
MIT Energy Initiative study reports on the future of nuclear energy - extarial
http://news.mit.edu/2018/mitei-releases-report-future-nuclear-energy-0904
======
mirimir
There's nothing here about liability for nuclear accidents. Under the Price-
Anderson Act, private insurance covers up to $450 million per plant.
Collective self-insurance provides another $13 billion overall. And the US
government may cover anything over that, pending congressional action.

Without that government-mandated system, and "guarantee", there would have
been no commercial development in the US. Also, it's notable that this system
covers both accidents and decommissioning.

I'd be a lot more comfortable with further nuclear development if worn-out
plants had actually been decommissioned, and not just mothballed. And if there
were a coherent plan for waste disposal.

~~~
mjevans
Ultimately it will be "the people" (via the government) that end up paying for
the proper decommissioning of a project anyway; so it makes sense for that
cost to be paid in to a resource pool at that level where at least if the
funds are raided "we did it to our selves".

~~~
Mvandenbergh
The Hinckley Point plant in the UK will pay for its own decommissioning - and
has to put money aside as it operates to fund it, so a later bankruptcy
wouldn't affect the liability. Of course, it if was decommissioned after only
a short period of operation, that wouldn't work.

~~~
DoctorOetker
Except the next generations can't time-travel snatch the current population:

Technically it can put aside money while it operates: this either makes it
somewhat scarce now to the benefit of current capital holders, or this
encourages injection of fresh money by the central banks.

Then if in a few generations away something goes wrong and the stash of money
is released it devalues money by buying up labor manhours (thus making
manhours scarcer for all the holders of capital in the future).

------
wiz21c
FTA,

>>> For example, the authors recommend that policymakers should avoid
premature closures of existing plants, which undermine efforts to reduce
emissions and increase the cost of achieving emission reduction targets

are they actual "premature" closures ? In my country, they do everything they
can to extend the life of the nuclear reactors waaaaaaaay past their
expiration (150% of the planned life --- which looks like almost criminal; but
I can't judge; I am not a nuclear expert)

~~~
Tharkun
Are you referring to the ailing Belgian reactors? The ones with the cracks,
the mysterious sabotage and the endless string of non-critical malfunctions?
The ones that are currently offline until the end of the year for maintenance?

~~~
wiz21c
I am.

------
olau
Some quotes:

"Global electricity consumption is on track to grow 45 percent by 2040, and
the team’s analysis shows that the exclusion of nuclear from low-carbon
scenarios could cause the average cost of electricity to escalate
dramatically."

Yet, the reason why nuclear is dying in the Western world is cost. Which is
actually admitted in

"The researchers find that changes in reactor construction are needed to usher
in an era of safer, more cost-effective reactors, including proven
construction management practices that can keep nuclear projects on time and
on budget."

So we need to do to changes to arrive at something that's economical? But the
nuclear industry has been trying to do this for years and failed.

Maybe it's just me, but I think a prudent conclusion is that fission is dying
because it's really, really difficult to build something a team of engineers
who are experts in the field consider safe enough to prevent disasters.
Greenpeace et al. has no say in safety designs for reactors as far as I can
tell, that's a red herring.

Some people think that serial production of smaller reactors are key. But then
why didn't the industry have this epiphany many years ago? Instead they're
building larger and larger plants. I remain sceptical.

~~~
roenxi
> Yet, the reason why nuclear is dying in the Western world is cost.

You'll get no argument from me that if the government needs to give cash
handouts then the plant shouldn't go ahead.

That being said, we need to distinguish between the cost of building a plant
that is:

* Safer than what we are currently using (which I'd see as inherent)

* Compliant with government regulations (which I think are often unreasonable and unnecessary)

There is pretty convincing circumstantial evidence that nuclear power is safer
than fossil fuels (eg, less risk in the mining process, less deaths per watt
[1]). There is also evidence that governments response to nuclear accidents
is, if not hysterical, disorganised and overzealous [2].

Now the marginal cost of small increases in safety, once you are under as much
scrutiny as the nuclear industry, is huge. I've worked in safe industry and
the costs were already high. If we'd been held to the same standards as a
nuclear plant we would have gone out of business in a few years.

Nuclear operations are facing a real risk of being held liable for
hypothetical deaths of unknown individuals based on highly uncertain modeling
and theory. They have big up-front costs, and are vulnerable to all sorts of
political attacks. We haven't really shaken the tree to figure out how cost-
effectivly these things can be run with modern control systems and design
software.

[1] [http://i.imgur.com/EkYYLRh.png](http://i.imgur.com/EkYYLRh.png) \- not
really a source, I remember reading this in a fairly well known NYTimes
article though. [2] [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-
radiation-is...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-
isnt-the-real-risk.html?_r=0)

