
The real reason to fight nuclear power has nothing to do with health risks - rosser
http://qz.com/94817/the-real-reason-to-fight-nuclear-power-has-nothing-to-do-with-health-risks/
======
SamReidHughes
Okay. Tax coal to compensate for its externalities and then we'll see how the
economics work out.

~~~
schainks
this.

------
NickPollard
Disclaimer: I'm pro-nuclear. I'd happily pay twice as much for my electricity
as I do now if it meant less poisonous hydrocarbons being pumped into the
atmosphere. I'm not in favour of Nuclear because it's sudddenly going to
eliminate energy costs, I'm pro-Nuclear because it means we can have cleaner
air again, and less people dying from coal and gas related pollution.

Factor in human life and the economics make a lot of sense.

~~~
rfvtgb123
RTFA. PV and Wind are cheaper than nuclear. So you can have what you want (no
more people dying from coal pollution) without the immense risks of nuclear
(The article makes very weak point about these being irrelevant. They are
not.)

~~~
mpyne
If you're talking about PV/wind vs. nuclear, you're not really "fighting"
nuclear. Everyone thinks this even after being reminded about energy storage,
the wild fluctuation in capacity factor, etc., and I don't understand why.

------
qznc
I wonder if another kind of costs of wind and solar (and hydro!) is included?
In Germany, we have to spend billions to build additional transmission lines.
Since wind/solar/hydro energy is a lot more unstable in its output, a lot more
energy has to be moved around the country. Also it cannot be produced near the
heavy consumers (e.g. hydro energy from the north sea to heavy industry the
Ruhr area). The instability of output also leads to more activity for coal-
fired power plants, because they can bridge short solar energy lows (nuclear
plants are too slow).

I found that article encouraging that wind/solar/hydro energy might hit break
even, but I am not convinced that we are already at that point.

Polluting nice landscape with windmills is another downside. Although that is
probably not that big of a problem in the US, since you have a lot more
uninhabited space there compared to Germany.

~~~
guelo
FTA: "Yes, the utility industry will need to update the century-old hub-and-
spoke architecture of the grid to accommodate high levels of variable and
distributed renewable power, but that needed to be done anyway. Yes, there are
important questions to be addressed about dispatchability—the degree to which
the power generator can be fired up at will, as needed—voltage regulation,
service level guarantees, and the evolution of utility business models and
regulatory environment, which I have written a series of articles about"

~~~
jacques_chester
> _but that needed to be done anyway_

Why? Hub and spoke is a pretty well-proved model. And I don't see industrial
process plants getting smaller.

------
shin_lao
I think it's impossible to really estimate how much an energy costs, because
you could argue that you need to include the cost of potential accidents or
the incertity of raw materials costs or the cost of not being able to produce
energy when you need it, etc.

For solar, you need sun, for wind, you need wind. The real issue to solve is
being able to store electricity. Once you have that, a lot of issues disapear,
because you can procude when you can, consume when you need.

In the long term I really think nuclear is optimal, after all that's what the
universe chose... In a way, solar energy is fusion based. ;)

~~~
seanmcdirmid
If we could figure out economical nuclear fusion, we wouldn't be arguing right
now. We are always 20 years from figuring it out also.

Once we have fusion, producing hydrogen liquid fuel should be cake.

~~~
hetman
The problem with fusion is that in the form accessible to us here on Earth
(deuterium-tritium), it still creates radioactive waste. It is not the sort of
long lived waste you would see from Uranium based nuclear fission, it is more
comparable to Thorium based fission reactors. In other words we already have a
pretty decent alternative.

The real holy grail would be Hellium 3 fusion, but first we have to figure out
how to import the fuel back to Earth from places like the surface of the Moon
or from Jupiter.

