
Nuclear Power: Game over (2016) [pdf] - perfunctory
http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/personal/dabbott/publications/AQR_abbott2016.pdf
======
allovernow
I don't have time for a point by point refutal right now, and there are some
valid points raised in this document, but in sum this really is just shameful
propaganda which overstates the problems with nuclear and doesn't seem to
acknowledge modern technological developments. The first paragraph of the
conclusion really tells you everything you need to know about the author's
unreasonable bias:

>Nuclear power is a clunky technology borne out of a bygone Cold War era. Its
best days are over and it cannot form a key part of sustainable energy policy.

The waste problem in particular I think is overstated, and costs are
deliberately presented in a way as to appear expensive - neglecting just how
much clean power comes from the "1,000,000 each" dry casks - and it is
disingenuous to even by implicitly equate this with environmental pollution
because this waste is contained and not released into the atmosphere like
other forms of dirty power.

Hit pieces like this are the reason that we are in climate crisis now - when
we could have cheaply and sustainably solved energy needs _decades_ ago with
nuclear, with some marginal risk to civilizations thousands of years into the
future.

~~~
beders
Re the waste problem being overstated:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU)

[https://www.dw.com/en/what-to-do-with-nuclear-
waste/a-167558...](https://www.dw.com/en/what-to-do-with-nuclear-
waste/a-16755844)

Interesting tidbit: "The German Atom Forum, comprised of all German nuclear
power plant operators, intends to pay as little as possible for storage and
rejected shouldering costs for the new site search. In their opinion´”there is
no legal basis" for them to pay and all costs should be "financed by
taxpayers."

Also, how long did it take to clean up after Three Mile Island? (hint: the
cost was estimated at $1b)

Yes, Nuclear power plants for commercial power generation are done for and
rightfully so. Too dangerous, too expensive. Not only building them but de-
constructing them and dealing with the waste.

~~~
boomboomsubban
>Interesting tidbit: ...

The German government had told them that they need to shut down their plants
by 2022. It's not really surprising that they are unwilling to pay for
forcibly closing their business.

>Also, how long did it take to clean up after Three Mile Island? (hint: the
cost was estimated at $1b)

Why does it matter how long the cleanup took? How many dollars of energy did
the other reactor generate over that time.

~~~
beders
To your last point, I'm not sure what you want to say: Nuclear accidents
happen and the cleanup can't be that bad compared to electricity generated?

Imagine we would have used that $1b for renewables? Any idea how much power
THAT would have generated?

It's interesting how the mind of nuclear power proponents work:

Unwilling to see the larger picture, denying of basic facts (like a failure
rate of 1%, brilliant) or the enormous costs being handed to tax payers (on
top of their electricity bill). And down-voting facts they don't like.

~~~
boomboomsubban
>To your last point, I'm not sure what you want to say: Nuclear accidents
happen and the cleanup can't be that bad compared to electricity generated?

No, mostly that blindly mentioning numbers is meaningless, particularly as a
"hint" for how long cleanup took.

>Unwilling to see the larger picture, denying of basic facts (like a failure
rate of 1%, brilliant) or the enormous costs being handed to tax payers (on
top of their electricity bill).

There's no consensus on what the "big picture" is, there is a crisis right now
and the best way to solve it may not be your ideal solution.

I would need to be presented with basic facts to be able to deny them, random
numbers or statistics with no context aren't facts. The government can pay
enormous costs, I generally view that appeal as a scare tactic.

------
staffanj
Around 70% of Australia's electricity is made with coal.

This whole report smells like propaganda to keep it like that under the cover
that renewables are better than nuclear power.

Nuclear is better than coal and if they really want to lower the CO2 emissions
they should replace coal with nuclear power.

[https://www.energy.gov.au/australian-electricity-
generation-...](https://www.energy.gov.au/australian-electricity-generation-
fuel-mix)

Coal is probably still cheaper than Nuclear.

Coal kills a lot of people every year but its not direct so we accept coal.

------
natch
I would prefer decentralized options which help me keep my freedom of choice
about things like cost, property value impacts from perceived or real risks,
sustainability, and individual control of my power sources.

And nuclear consumes a lot of cement in construction, a huge source of carbon
emissions. Many cement plants are fueled by coal — not even coal generated
electricity, but directly by coal on site. Which is more efficient but also
helps hide the problem as it keeps their carbon emissions off the radar as
they are not included in lists and charts of pollution sources focused
typically on power plants.

Also I prefer to limit involvement of megacorp / government partnerships in
decisions about my future liabilities.

So nuclear, while it may be technologically more advanced than it used to be,
is not my cup of tea.

~~~
p_l
Small Modular reactors like SVBR-100 fit your model better - that's 100-600 MW
that is inherently safe (even if you rupture the reactor vessel), doesn't use
much cement (it's mostly metal construction) and is quite small and can be
well distributed.

Main issue is that they consume a lot of bismuth, which unlike lead (other
important ingredient in SVBR-100) doesn't have high production as is.

~~~
natch
Thanks for including the specific model number.

While these may address the cement issue (unless they are further encased) I
don’t think they addressed any of the other issues I mentioned, such as
perceived risks or decentralized control. Having a high energy device bathed
in molten lead and under someone else’s control is not what I would consider
an ideal situation.

~~~
allovernow
What do you think is the risk of such a reactor? They are physically incapable
of runaway criticality and molten lead sounds scary but really isn't anything
particularly dangerous with respect to industrial chemicals. Depending on fuel
choice there also is no risk of proliferation - so worst case a well funded
actor could disassemble such a reactor to extract the fuel for a dirty bomb;
which is a manageable, worthwhile risk, IMO.

~~~
natch
Perceived risk is a real issue. You are not addressing that at all. You are
pretending I only mentioned risk.

I don’t know enough about the tech to say whether the molten lead could be
exposed to the environment due to unforeseen conditions, or what would happen
at that point. But I’ve seen false assertions of safety before, plenty of
times.

