Why no nuclear?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Of the two attempts at bringing new capacity on line that actually broke ground during our “nuclear renaissance”, VC Summer and Vogtle, the first failed entirely leaving all involved bankrupt or close to it, the second is coming online a decade late and $17 billion over budget.

No company is going to take that kind of risk again for a generation or more in the US.

Fair enough.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

People put forward all kinds of stupid infeasible ideas on a regular basis.

Except if it's infeasible, they wouldn't attempt to even put forward the idea. And the links I gave put forward good arguments and examples of doing it too.

It’s absurd in its face.

Not really. What else should be done with the coal plants if the US' dependence on coal powered plants is dropping? Just leave them to rot and ruin?

 

[Desk trauma]

Except if it's infeasible,

The history of the nuclear construction in the US and the unbelievably onerous nature of US nuclear regulatory policy says otherwise.

Not really.

Yes, really.

What else should be done with the coal plants if the US' dependence on coal powered plants is dropping? Just leave them to rot and ruin?

Yes. Old coal generating capacity is being left to peaceably decay, or be sold for scrap metal, with new more efficient, cleaner gas fired plants replacing them often on the same property. Why throw billions down a rat hole on a fool’s errand?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The history of the nuclear construction in the US and the unbelievably onerous nature of US nuclear regulatory policy says otherwise.

Because US politics regarding power is still very firmly in the grip of the oil companies who do not want to lose their monopoly over it. Just because the politics are against it, does not mean that the idea is infeasible.

Yes, really.

Not really. Especially since there are reactors in development that can operate on smaller scales and with less focus solely on large water supplies. Anything that gives us better energy supplies and also fuel independence is worth a try.

Yes. Old coal generating capacity is being left to peaceably decay, or be sold for scrap metal, with new more efficient, cleaner gas fired plants replacing them often on the same property. Why throw billions down a rat hole on a fool’s errand?

Replacing them with gas fired plants is a good step, even though it produces as much greenhouse gas as coal does. But letting the 'peaceably decay' is an absolute waste. And you don't know it's a fool's errand unless it's tried. If it fails, it fails. If not, then we have a foot in the door (nearly wrote food in the door).

I can definitely tell is just going to be a back and forth with us arguing, which really isn't wholly what the thread is about. It's not a place to argue for or against nuclear, just from me wondering why it's never brought up in discussions about cleaner energy sources.

 

[Nithavela]

This is something I often don't see in discussions on climate change and renewable energy, and while everyone touts solar energy (something which is still not perfect) and electric cars (which are heavily flawed and also require mass mining operations of lithium in Africa, which is a heinous institution in itself), not a single person brings up nuclear energy as a perfectly viable, workable and safe energy source.

Not my experience. Conservatives always bring up nuclear energy. Even people who never cared for climate change in their life are happy to defend nuclear energy in the name of saving the climate.

It is my impression that this is done mostly to disagree with "the left" and that climate change is just the chosen battlefield to "own the libs".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not my experience. Conservatives always bring up nuclear energy. Even people who never cared for climate change in their life are happy to defend nuclear energy in the name of saving the climate.

It is my impression that this is done mostly to disagree with "the left" and that climate change is just the chosen battlefield to "own the libs".

If that is true (I've had something similar, but I've seen a lot of left leaning, from the UK and US, agree that nuclear is a better option), then why would it be that 'the left' is against nuclear energy then? Which is something I have also seen as much as the former: self-proclaimed Leftists saying that nuclear energy is bad.

That... that just seems weird.

 

[sfs]

the fact that the worst disasters, Chernobyl and Fukushima, were only disasters because of a government overreach on cutting costs and a unprecedented natural disaster, in that order.

While I'm not opposed to more nuclear power generation, I feel it's worth pointing out that it's not exactly unusual for governments to overreach on cutting costs and that there is a great deal of historical precedent for the occurrence of unprecedented natural disasters. In other words, that's not a compelling argument.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

While I'm not opposed to more nuclear power generation, I feel it's worth pointing out that it's not exactly unusual for governments to overreach on cutting costs and that there is a great deal of historical precedent for the occurrence of unprecedented natural disasters. In other words, that's not a compelling argument.

I'm tired, so I'm just gonna go with a trite soundbite of, well that's your opinion.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A couple of issues come to mind in these uncertain times...

There's a natural disinclination by governments to invest in expensive large-scale nuclear projects with a timeline of decades and a corresponding lack of contribution to immediate reductions in carbon emissions, when there is a greater political and environmental advantage to cheaper, short-term, small-scale renewable projects that come to fruition within their political lifetime and contribute to emission reductions relatively quickly.

There is also an argument that a few large nuclear plants are less resilient to unexpected problems than a distributed network of relatively small-scale renewable generators. IOW, if a nuclear plant goes offline for whatever reason, it's likely to be a bigger problem than if a solar array or wind farm goes offline. This can be addressed by small modular nuclear reactors, but again, there's a decades-long lead time to get them into operation.

Last I heard, the overall carbon emissions from nuclear are somewhat lower than current renewables, but renewables are more attractive on price per MWh and ease of implementation.

 

[Aussie Pete]

This is something I often don't see in discussions on climate change and renewable energy, and while everyone touts solar energy (something which is still not perfect) and electric cars (which are heavily flawed and also require mass mining operations of lithium in Africa, which is a heinous institution in itself), not a single person brings up nuclear energy as a perfectly viable, workable and safe energy source.

Why?

Out of all the 'burnable' fuel sources (yes, uranium fuel does not 'burn' but super-heats the water to produce steam), it is the most cost effective in energy output to tonnage, with 44 MILLION kilowatt-hours of energy being produce for a single tonne of uranium, compared to coal which would require the burning of 20,000 tonnes, or natural gas, which need 8.5 million cubic metres, to reach the same output.

France has been using nuclear power since the 80's, so much so that it is now the main source of energy in the power grid, and enough is produced that they can export excess energy.

And yes, while the elephant in the room for nuclear energy is the horrible nature of the disasters of things that can go wrong with them, we can again look to France for how safe it can be done when it is treated with the respect such a dangerous fuel source is needed. France's worst nuclear incidents have all been down to freak accidents involving equipment suddenly failing, as technology is not perfect and will happen, to environmental problems such as freak floods and ice causing pipes to break.

So... why is nuclear energy never brought up in discussions on alternatives to fossil fuels? Why is it dominated, especially on here, with solar and wind?

It's either stupidity or a deliberate ploy to impoverish people. Poor people don't buy much, so they have less environmental impact - or so the theory goes. In fact, it is the reverse. The really poor are too busy surviving to care about the environment. Far more people have died from the cola industry, directly or indirectly, than nuclear power. The environmental zealots will never accept this truth and would rather coal than uranium. For example, Germany shut down all its nuclear power and was compelled to reactivate coal fired power stations.

Wind and solar are relatively uncontroversial. They are also not suitable for base load. The world waits breathlessly for nuclear fusion. We are still nowhere near practical fusion power. Meanwhile, people freeze to death in winter and die from heatstroke in summer. All for a good cause. Those who fly to climate conferences first class or in their private jets can rest easy that they are saving the world from itself.