~~~
rfvtgb123
There are no working reactors (not even tested designs) that harness the
potential of thorium. Experimental plants have had _serious_ problems
(edit:)and low power generation from thorium (see for example THTR-300 in
germany; beware of the english wikipedia page, it is incomplete). So... come
up with a safe design for a thorium reactor? (Edit2:) Until then, you might as
well say fusion. Anyway, none of this is a reason to keep classic LWRs going.

~~~
dsego
What about the liquid fluoride thorium reactors? There's been some hype about
these recently:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbyr7jZOllI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbyr7jZOllI)

~~~
rfvtgb123
This is just molten salt reactors all over again. They have disastrous
security problems. Basically the salt eats away metal parts of the reactor,
the graphite moderators are flammable and large parts of the reactor become
radioactive because they catch neutrons which makes repair, maintenance and
deconstruction almost impossible.

(edit:) I forgot about loss of fuel solubility events and the unsolved problem
of tritium retention.

(edit:) It's interesting how the english wikipedia pages miss all the details
on the failed projects in this field.

~~~
dsego
Strange, Kirk Sorensen (the guy in the video) seems very sure that these are
much safer then any other alternatives. They don't have to be pressurised and
water-cooled. Instead there's passive security with a frozen plug and a drain
tank. Here's a longer documentary with lots of details (about 2 hours)
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31HEijtqF5I](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31HEijtqF5I)

------
andy_boot
I find energy generation a really difficult topic.

I really want to remain unbiased and reach my own conclusions based on solid
data but there seem to be so many reports and cost estimates that come to
opposing views it makes it very difficult to do that without spending a long
time in research. Hence I worry that even analytical people seem to give up
and choose what 'feels right' to them.

Its like the global warming debate all over again.

~~~
jacques_chester
Normally, if you face a really complicated economic optimisation problem, you
can cheat a "good enough" answer by seeing what the market has come to favour.

But the energy market is a very political market. So there's really no way to
get a good feel for it any more. As I said elsewhere, for the medium term I
see gas winning. It's "greener" than coal and it's cheaper and more compatible
with existing systems than solar/wind.

------
jongraehl
Reads like propaganda. If it's true that nuclear is just too expensive (and
how would I know?), then all he needs to do is to advocate that operators post
bonds (or pay pretend interest on a state-funded equivalent) for
decommissioning costs.

~~~
gmac
Actually, I'm pretty sure he's spot on.

And on your second point, fine: let's make operators post bonds, and watch as
they scramble _not_ to build new nuclear plants even faster than before.

The general run of things in the UK as I understand it seems to be:

0\. Many billions are invested in public nuclear R&D. Electricity market is
then privatised.

1\. Nobody builds new nuclear (and nobody wants it on their doorstep either,
especially in a country this small).

2\. Government skews market in favour of nuclear by taking on liabilities for
decommissioning (and _de facto_ also disasters, which although rare are
catastrophically expensive).

3\. Operators/investors still aren't sure they can make a profit.

4\. Government skews market further by offering a floor price for nuclear-
generated electricity (additional public subsidy).

5\. Operators/investors are still somewhat uncomfortable regarding risks and
public opinion, so government gets into protracted negotiations to give them
whatever the hell they want.

So nuclear here is essentially being subsidised three ways, and is still
struggling to secure an investor.

~~~
josephlord
Don't forget decades after nuclear power started a long term waste storage
site has not been decided so still needs to be designed, planned, built etc.
before it can be used.

------
dendory
I see a lot of arguments there going against nuclear plants but very little
about alternatives. Of course I'd rather we all use solar panels, but until
that becomes viable on a large scale, we need to move off the coal burning
plants that currently produces almost all our grid's energy.

~~~
rdl
Natural gas is a pretty good option in much of the US (particularly for
peaking), combined with existing nuclear, plus hydro (largely maxed out in the
US), and expanding solar and wind.

Replacing coal with natural gas is a win overall, particularly for pollution
_other_ than CO2.

------
FALCK
Even if nuclear power is to expensive (something I don't agree with. Wind is
still only producing ~1/7 of nuclear power in USA, and is only producing ~1/7
of wind... 2011, numbers but I doubt there have been any miracles since then.

[http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec1_7.pdf](http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec1_7.pdf)

------
hetman
Until we figure out how to make large scale energy storage economical, we are
still going to be stuck with the problem of providing a base-load for the
grid. As far as environmental impact, nuclear fission still seems like the
best option to me to fill that need. If his analysis is correct it certainly
does indicate there's a place for both renewable and nuclear to coëxist in the
short term.

