Marazan
Nuclear was the correct answer 15 years ago. It is no longer 15 years ago.

~~~
jcoffland
> It is no longer 15 years ago.

It never is.

------
kevinburke
What (if any) progress is being made on producing nuclear power via groups of
much smaller reactors, instead of larger reactors that are more failure prone?

What are the latest trends in the nuclear power industry?

------
ReganKoopmans
If managed correctly, it's far far cleaner than coal and oil.

------
ommunist
You only need nuclear power to get grasp upon unlimited solar energy from the
orbital plants. Russia is building nuclear powered large spaceship engine
right now.

~~~
runj__
Space is one of the big ones for me, we need nuclear for space exploration,
I'm fine with solar for earth as long as we keep nuclear science up.

------
douche
To slow global warming, we needed more nuclear power in the 70s, and
continuing investments in it along the way, rather than slowly decommissioning
the plants we did have.

I'm not really a utilitarian, but people freaking out over three relatively
minor incidents with nuclear plants is a terrible justification for avoiding
nuke power and accepting coal, with all of the side effects that mining,
transporting, and burning that stuff entails.

------
_ph_
The article is one big fallacy. It is absolutely correct that today nuclear is
the main source of carbon-free power generation. But that does not say much
about what the best technology for _new_ installations is. If built to good
safety standards, nuclear is not cheap. Solar and wind should be much cheaper,
and of course completely safe alternatives. Unfortunately, the article does
not discuss any of these alternatives.

------
kgarten
Sad to see again another propaganda nuclear article at HN. I remember the top
article after the Fukushima disaster at HN was an astroturfing blog post on
why Fukushima is no big deal (with a lot of misinformation).

Here we are again ...

Even if we take out the major catastrophy scenarios there's still the waste
problem to deal with (and no it's not solved with the newest tech).

And of course, I will get downvotes for that ;)

------
squozzer
[http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/equality.pdf](http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/equality.pdf)
-

Beware of the person who gives advice, telling you that a certain action on
your part is “good for you” while it is also good for him, while the harm to
you doesn’t directly affect him.

------
sandGorgon
the future is Molten salt reactors - not because of this article, because it
is the only abundant fuel for the two of the largest energy consumers for the
next two decades: India and China.

India+China have the world's largest thorium resources. China is also
investing more than a billion dollars in molten salt reactor research (led by
the son of Jiang Zemin) [1]

Peter Thiel, who is pretty much the think tank for the new government, has a
personal investment in Transatomic Power that is doing very interesting work
here. I see no reason that this project will not receive a shot in the arm
after January.

TLDR : India + China + Peter Thiel = Molten Salt Reactors

[1] [http://fortune.com/2015/02/02/doe-china-molten-salt-
nuclear-...](http://fortune.com/2015/02/02/doe-china-molten-salt-nuclear-
reactor/)

------
lispm
Again, these articles lack a specific plan. I would have thought that there
would have been enough time to come up with numbers: how many reactors, over
which period of time, costs, hiw to finance it, how to build-up the industry,
what is the actual contribution in CO2 reduction, who would build them, ...

------
iamgopal
Its quite fun to imagine, how ultimately the urge to share your life with
other ( all trillion $ semiconductor industry for what, sharing your cat pic ?
), has propagated whole era of advance semi conductor technology, which in
turn have been primary cause of reduction in solar power price.

------
Radle
"Carbon emissions from the electricity sector increased 24 percent after the
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in California closed." Because existing
coal generating stations can be scaled up quickly. With planing one could have
also build a solar generator before.

------
melling
Here's a Ted Talk that says the same thing:

[https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_how_fear_of_...](https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_how_fear_of_nuclear_power_is_hurting_the_environment)

------
damptowel
For the uninitiated, I found this a good introduction

[http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/](http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/)

(It seems to have a pro nuclear bias, the author claims neutrality)

------
fcanesin
Solar don't have the power density needed by US. Do a simple calculation of
current energy levels plus 1% YOY, turns out that you would need to cover the
world with panels in just a few decades. There are proved new technology on
nuclear (like molten salt and front advancing reactors) that is orders of
magnitude safer. The light water reactor design from the 50-60th used in this
aging plants was funded by Navy and was appropriate for its use but is not the
best solution for grid power generation. Applying this already tested and safe
solutions (search for ORNL molten salt) will buy the time until fusion is
here, new high temperature superconductors (REBCO in special) have completely
changed the game here, and a small high field tokamaks should generate net
gain in less than 20 years.

~~~
tim333
Nah. Less area than that [http://landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-
content/uploads/2009/08...](http://landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-
content/uploads/2009/08/AreaRequired1000.jpg)

~~~
fcanesin
This is a gigantic amount of area just for 2030! The compound grow don't stop
there. Compare this view of the US from a satellite at a much closer zoom, if
you can't see all the concrete even in Boston-NYC-Washington area. But from a
world view you would need that square of solar energy.
[https://goo.gl/maps/wWpFW7nRZSq](https://goo.gl/maps/wWpFW7nRZSq)

------
a_imho
Why aren't these designs more widespread?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor)

------
olouv
I'd recommend anyone interested in this question to watch "Into Eternity"
(available on YouTube), a documentary about the facility Finland is building
to house all of their country's nuclear waste.

