
How the Dream of America's Nuclear Renaissance Fizzled - _delirium
http://www.npr.org/2017/08/06/541582729/how-the-dream-of-americas-nuclear-renaissance-failed-to-materialize
======
davemp
I've been doing some work for Areva's (large nuclear services company) North
American branch this summer and have had a chance to talk frankly with upper
management / executives about the current state of the industry.

Areva's parent company in France had a problem similar to Westinghouse with
their first gen 3 reactor build. The designs weren't given enough time to
mature, the designs were overly complex, and the contract was negotiated for a
fixed price. He pointed to S. Korea's recent success in building new plants
[1] to show that it can be done. Although the person I was speaking with
seemed much more hopeful for gen 4 reactors than gen 3--at least in the NA
market.

An argument that I thought was convincing was that making an energy plan is
gambling on future breakthroughs and fuel costs. Natural gas is mostly fuel
cost (~80%), so it's a much more volatile of an investment than nuclear which
is mostly the cost of construction and maintenance. [2] It just turns out that
the cost of natural gas is insanely low right now so utilities are not so
interested in nuclear. So keeping energy plans diverse by investing in nuclear
will help to hedge against risk with alternatives.

Another point that's been brought up to me while working at Areva is how
poorly the nuclear industry managed their public image. The actual stake
holders (Westinghouse, Areva, B&W, etc), thought that utilities would manage
the public image of nuclear. Unfortunately for the nuclear industry, utilities
only actually care about generating electricity as cheaply as possible so
nuclear's PR was neglected and steamrolled by coal/wind/solar interests.

Personally, I find it unfortunate that wind/solar proponents decided to throw
nuclear to the wayside. The most realistic clean energy future that I see is
nuclear providing a modest base-load, and solar/wind/misc filling in while
their technology matures.

Overall these points didn't seem like pure corporate propaganda to me, but
keep their sources in mind.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea#R...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea#Reactor_overview)

[2]:
[https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html)

------
klondike_
This is a shame. Nuclear is our only realistic option for zero-carbon
electricity. The planet can't afford to wait for breakthroughs in renewable
energy and grid storage.

------
davidreiss
It fizzled because nuclear doesn't have the PR and lobbying clout of the
fossil and renewable energy industries.

People mistakenly think that climate change/renewable energy group took
money/power from the fossil fuel industry. They didn't. Fossil fuel is just as
strong as ever. The climate change/renewable energy group beat nuclear
industry.

You'll see the renewable energy group take credit for the decline of coal.
Wind/solar did nothing to hurt coal. It was fracking and the natural gas boom
that hurt coal. What renewable has done is lead to the decline of nuclear
industry in europe/germany and in the US.

There is only a limited amount of funding and mind-space. The rise of
renewable energy industry crowded out nuclear. Of course the fukushima
accident didn't help and the media/PR/lobbying war waged by renewable and
fossil fuel industries.

------
DrScump
Even if fission is deemed to have no future, let's see where fusion
technologies go (stellarators and tokamak's).

------
lawrenceyan
Good thing to be honest. Leapfrogging to renewables is far more sustainable in
the long run.