~~~
brazzy
> there's a place for both renewable and nuclear to coëxist in the short term.

Except that there is _absolutely nothing_ short therm about nuclear. If you
build it, you're stuck with it for decades or have to swallow huge write-offs.
And of course the waste stays with you for centuries or millenia.

~~~
hetman
I think we're talking about different periods of time when referring to the
"short term". My short term is probably your medium term.

While there are some technologies to dispose of the waste, such as breeder
reactors, even burying the highly stabilised waste in a small area surely
seems favourable to dumping it over large geographic areas as traditional
fossil fuels do.

It's not like there's a dearth of radioactives in the Earth's crust already.

~~~
welterde
The radioactive elements in fossil fuels is less of a problem than you think,
because a) coal plants, etc. have to filter these out (at least in germany
they do) b) they have short half-times.

And storing the radioactive waste for a few thousand years is by no means an
easy/cheap task.. just look at the two experimental radioactive waste sites in
germany.. both turned out to be a huge disaster in less than 100 years. Also I
am not convinced that breeder reactors help you that much to get rid of
thousands of tons of radioactive reactor assembly.

------
danbruc
To me this article feels so wrong. I couldn't care less if nuclear power is a
bit more expensive than its alternatives if it offered advantages over them.
But there is a single point that makes nuclear power so unattractive - if
something goes seriously wrong, you are really screwed.

~~~
camperman
That depends on the design. Molten salt and pebble bed reactors for example
cannot fail catastrophically - it's physically impossible for either of those
designs to do so.

But I agree with you on the economics. The alternative to not going nuclear
energy is running out of oil or not being able to afford it. The initial
expense is irrelevant in that light.

~~~
welterde
You might want to read up on the AVR reactor (an pebble bed reactor). The
reactor assembly is so radioactive that it will be stored for 60 years first,
before they can safely dismantle it. And as for pebble bed reactors cannot
fail catastrophically.. AVR almost did (water leaked into the He primary
cooling cycle).

~~~
camperman
Damn - that's depressing. Thanks for the heads up. The safety report that I've
now just read on the AVR says:

"A safe operation at hot gas temperatures near to those suitable for process
heat applications can currently not be guaranteed by pebble bed reactors, even
if a gas tight containment is present."

------
spikels
The problem is that the overhyped risks of nuclear power have driven the costs
way up. For decades almost all effort has gone into increasing safety not
reducing costs which utilities have little incentive to control because they
are passed on to customers.

------
nhebb
They're working with current electricity prices, but prices are already slated
to go higher in the next few years in some parts of the US. PJM International
electricity auction prices for parts of the Midwest and Northeast US are shown
here: [http://www.pjm.com/~/media/about-
pjm/newsroom/2013-releases/...](http://www.pjm.com/~/media/about-
pjm/newsroom/2013-releases/20130524-pjm-capacity-auction.ashx)

------
schainks
some good points, and while i haven't read his other articles, i don't think
he grasps the gravity of what "baseline supply" means on the power grid. these
are powerplants that are on 24/7 - _reliably_ \- always supplying ~40% of
energy on the grid. coal, hydro, and natural-gas based facilities do "baseline
load" well, although in many places, natural-gas facilities are used for
spinning reserve, since generation costs (in $/kw) are higher than the coal
and nuclear.

renewables are cool, zero carbon, etc., but NONE of them can generate
reliable, 24/7 power. what we really need is energy storage tech to move
renewable energy generation from when it's available to when it's needed.

i wish we could see more research in alternative nuclear technologies. why is
India the only country trying out thorium reactors? our entire nuclear
infrastructure is based on tech that could use waste fuel to make bombs. time
to move on to a more practical strategy.

------
jacques_chester
Nuclear _is_ very capital intensive. Historically very much so, since a large
amount of the current fleet are all individual designs.

The economics might change when China start stamping them out like a print
factory.

As for wind and solar: once you factor in the costs of transmission, storage
and duplication, they suck too.

Duplication is particularly wasteful. To provide baseload-ish power, you need
multiple installations to cover that different areas receive power at
different times in a stochastic fashion _and_ you need backup plants just in
case your multiple solar farms are shady or the wind stops in multiple places.
Plus, as climate change rolls on, you will need to keep moving the solar farms
and wind farms as distributions of clouds and wind changes.

You know which dog is winning this fight? Natural gas. It's flexible,
relatively quick to build, relatively low risk and gas prices have dropped
like a stone in the past few years thanks to shale and fracking.

Personally I'd like to have lived in the future where the 1970s energy crisis
caused a bootstrapped orbital solar power station industry. Oh well.

