
The Harsh Realities of Energy  - peter123
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_harsh_realities_of_energy/
======
jerf
A transition to nuclear is not fraught with hard technical problems and
apprehensions... it is only fraught with apprehensions.

The problem of overcoming those apprehensions is much easier to solve than
demanding that the unscalable solutions like wind or solar suddenly start
scaling.

Part of what frustrates me about the whole energy discussion is that, frankly,
we _know_ the solutions, it's just that they aren't acceptable for non-
engineering reasons, mostly irrational fears.

(I'm not saying all fission fears are irrational by definition, but most are
irrational. On the internet, this often takes the form of people giving
themselves cover by convincing themselves they are citing technical issues,
but when it is pointed out that those issues already have solutions, their
minds don't change. And most frustrating at all, the reason those solutions
aren't acceptable is simply because Nuclear is Bad. Don't tell me about how to
process waste or how to better store it, I already _know_ Nuclear is Bad and I
don't need to think any more about it...)

(And so help me... if any fusion ever becomes practical and people start
complaining about it being nuclear, I think I will have to punch them.)

~~~
sethg
The problems with nuclear are not so much technical as economic. Moody's
Investor Services, hardly an outfit run by hippie freaks, estimates that a new
nuclear plant will cost over $5,000 per kilowatt to build--twice as much as
solar and four times as much as natural gas. The government is offering
massive subsidies to build nuclear plants and power companies _still_ don't
want to take the plunge.

Source:
[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0901.blake.ht...](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0901.blake.html)

~~~
jerf
Even if it is more expensive, I am inclined to think the nuclear power plant
is far more friendly to the planet than solar, and if you care about carbon
footprints or very-long-term sustainability, it's better than natural gas,
too. (I am not too big on the former, but the latter is important. Going big
on fission buys us a lot of time to develop fusion, which in the end is the
only truly sustainable energy source. When you run out of fusion, you've run
out of the Universe.)

However, I've seen tons of analyses of the costs of nuclear, and I'm inclined
to think that when push comes to shove, nobody _really_ knows how much they
could cost if society wanted them enough to construct them in quantity. How
much of the cost of a plant in the US is defending against absolutely
inevitable litigation, in a process designed to be used by environmentalists
against anything they don't like? How much of the cost is because we refuse to
consider any actually modern design, in much the same way we get stuck on
refusing to consider how to deal with waste because the problem is perceived
to be so big that people's minds just irrationally shut down? How much of the
expense is due to compliance with an outdated regulatory regime that hasn't
been updated for the properties of pebble bed or other modern designs? Why are
China and France able to put them up?

I don't think there's any actual engineering reason that nuclear plants should
be more expensive (per watt) than natural gas or coal, even before fuel price
spikes. (Which will come again... and again... and again...) A given design,
certainly, but across the whole set of safe, modern nuclear designs? I doubt
it. Our thinking on this topic is so deeply 1960s (OMG RADIATION!!1!) that we
are all but incapable of considering the topic rationally in 2010.

~~~
sethg
_How much of the cost of a plant in the US is defending against absolutely
inevitable litigation, in a process designed to be used by environmentalists
against anything they don't like?_

The Price Anderson Act (and similar later laws) limit the maximum liability of
nuclear plant operators. If nuclear power really is as safe as any other kind,
then Congress should repeal those limits.

~~~
jerf
I am talking about endless legal challenges filed _before_ the plant even
begins construction. I can't go over all possible nuclear laws, but if there
are any laws protecting against that sort of liability they sure aren't
working very well. (From what I can see, Price Anderson only affects "nuclear
incidents" after a plant is running; if you can show me that's not true, I'm
listening.)

------
randallsquared
The solution to the problems of wealth is not poverty. Cutting back is only
ever a short-term solution for resource problems; switching to a more abundant
source (or a different resource altogether) is also typically short-term, but
has the advantage that wealth can continue to grow at the astounding rates it
did over the past 200 years, which means our much wealthier selves or
descendants of tomorrow will be better able to solve problems.

Basically, if you can put off hard problems that are essentially technical in
nature, do so.

------
donw
So we cut back, and every other developing country will readily take up the
slack. Basically, this is yet another article telling us to all live in
teepees. I'm still a firm believer that the solution lies in technology -- in
developing more efficient tech, and better ways of generating power to run it.

~~~
Harkins
Check out James Howard Kunstler's book "The Long Emergency". He does a good
job of pointing out the serious inadequacies of alternative tech, futility of
efficiency (given where we are on the Hubbert curve), and points out that's
it's going to be even harder to develop new energy technologies as our current
ones fail.

------
paulhart
Thanks for the link. It's another data point in a line of thinking I'm
currently researching. Unlike donw, I don't believe teepees are the answer
though ;)

