
Had They Bet on Nuclear, Germany and CA Would Already Have 100% Clean Power - gokhan
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/09/11/had-they-bet-on-nuclear-not-renewables-germany-california-would-already-have-100-clean-power/#368ca0f2e0d4
======
jhayward
Yet another Michael Shellenberger column in Forbes. Folks, it's not worth
going through the cherry-picking, misrepresentation, and outright fabrication
of Shellenberger and his "Environmental Progress" sham organization.

It has been said that it takes 10 times more energy to refute BS than it does
to create it. Unfortunately, this author's purpose is to exploit this fact.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Indeed.

And consider an alternative view: if all of the money spent on nuclear had
been invested in renewables instead, we would have had clean power a decade or
two ago.

~~~
craftinator
Just take a look at the energy densities of "renewables" vs nuclear power. I
wrote a paper last year comparing the output of the entire fleet of US wind
turbines (onshore and offshore) to the output of the US's least productive
nuclear powerplant. Over the course of a year, the powerplant produced 20%
more energy, at a total cost of 90% less $, than all of US wind turbines
combined. Just let those figures settle in your mind a little...

~~~
jhayward
If you have an example of nuclear providing power at a cost 90% below wind,
which is generally the lowest cost provider in the US please supply a link and
support the implied claim that this is somehow representative of the industry
and not cherry-picked.

As to the other claim you make, a quick look says that the R. E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant in NY is the lowest productivity (i.e., provides the fewest MWH
per year) plant in the US at around 6 GWH. In Texas alone wind produced 9 GWH
(2017).

------
simonblack
Not so.

There are three phases in the life of a nuclear power station: Construction,
operation and disposal.

The construction phase is relatively expensive and clean.

The operation phase is cheap and clean. This phase is what most people think
of when they look at the benefits of nuclear power.

The dismantlement and disposal phase of a nuclear power station is marked by
horrifically expensive and horrifically 'dirty' problems. The words
'Chernobyl' and 'Fukushima' spring readily to mind here, in looking at 'worst-
case' scenarios.

~~~
ars
If EVERY reactor ended its life like Fukushima it would _still_ cause less
death than what we are doing now.

Bring on the "dirty" problems! They are better than anything else we have
right now.

~~~
solarkraft
Solar panels are just so deadly.

~~~
ars
They are 4,400 times as deadly as US Nuclear. And approximately 3 times as
deadly as wind.

Way better than coal, but they still kill far more people than the best
option: Nuclear.

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

------
Zigurd
30 years ago, wind and solar were pipe dreams. Now they are the cheapest AND
cleanest forms of power generation. Nuclear had a chance, and blew it. They
still can't be built on time and within budget. The waste is still not stored
safely. The disasters are still hugely costly to remedy.

Maybe some new generation of fuel and reactors can change that. But there is
no prototype yet that proves that out.

~~~
rakoo
Nuclear is almost the cleanest electricity source, second only to hydro. If
you're going to count intermittent sources (aka pv and wind) then take into
account that we want reliable current flowing through the outlet, not just
when the wind blows or the sun shines. Either you factor in batteries (which
also need to be built, typically in acountry that uses a lot of fossil fuel
for electricity), or you supplement it with something that has the flexibility
you want, and that's gas.

Nuclear waste _is_ stored safely, the myth that "we don't know what to do with
waste" needs to die ASAP. Do you know what electricity source has no strategy
for storing waste at all? Fossil fuels and intermittent energies.

There were designs for new types of reactors. The prototypes were working.
Unfortunately it was cancelled because environmentalists are too blind to see
the priority in problems.

~~~
anoncake
We dont need batteries. We need energy storage. Other ways of storing energy
are not nearly as space-efficient, but that does not matter here.

We also dont strictly need power to be 100% reliable. Throttling down
industrial production is preferable to 1000s of square kilometres being made
uninhabitable by nuclear power.

~~~
rakoo
It absolutely matters if we're talking about useful scales, ie delivering
hundreds of MWs over days. Otherwise it's just a pet project with no chance to
ever replace fossil fuel.

And yes, we do need power to be reliable. We need to power infrastructure that
runs 24/7 (not everything is industrial production).