~~~
reitzensteinm
> To provide baseload-ish power, you need multiple installations to cover that
> different areas receive power at different times in a stochastic fashion and
> you need backup plants just in case your multiple solar farms are shady or
> the wind stops in multiple places.

Absolutely, and the different areas you need to cover have to be _very_ far
apart, most likely distributed over multiple countries. This is covered in the
excellent Without Hot Air:

[http://www.withouthotair.com/c26/page_187.shtml](http://www.withouthotair.com/c26/page_187.shtml)

"Between October 2006 and February 2007 there were 17 days when the output
from Britain’s 1632 windmills was less than 10% of their capacity. During that
period there were five days when output was less than 5% and one day when it
was only 2%."

So if you build half your capacity in solar and half in wind, you'll find edge
cases where it's night and the wind isn't blowing, and you're suddenly
generating _1%_ of capacity overnight.

This is aggregated over the UK, which is a very small country, but it still
highlights the magnitude of the problem.

There are quite a few potential solutions, none of them good; country scale
storage (a Tesla can power an average American home for more than a day).
Solar thermal, where if you store enough molten salt you can generate at
night. Triaging all power usage with a smart grid, so most stuff just turns
off. A damn near worldwide grid with HVDC. Keep an entire grid worth of fossil
fuel plants in reserve.

But in any case, it's not nearly as simple as matching wind MW for MW with
coal, something which seems to get missed a lot, especially when discussing
Germany.

(I feel like a broken record recommending this book all the time, but it
really is fantastic for hackers interested in energy).

~~~
mohawk
Convert energy to hydrogen, store and distribute via natural gas storage
infrastructure, burn in gas plant when needed. Problem solved.

~~~
jacques_chester
It's been thought of before.

Hydrogen doesn't have the same characteristics as natural gas. It embrittles
most metals, leaks like buggery and is not very dense (ie, it needs to be
heavily compressed).

What does this mean? It means that the existing infrastructure isn't suitable
for hydrogen, it would need to be replaced. Problem not solved.

~~~
mohawk
You can add 5% hydrogen to the natural gas in the german grid at the moment
without changing much infrastructure, up to 15% in the medium term.

Here is a pilot project:

[http://www.eon.com/en/media/news/press-
releases/2013/6/13/po...](http://www.eon.com/en/media/news/press-
releases/2013/6/13/power-to-gas-unit-injects-hydrogen-into-natural-gas-system-
for-f.html)

------
WatchDog
How much could the cost of building nuclear plants be reduced if we were
building them on a larger scale.

It seems to me that the high cost of nuclear plants is largely because no one
is building nuclear plants.

Regulatory requirements and safety overkill probably play a large role too.

------
ben0x539
It can't be allowed to do to the scrolling ~UX~ what this page does...

------
angersock
So, decades-long smear campaigns against nuclear successfully drive up costs,
and lo-and-behold the author complains about the cost. The author also then
goes on to ignore the externalities of solar, happily paid by the Chinese
people on behalf of everyone else. The costs of refitting distribution
infrastructure and whatnot are similarly handwaived.

