
The World Really Could Go Nuclear - tdaltonc
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-really-could-go-nuclear/
======
brc
"If we are serious about tackling emissions and climate change, no climate-
neutral source should be ignored"

Well, exactly. The most noisy and alarmist aren't interested in producing
energy at all. They are only interested in de-industrialisation and de-
population.

Of course nuclear fission is the answer to large scale energy. It always has
been. Weapons proliferation can be addressed with new designs and materials.
Safety can be addressed with passive systems.

The technical answers are simple compared to fusion or elaborate harvesting of
diffuse energy such as sunlight, wind or tides.

The logical conclusion is that the people making the most noise are not in it
for the solutions, but for the noise and attention. I'm not the only one to
think this, but expect the groupthink to smite my comment anyway.

~~~
grecy
I've been pro-nuclear for a long time, though the Fukushima disaster changed
my mind a little.

What shocked me more than anything about the accident, is that when things go
horribly wrong with Nuclear, we literally have no plan. We have no way of
getting inside to stop things getting worse, or to contain what has already
happened. We literally stood around watching, waiting, to see what would
happen. When the highly contaminated water flowed into the ocean, the response
was "where else did you think it would go?".

I'm aware that new reactor designs mean things going that badly is very
unlikely in the future, but I still think it's scary we can build a machine
with such immense power, and it can get to a point where we just stand back
and watch it go bad.

~~~
pdonis
_> when things go horribly wrong with Nuclear, we literally have no plan._

What was your reaction when the Deepwater Horizon spill happened? We had no
real plan then, either. And the aggregate impact of that incident was arguably
larger than that of Fukushima. (For example, the "highly contaminated water"
released into the ocean from Fukushima is probably going to do a lot less
ecological damage than the oil released by Deepwater Horizon. The contaminated
water will just get diluted to the point where it's indistinguishable from
other ocean water. The oil, not so much.)

 _> we can build a machine with such immense power, and it can get to a point
where we just stand back and watch it go bad._

First of all, a nuclear reactor that produces 1 Gw of electricity doesn't have
any more "immense power" than a coal, oil, or natural gas plant that produces
the same electrical power output.

Second, we have every right to insist that, before a nuclear reactor gets
built, we have a contingency plan in case something goes wrong. But, to be
fair, we should insist on that for _all_ sources of energy. Want to drill for
oil? What's your contingency plan if there's a leak in the well? As I
commented to someone else upthread, nuclear power appears to be the only
energy technology where everyone focuses on the worst case; other energy
sources seem to get what amounts to a free pass in this regard.

~~~
grecy
> _First of all, a nuclear reactor that produces 1 Gw of electricity doesn 't
> have any more "immense power" than a coal, oil, or natural gas plant that
> produces the same electrical power output._

Stop putting those control rods in there and see how much energy it will
generate.....

~~~
pdonis
_> Stop putting those control rods in there and see how much energy it will
generate....._

Which is not what happened at Fukushima, or TMI, or even Chernobyl, so it's
irrelevant. You might as well say, stop metering fuel into that natural gas
plant and light it off all at once and see how much energy it will generate.
If we are going to restrict ourselves to energy sources that can't possibly be
misused, we won't have any energy sources at all. Even solar can be made to do
damage if it's focused.

------
akamaka
This article, like many pro-nuclear arguments, doesn't address the most basic
problem -- is nuclear power cost effective?

Sure, it's cheap in theory, but nuclear power projects bring with them
enormous project management risk. If you complete 90% of a wind farm
installation, you get 90% of the power out. Completing 90% of a nuclear
reactor gets you no power at all, and unexpected cost overruns can add up to
billions of dollars. When a reactor shuts down for repairs, they sometimes
take decades to complete. As of today, it can be argued that many countries'
nuclear power programs were a financial mistake.

Then, once in a while, you find out that the original cost-benefit analysis
was wrong. After the Fukushima accident left $200 billion of real estate
uninhabitable, nuclear power plants across the world have revised their risk
models, and now are spending more money for safety upgrades.

Finally, emerging technologies like wind and solar are showing immense
promise, but predicting their future cost is equally difficult. All the best
minds can only put together a very educated guess.

Yes, if we had started focusing on nuclear power 40 years ago -- and if we had
done it carefully and properly the first time -- it would have been the right
decision.

But we got it wrong, and the today risks of getting it wrong again are bigger
than ever.

~~~
DennisP
That's why there's such focus now on small modular reactors, with a bunch of
startup companies attempting to develop them. The main impediment is the NRC,
which has been slow to come up with licensing rules appropriate for small
reactors or advanced designs (some of which have very good passive safety).