------
optforfon
One thing that needs to be stressed is that realistically there is a rather
limited amount of Uranium than can be extracted from the earth for nuclear
power. That if we could magically convert to 100% nuclear power - it wouldn't
last that long.

from wikipedia

"Still, the world's present measured resources of uranium, economically
recoverable at the arbitrary price ceiling of 130 USD/kg, are enough to last
for between 70 and 100 years"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Conventional_fue...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Conventional_fuel_resources)

reactors have a life of around 60 years I think. So maybe you could double the
amount of nuclear power? But it's not like the world can magically go to 100%
nuclear indefinitely.

~~~
Turing_Machine
That "arbitrary price ceiling" is exceedingly arbitrary. You get a lot more
than $130 worth of electricity from fissioning a kilogram of uranium even with
present technology. In current U.S. power reactor designs (no breeding) you
can get about a million kwH of heat from one kg of uranium. If you figure 30%
efficiency and 12 cents per kWH, that's about $40,000 worth of electricity.

It should be clear that even with present technology uranium is economic to
recover at prices dramatically higher than $130/kg.

If breeder reactors are used the recoverable energy from a kg of uranium goes
up by a factor of 100 or so, making that kg of uranium worth about $4 million
in terms of electricity.

With that technology it would be economically feasible to recover uranium from
sea water, and there's enough of it in the ocean to last for billions of
years.

------
zwieback
There are alternatives to massive expensive reactors from companies like
Nuscale, might be a good option to round out energy production in areas where
other clean energy sources aren't available.

------
aswanson
What do the folks here think of investing in uranium mining stock cameco?

~~~
petre
With environmentalists pushing for nuclear station closures, power stations
going out of service due to exceeding their lifetime and MOX fuel available,
cheap solar, offshore wind, I'd rather not.

------
daflip
There's many ways to slow global warming. Is replacing power production with
nuclear really humanity's best first to-go in slowing global warming? I would
have thought not.

------
kgarten
hmmm ... seems more a last try of some lobbyists to push nuclear. Solar power
is now the cheapest form of energy in almost 60 countries :)
[http://www.sciencealert.com/solar-power-is-now-the-
cheapest-...](http://www.sciencealert.com/solar-power-is-now-the-cheapest-
energy-in-the-world)

------
Nomentatus
"I support nuclear power as a proven means of created large wildlife
preserves."

So needed these days.

I think that's gonna be my next T-Shirt.

------
s0me0ne
If each state is willing to deal w their own waste, go for it, but stop
shipping it to other states!

------
murukesh_s
Do I need nuclear power if it's cheaper? Yes! Would I like to stay near a
nuclear plant? Hell no.

------
dkarapetyan
What happened to pebble bed reactors?

~~~
mwlyons
Head over to www.x-energy.com to see plans for our Xe-100 high temperature gas
cooled pebble bed reactor!

@xenergynuclear on twitter

------
Klasiaster
Modesty and determination to tackle change seems more needed than economic
expansion.

------
peg_leg
The article was written by politicians

------
knorker
Duh.

This is one of the reasons I think Greenpeace is doing counterproductive work
over the last few decades, at least in the energy space.

------
bryanrasmussen
my natural cynicism prompts me to note that nuclear war would also slow Global
Warming.

------
kumarski
I haven't met anyone intelligent who suggests we should go Solar.

Silicon tetrachloride pollution is the worst.

------
sureshn
The article appears to be written in a biased manner and lacks Rational and
logic , till now no body has ever been able to come up with a solution on how
to deal with nuclear waste in a safe way or how to deal with a accident in a
nuclear plant

~~~
ikeyany
Your comment inadvertently shows why we should be supporting fusion energy
research (the problems you speak of are problems with fission).

------
JacksonGariety
Please, HN: read more about fukushima.

This could be the end of it all. All of human history could go out in the
blink of an eye.

~~~
kashkhan
Fukushima was badly built, badly protected, and badly operated.

First few decades airplanes were deadly. Now not so much. All tech can be
tamed if you put in the effort.

~~~
JacksonGariety
But what if someone doesn't. A chain is as strong as its weakest link.

~~~
kashkhan
yes. Modern large airplanes are more complex than reactors and have more
uncertainty, and have more places on the chain they can go wrong. But they
don't, at least not in the US in last 15 years. Why?

------
mikevp
"I am not so much pro-nuclear as I am pro-arithmetic." \-- Stuart Brand.

The dogma that we can power industrial civilization on "sunny days when the
wind is blowing" energy is arithmetic denialism.

I will believe that you care about CO2/climate change if, and only if, you do
not oppose replacing carbon-based energy with the source that passes the
arithmetic test.

------
sova
True or false: a nuclear reactor can create a nuclear explosion? (the answer
may surprise you!)

~~~
jat850
I would expect a significant percentage of people know that nuclear explosion
is not a risk of nuclear power.

~~~
leodeid
I would be surprised, to be honest, if more than half the american population
knew that a nuclear power plant literally cannot blow up like an atomic bomb.
However, I can't find any information to support either of our gut feelings.
All of the polling information is of the form "how much do you like nuclear"
or "what is the best non-fossil fuel power source". I'd love to see answers to
"why do you think nuclear energy is a bad idea" or something.

~~~
pdkl95
While it isn't proper poll, Veritasium's interviews[1] with the general public
support the supposition that most people lack basic information about anything
nuclear.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQmnztyXwVA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQmnztyXwVA)

