
Only Nuclear Energy Can Save the Planet - jseliger
https://www.wsj.com/articles/only-nuclear-energy-can-save-the-planet-11547225861
======
pl-94
A good benchmark for nuclear vs wind turbine is France (2nd country with the
most installed nuclear power) and Danemark (Can run almost entirely on wind
turbines). Well, France is producing about a factor of 2 or 3 less CO2 than
Danemark.

Another important point. France is producing still far too much CO2 because
nuclear is just about 20% of its energy consumption.

So let's not focus on electricity, but let's stop using fuel for
transportation and gas for heating.

~~~
gralx
Personal transportation is one thing, but the figures for overseas shipping,
airplane exhaust, and animal farming constitute well over 30% of total GHG
emissions. It's scary. Nevertheless, eliminating fossil fuels in personal
transportation (about 13%) is a necessary step.

Another benchmark: Canada's largest province, Ontario, gets 60% of its
electricity from nuclear. It has more than twice the population of Denmark,
and one-fifth that of France.

EDIT: I misunderstood. I see now you were comparing a nuclear-dominant country
with a wind-dominant one.

~~~
pl-94
Airplane is just 2% of world CO2 emissions. It makes sense of course to reduce
it, but at the world scale, farming and coal are the real burden!

------
adrianN
Building nuclear reactors takes a long time. At this point it's probably too
late to start without pursuing many different strategies to reduce our carbon
output. I don't think we have enough time left for a painless transition to
carbon neutrality. If we had started in earnest when it was first clear that
global heating is happening, so forty years ago, we would have been able to
switch to alternative power sources with a lot less economic impact. But by
now only radical changes to our way of life can limit (not prevent!) global
heating. The longer we wait, the larger the risk that we hit some
nonlinearities that our climate models have failed to take into account.

~~~
bluthru
In the US it takes about 14 years for a new fission plant. You can make a lot
of PV panels, wind turbines, and storage in that amount of time. You will also
get economies of scale benefits and technology improvements.

~~~
ekianjo
You should compare all aspects. How much land it uses, how much energy it
produces over 50 years, how dirty is the manufacturing process (solar panels
involve extremely toxic materials to be made) etc... Its not black and white.

~~~
adrianN
Rooftop solar doesn't use any additional land and the US has vast tracks of
mostly uninhabited deserts.

I would be very interested in a comparison between solar and nuclear regarding
their manufacturing. It's not like nuclear fuel pellets grow on trees either.
Do you have any sources perhaps?

~~~
mimixco
Helen Caldicott's book (linked above) has quite a bit about this. One aspect
of nuclear that's never brought up is that the mining process is carbon-
intensive (all gas powered machines) and very dirty. It pollutes the
surrounding environment terribly. The entire process of producing uranium
pellets is really toxic and unsafe.

Another aspect that's never counted in the costs of nuclear power is
_decommissioning_. This gets passed onto the consumer in the form of rate
hikes -- after the plant has been turned off! There has never been a real
assessment of the costs of nuclear power that includes all these factors.

~~~
ekianjo
> One aspect of nuclear that's never brought up is that the mining process is
> carbon-intensive (all gas powered machines)

So is the process of making solar panels: there's so solar powered machine
manufacturing the solar panels after all! However I would wage the ratio of
carbon consumption over the lifetime of a nuclear plant is extremely favorable
compared to the lifetime energy output.

> in the costs of nuclear power is decommissioning

How about the costs of recycling/destruction of solar panels? They don't last
forever (far from that) and you also need to take in account that the cost of
solar panels (already heavily subsidized in many countries) does not include
that kind of things either. As for decommissioning nuclear plants, it's not
"unknown" in any way, there are already multiple cases in the US and in Europe
where plants have been stopped and decommissioned and the economic impact can
be estimated and calculated.

------
carboy
The only thing that can save most of humanity is a method that can scrub 100M
metric tons of green houses gases from the upper atmosphere on a yearly basis.

If the earth’s climate were a person it would be 5ft tall, weigh 600lbs and
eat 15,000 calories a day, and the plan to save it would be to have it reduce
its food intake to 12,000 calories a day. We are not fixing anything, the
earth’s climate would just get fatter a little slower.

~~~
beerlord
The solutions are already in front of us.

Solar, wind and gas for electricity. No more coal. Technology already exists.
Side effect: cleaner air.

Electric cars and trucks for transport. Technology already exists. Side
effect: cleaner air and better cars.

No more beef. Pork, chicken, insects and plants instead. Technology already
exists (has for thousands of years). Side effect: less water use, healthier
diets.

Mostly these things would come faster with a broad enough carbon tax, instead
they are coming slowly. I'm completely certain that we could do all of the
above in 5 years.

At most the above would entail minor inconveniences for the average person. It
just takes the political will to place a minor inconvenience on a population
whom you hope will still vote for you.

~~~
KozmoNau7
>"It just takes the political will to place a minor inconvenience on a
population whom you hope will still vote for you."

And this is why the future is looking so grim, unless we can somehow convince
the population at large to accept this inconvenience.

The public tends to vote for people who _decrease_ inconvenience, and shun
those who propose to increase it.

How can we change the minds of millions/billions of people away from that
mindset?