~~~
Gibbon1
I tend to think the 'push' for small reactors, fifth generation reactors, and
alternative designs is same as the 'push' for 'clean coal'. A political ploy
to keep the government subsidies coming and forestall the eventual taxing of
the industries externalities. And to hopefully prevent alternatives like solar
from getting funding.

Seriously, solar is already at cost parity and the economics are getting
better with time. Plus externalities are minimal. Compared to nuclear power
which gets less economic over time and has very open ended externalities.

~~~
3pt14159
I agree that solar is already at cost parity, but not after battery costs.
Furthermore I live in Canada, in the winter our solar power generates only 1 /
80th of the power, and unless we're going to tie our energy security to the
United States, we're going to need alternatives.

Nuclear power in Canada is a complete success. We generate at 6 to 7 cents per
kilowatt hour in the first 30 years, and the amortized cost continues to
decrease after that. Yes there are maintenance costs, but do you know what
else there are? Medical isotopes that the world desperately needs to keep our
diagnostics working.

You can make nuclear cheap and safe. The problem is cultural, not scientific.
If a society is too greedy and corrupt or too deferent to authority, then
nuclear won't work. But in places like Canada, Sweden, and France they work
very, very well.

Also, Thorium reactors are much less likely to cause problems and they are
part of the fifth gen reactor designs.

We need both nuclear and solar.

~~~
akamaka
I definitely wouldn't consider nuclear power in Canada to be a _complete_
success.

In 1999, Ontario Hydro's debt stood at $38.1 billion, most of which came from
the construction of nuclear plants. For comparison, the entire government debt
at the time was a little over $100 billion.

These plants will continue operating well into this century, so when all is
said and done, all of the cost overruns (and the 17 year shutdown at Bruce)
will hopefully be worth it.

But it's unreasonable to consider nuclear power to be a complete and clear-cut
"home run" and to suggest that, as the original article stated, "only fear and
capital" stand in the way of rolling out more nuclear plants.

------
hanniabu
I'm not against nuclear as long as it's done properly and responsibly, but
they usually aren't. As we all know, nuclear reactors can fail from either
operational malfunctions or exterior effects such as earthquakes or tsunamis.
However, when things go wrong, there are no backup plans in place for the
backup plans when things go wrong, which is very much needed when we're
talking about the types of consequences nuclear meltdowns can have. Not only
this, but when things go wrong, the companies that run them try to keep the
seriousness of the situation under wraps for as long as possible in order to
protect the company and b then at which point it becomes too late to take more
proactive measures.

To make matters worse, most nuclear reactors in the United States were built
in the 1960s and 1970s and they were only designed for a lifespan of 40 years,
which means most of them should be shut down. However, since a lot of money is
at stake with how much reactors cost, regulators rewrite the rules and extend
the useful life of the reactors and put us all in danger. That is what bothers
me and that is why I am against nuclear reactors - because when money is on
the line, all bets are off.

------
chjohasbrouck
I never really understood the arguments against nuclear.

From the data I'm able to find, coal energy results in about 170,000 deaths
per trillion kilowatt-hours globally, compared to about 90 deaths per trillion
kilowatt-hours generated from nuclear.

That would mean that burning coal for energy is nearly 2000x more dangerous
than nuclear power.

Is there something more to the opposition's argument than safety? Or is this
just a case of the public being misinformed?

~~~
ericd
>coal energy results in about 170,000 deaths per kilowatt-hour

Are you saying that running a gaming PC for 2 hours results in 170k deaths?

~~~
Syrup-tan
If the PC is powered by coal energy, he's saying something like that.

------
a3n
Not that I need everything perfect, but these are my concerns:

\- The corporations building these things are hyper-corporations, many in the
defense industry. Corporations, especially at that scale, are at best amoral.
To meet environmental, safety, disposal and cost concerns, they will go part
way, but when they hit the knees of the various curves, they will convince
Congress and citizens through advertising, co-opted scientists, and bribed
members of Congress that everything is great and it's been taken care of.

\- Waste. After however many decades, where is all the nuclear waste? Are we
finally implementing the long range plans, to take care of wast and make
future generations safe? At least out hundreds of years I would expect. I
think the answer here is effectively no. I think we're still just studying it,
and all involved are hoping someone else will deal with it later. There will
never be enough Senators to vote for specific locations in their states, and
transportation through their states. "On site" will magically be found to be
perfectly fine after all. And it will end up being Hanford and Rocky Flats,
with leaks into the water table, and shit stored next to shit that shouldn't
be.