Nuclear is definitely the best clean energy in terms of land use, for the same
area you'll be producing much more electricity.

~~~
anoncake
> It absolutely matters if we're talking about useful scales, ie delivering
> hundreds of MWs over days.

You do know that countries tend to be a lot larger than, say, cars and phones?
But even if energy density were a factor: The one of liquid hydrogen is great.

> And yes, we do need power to be reliable. We need to power infrastructure
> that runs 24/7 (not everything is industrial production).

We need some power 24/7, not all.

> Nuclear is definitely the best clean energy in terms of land use

Land use is what makes nuclear inacceptable. Once they fail, they make
thousands of square kilometres uninhabitable.

------
ftr45
it's pretty obvious ,nuclear is the only avaible solution to climate change,
renewables are not

~~~
anoncake
Its pretty obvious renewables are the only sensible solution to climate
change, nuclear is not.

------
woodandsteel
"Had California and Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power
plants instead of renewables like solar and wind farms"

This implies California and Germany have spent $680 billion on renewables.

~~~
javagram
The linked article states "In pursuing the Energiewende, Germany will have
invested $580 billion in renewable energy and storage by 2025. "

presumably the other 100 billion comes from California.

------
rad_gruchalski
I would suggest to the people from Forbes to read up on Tihange to figure out
why Germans may have a problem with nuclear.

~~~
rukittenme
Can you help? I read the wiki[0] but I don't understand the concern.

0\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tihange_Nuclear_Power_Station#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tihange_Nuclear_Power_Station#Incidents)

~~~
rad_gruchalski
Have a look here: [https://www.diggitmagazine.com/papers/stop-tihange-and-
doel-...](https://www.diggitmagazine.com/papers/stop-tihange-and-doel-
activism-streets-and-social-media)

To expand on my previous point. A nuclear power plant has to be maintained by
humans. Humans make mistakes. Accidents will happen. Also, these plants at
some point will get old. What can they be replaced with? This is exactly why
Belgium can’t shut Tihange down. What is the alternative for them, coal from
Hambacher Forst?

~~~
m0zg
Shutting down a nuclear plant "to protect the environment" is like clubbing
baby seals to protect the animals. Doesn't make any sense. A properly
functional nuclear power plant _does not produce any emissions_, produces
electricity 24x7x365, lots of it, and does so for decades on end.

The best alternative for them is a modern nuclear plant, built right next to
the old one. Which the "activists" won't let them build.

~~~
dewey
Last time I checked the final storage of nuclear waste is not solved yet. In
Germany they store it in old salt mines that are in a very bad state for years
already.

~~~
m0zg
Is final storage problem for semiconductor waste solved yet? Solar panels are
semiconductors with a rather limited lifespan that require massive quantities
of some truly horrible chemicals to manufacture them.

Is the problem of greenhouse gases "solved"? Last I checked, 31% of Germany's
considerable energy appetite is filled by burning hydrocarbons. If we are to
believe climate change alarmists, this is destroying the planet to a far
greater and more permanent extent than some leaky barrels in some German salt
mine.

Activists must have some terrible cognitive dissonance in their heads. On the
one hand we keep hearing that "we're all gonna die" if something is not done
within the next decade. On the other hand, the only thing that can
realistically be done in the next decade to combat climate change _for real_
is building a ton of new nuclear power plants and shutting down the coal and
natural gas ones. No, solar and wind aren't going to cut it, it's readily
apparent if you run some basic back of the envelope, and solar creates an
environmental disaster of its own, both now (in China mostly) and in the
future, due to the limited lifespan of the panels.

~~~
dewey
> Is final storage problem for semiconductor waste solved yet?

I don't know much about semiconductor but I guess you can store them in a
relatively normal warehouse until you figure out a way to do that and recycle
the materials without running into problems like converting bigger parts of
land into a radioactive wasteland?

I don't think that's a very good comparison.

~~~
ftr45
it's actually beacuse storing nuclear waste doesn't create ''radioactive
wasteland''

------
l24ztj
Clean if we ignore radioactive waste, that is.

~~~
T2_t2
As opposed to wind and solar? Let alone batteries, that use extremely toxic
chemicals.

What we do with waste is a key ingredient to any power source, and the plan
with old batteries, solar panels and wind turbines is no better than nuclear.

There is no free lunch, only competing ideas with different sets of problems
and difficulties.

~~~
woah
How is disposing of wind turbines and solar panels any different from
disposing of any other silicon and aluminum machines?

~~~
mhalle
There doesn't seem to be a great answer regarding recycling or disposing of
composite wind turbine blades:

[https://www.windpowerengineering.com/mechanical/blades/recyc...](https://www.windpowerengineering.com/mechanical/blades/recycling-
wind-turbine-blades/)

~~~
solarkraft
As opposed to composite planes or car frames?