~~~
hackeraccount
It's a minor inconvenience to you - because you'd want those things to happen
even if there was climate change was not a thing.

It would be as if someone suggested saying a prayer before going to bed would
save the world. What's the problem, it's a 2 minute prayer? And yet a large
number of people would be up in arms about it.

I understand that you're shouting "Science" before telling people how to live
their lives. Hey, maybe it will work. But it's profoundly political and even
if they don't articulate it as such that's how people will see it.

~~~
KozmoNau7
I'm not telling people how to live their lives. I'm saying that in order to
not fuck up the environment even more than we already have, there will need to
be massive changes to the way we live our lives, and that we'll need to accept
a level of inconvenience that a lot of people won't be comfortable with.

And yes, it is political, because the only way we'll be able to counteract
climate change is by concerted, collective political effort.

------
33a
Speaking as someone who lives off grid: solar technology today is more than
good enough to solve this problem, but people will have to adjust their
lifestyle to consume less energy. Switching to a finite off grid battery bank
it's remarkable how quickly you adapt to just doing less energy intensive
stuff.

~~~
AmericanChopper
Personal solar installations are the least efficient and least reliable form
of renewable energy. It’s great for people like you who are really motivated
to do it, but telling people to demand less energy is not a solution to the
worlds energy demands. I highly question how responsible it is to promote such
a patently unviable solution as being a realistic way to meet global energy
demands.

~~~
hakfoo
It does have two appeals though:

1\. Decentralized generation may be good for the network. Even if we have
large utility-owned solar plants, it would be better if you can put a few
hundred square metres in each neighbourhood, rather than 500 square kilometres
together in the middle of nowhere. Reduced waste of energy from transmission-
wire resistance, and less load on old/fragile parts of the grid if most of the
current is being drawn from a nearby solar farm.

2\. A way for consumers to hedge on electricity prices. From a financial
perspective, there's not a big difference between "You get this 20-year
lease/financing for a 5kW solar setup for $80 per month" and "You're
contracting for 900 kilowatthours per month for the next 20 years, at a fixed
rate of about 9 cents per kilowatthour, regardless of inflation or rate
hikes."

~~~
AmericanChopper
It’s appealing for lots of reasons. Consuming clean energy that the sun freely
deposits on your roof is a remarkably appealing idea. But sadly it does not
appeal as a realistic solution to energy demands.

------
Meekro
Bill Gates gave an interesting TED talk on this subject[1]. He said that in
terms of the real politics, the only way to move to 100% renewable energy is
to make it cheaper than fossil fuels so the naysayers have no reason to
object. To that end, he has been investing heavily in TerraPower, a company
developing a new kind of nuclear reactor that promises to be much safer and
use the depleted uranium from other power plants as fuel.

Unfortunately, TerraPower recently received a major setback. It took them 10
years to secure a deal with the Chinese government to build one of their
prototype power plants there, and now the Trump administration's aggressive
stance toward China has killed that deal. Hopefully they'll be able to find
another arrangement before they run out of funding.

[1]
[https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates?language=en#t-814991](https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates?language=en#t-814991)

~~~
acqq
[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542686/terrapower-
quietly...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542686/terrapower-quietly-
explores-new-nuclear-reactor-strategy/)

„six years after it was founded, TerraPower has not yet produced a working
prototype. Last week, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, the
company revealed that it is now pursuing a different advanced reactor concept:
a molten chloride reactor“

That was 2016. Any improvements since?

------
Graham67
There are 3 possibilities: we go extinct we lose civilisation, we do just
fine. Science does not us 30 years, it gives us 12, nowhere near enough to
build nukes. With the loss of coordinated civilisation, whatever spent fuel
pools, will dry up and catch fire. Spent fuel needs 3 decades onsite before it
can be moved anyway. So to prevent all the SFP's putting their toxic load into
the atmosphere, and killing everything bigger than bacteria, we need to decide
to take an alternative to the scorched earth policy.

~~~
calciphus
To clarify - your argument against nuclear energy is that the world is going
to collapse in 12 years;therefore something with a 30 year investment and
maintenance cliff is foolish? Because it may start post-apocalyptic wasteland
fires?

Also what are SFPs?

------
fromthepeople2
What about:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy#Molten_sa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy#Molten_salt_storage)

[https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=solar+thermal+p...](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=solar+thermal+power)

------
mimixco
Everyone in this post (or any other on HN) that brings up any anti-nuclear
facts gets downvoted and I'm sure this comment will be no exception... but
here goes.

Nuclear is not safe. Every plant has had accidents and leaks. Nuclear power is
uninsurable and no insurance company will touch it. Major accidents like Three
Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima cannot be cleaned up at all -- ever.
Nuclear is not carbon neutral. Mining and processing uranium use lots of
carbon-powered machines. Nuclear waste is a problem still unsolved and, IMHO,
unsolvable. And nuclear is not cost effective so it relies on huge government
subsidies.