\- Safety. What happens when we finally experience a catastrophe, because the
corporations and governments kicked the safety can down the road so that these
things could be built? It's going to happen, they're corporations and they
must above all make a buck. What hyper-corporation could resist turning
uranium into gold?

\- Environmental. These things need to be cooled. They're next to rivers and
oceans because of that. Ecosystems dwindle and die, because downstream
temperatures will always be "within acceptable levels" that were set by
agencies suffering from regulatory capture that are funded by bribed
Congressmen. No one wants to be the single point of failure on the money
pipeline.

\- Cost. Balloon. Corporations make money no matter what. Even if a
corporation is fined in proportion to its overrun, even if they refuse to pay
and people are jailed (ha!), that money is still lost.

The only thing above that I'm inclined to give on is safety, it's probably an
engineering possibility. But that's mere technical possibility, in the face of
amoral corporations with a drive for profits stronger than the human drive for
reproduction.

Color me sceptical.

~~~
brc
"Corporations, especially at that scale, are at best amoral." sorry, but this
is just wrong.

Lots of people posting and reading this work for corporations.

Do bad actors exist? Sure. Are all corporations at scale amoral? You make them
sound like machines programmed by megalomaniacs, not places created by, worked
at and invested in by ordinary people. Every 'corporation' I have ever worked
at has been filled with people trying to do a good job under whatever
circumstances they find themselves in. Brushing off the majority of good that
large companies do as an argument is not correct.

~~~
a3n
I work for a corporation too. Lots of good people there. I'm good people.

I'm talking about hyper-corporations and billion dollar contracts. That many
people, chasing that much money ... no one who's gotten to the point that they
_could_ with authority say "Nah, we shouldn't do this, it's wrong," ever
_would_ say that. No one at that level of accomplishment and tenure has it in
them to say "Oh, and are the fish in that river really safe?"

------
tgflynn
Yes, and if we had done that 30 years ago when it made sense there would
probably be far less concern about global warming today.

Today, with the rapid decline in the cost of solar energy, I'm far less
convinced this would be a wise move.

------
aftbit
Both of the countries lauded in this article undertook their nuclear programs
at least partially for strategic reasons. The U.S. has massive reserves of
coal - 480 billion tons[1]. Our strategic need is much lower.

Also, isn't Sweden supposedly phasing out nuclear power?

[1]
[http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=70&t=2](http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=70&t=2)

------
anigbrowl
I wish we would. Caution over nuclear externalities and criticism of poor
safety/risk management by various nuclear authorities over the years are
laudable, but too many greens look at te downsides of nuclear power in
isolation, rather than in the context of the even more problematic fossil fuel
incumbents and the realities of high demands for energy in developed
economies. There is a huge opportunity cost to this ecological purity theater.
The US administration has not really provided any leadership here, but at
least it has approved and helped finance the construction of the first two
reactors to be built in the US in 30 years so I suppose that's better than
nothing.

------
ClintEhrlich
I spent a year of my life digging through the relevant literature back in
2008-2009 when I was coaching policy debate and the topic was alternative
energy.

Based on my reading, I decided that the arguments in favor of nuclear power
were significantly better than the defenses of renewable energy. So I made the
strategic decision to write affirmatives about uranium enrichment and targeted
procurement of nuclear-powered vessels.

That was how we won the national championship.

In other words: Even when the best debaters in the country have a year to
prepare their counter-arguments, nuclear energy still tends to come out on
top. Like facts, energy density is a stubborn thing.

------
squozzer
I have a very simple to understand yet very unlikely to be implemented
standard of persuasion. Industry executives and engineers - and their families
- should make a point of living near their plants.

------
hackuser
Perhaps the best argument for nuclear energy is that it's a nearly certain,
affordable (if expensive) remedy to a catastrophic problem, climate change.
How can we - how dare we - risk the lives of millions of people?

I'll add that we especially are risking other people's lives. While most
people reading this have reaped the benefits of fossil fuels, likely we and
our decendents mostly will survive while people in poor countries die.

------
Animats
If only it didn't cost so much. And, about every 20 years, there's a Chernobyl
or a Fukishima sized disaster.

China has 13 nuclear stations under construction, with 61 reactors and a total
capacity of 40 to 75 gigawatts.

~~~
tptacek
What's the youngest nuclear plant to have suffered a major (say, INES 5+)
incident? Fukushima Daiichi was pretty old.

~~~
Animats
The US still has Peach Bottom station in Pennsylvania. Same reactor design as
Fukishima. If they ever lose cooling water pumping, they will have a meltdown,
just like Fukishima. All the regulators know this, so they have a lot of
backup generators in different locations, and nine ways to get cooling water
into the reactor. But the design is still not a good one.