Many countries are pulling away from nuclear power for these reasons.

A great resource for anyone interested in some facts about nuclear which are
not widely discussed should check out Helen Caldicott's book, Nuclear Power is
Not The Answer: [https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Power-Answer-Helen-
Caldicott/...](https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Power-Answer-Helen-
Caldicott/dp/1595582134)

~~~
adrianN
Nuclear waste is mostly a political problem. We could build breeder reactors
and burn up 99% of the so-called waste, leaving behind only short lived
isotopes. We don't because of proliferation fears.

I'm also reasonably sure that nuclear still produces a lot less carbon dioxide
than coal or gas fired plants, even if you account for mining operations.

Safety is indeed a problem, especially with the old designs we're running now.
But you have to weigh the risks of localized disasters with the risk of
catastrophic climate change.

The main problem is the high cost of nuclear plants and the long time it takes
to build them. It is entirely unclear whether investing into new plants right
now makes sense, or whether we should rather dump the money into battery
storage. What doesn't make sense though is turning existing nuclear plants
off, as we did for example in Germany, or building new coal plants instead of
new nuclear plants because base-load plants are still necessary.

~~~
mimixco
The reason it's so expensive and time consuming to build plants is precisely
because of the safety issues. This is the elephant in the room when it comes
to costs

------
singularity2001
In its argument against solar the article makes on fundamental mistake: It
does not take into account that prices for solar-panels are falling
exponentially (1/2 every ~6 years).

------
secfirstmd
I visited Chernobyl last month. Nuclear energy is not the future.

~~~
pl-94
Good point. Do you know many people died in Chernobyl? 31 during the accident.
11 since
([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster)).
Do you know many people died every year with fine particles? 2.1 millions.
Nuclear is even competitive with solar panels in terms of death.
([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents))

Death is of course not the real measure. But it gives you a real insight of
the dangerousness.

~~~
rozhok
>11 since

You're wrong. You'd better to reference to following articles:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster)
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_dis...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster#Long-
term_health_effects)

~~~
pl-94
Good to know thanks. It remains an immensely lower level than coal or fuel.

~~~
secfirstmd
Yes thanks I do know how many official deaths there were and I also know that
alternative numbers in the low thousands are still under reported.

We met with a variety of people there and the coal miner deaths alone are in
the thousands. Liquidator deaths are far closer to tens of thousands.

Oh and you think Chernobyl was bad as it was? If the inital coal miners hadn't
been sent down in the first few days you would have been looking a far far far
worse explosion that would have irradiated (and effectively made unihabitable
hundreds of kilometers). So bad the USSR was plannning on the basis it would
have had the radiation effects expected of a 4+ megaton nuclear weapon. Oh and
to top it off they assumed the explosion would have also destroyed and set off
the other still working reactors...

Nuclear is not the answer.

~~~
pl-94
Well comparison of Tchernobyl has its limits also. For sure now coal miners
would not be sent on the core. But also, nowadays, nuclear power is a much
more mature technology. 3rd generation (EPR) are extremely safe: it can resist
to a 8m-height wave or a plane crash!

Anyways, even by accepting a death roll of 4k (the biggest estimate of death
for nuclear power) over 70 years, it has a lower death rate than wind turbines
or PV
([https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-
deathprint-a-price-always-paid/)). Energy has a human price, and nuclear is
definitely not the most costly energy source.

The goal of our generation is to live in a world where coal and fuel are never
used. Coal represents 36% of world CO2 emissions and kills every year several
millions of people. But coal is one the cheapest and most reliable energy
source, while being generally well politically accepted by populations.

To remove coal, when you can't install hydro, you need nuclear. Please don't
tell me wind turbines will save us from coal, because Danemark has enough wind
turbines to run (and a perfect spot for offshore wind turbines) but no real
storage tech, and thus its burns a lot of coal.

------
nicodjimenez
Don’t sleep on space solar power.

~~~
umanwizard
It seems unlikely that we’ll invent that before it’s too late. Nuclear is
feasible today.

~~~
nicodjimenez
Sure, bet against human ingenuity, that's a good bet!

------
listic
Is there a non-paywalled version?

------
natch
Solutions that concentrate control in the hands of a centralized authority? No
thanks.

I prefer solar, which is still highly underutilized and way easier to keep
independent of central control. And wind, and hydro. And I just take the
headline to mean that somebody at the WSJ stands to profit from a (unlikely)
nuclear power resurgence.

BTW for anyone who brings up the problem of the sun not shining at night, that
is a solved problem, with the ongoing advances in and availability of battery
technology.

~~~
bluthru
This is a good point. Local energy co-ops can create their own solar farms.

------
auct
I remember one dude wanted to cover moon with solar systems and then take that
energy to earth with some laser or smth. He said it will require 1trln dollars
but it will cover all people energy needs. I suppose nobody wanted to risk
such money and people with oil business didn't want it to succeed.

Now I think we should diversify and make more nuclear power plant. Also while
it's building think about more ways to make energy. I dunno why scientists
didn't figure out great way to make energy.

