I agree, the lack of nuclear development is frustrating. It’s not perfect, but if you’re concerned about global warming then it’s the best alternative we have today.
I thought the cost of Nuclear were one of the big issues? I mean why spend all that money building Nuclear plants when oil/coal, and now ‘green’ energy is cheaper? In the uk we are having a current issue based on this problem, with EDF (the french electicity company) trying to pause their new nuclear plant construction due to costs.
Safety also is a concern and at the front of most discussions about nuclear currently, the immediate physical issue as in Fukishima/Chernobyl, and disposal of waste issues, not everyone has vast tracks of land to bury waste in, and we can’t just rely on dumping it in the seas of Africa (in that failed state). Also in a world going terrorism mad, just how safe or costly to protect are our nuclear power stations going to be?
Sadly it’s not only the American left. Here the left also is irrationally anti-nuclear.
Cost is the prime reason why new nuclear plants are not built in the US. A lot of those costs come from safety regulations of course, but the idea of nuclear safety is not specifically some left wing bugaboo. The environmental left wing is not a big impediment to nuclear construction at all. If the government decided to put a national effort into constructing nuclear plants, they could (and imho should) do so, however the low cost of coal/oil/gas simply makes that option unattractive, and a Republican administration would be no different.
Eh, the left is most certainly a larger source of anti-nuclear stuff. While somewhat outdated, this pew poll showed that while 65% of Republicans supported building new nuclear plants, only 45% of Democrats did. I’d hope that both of these numbers have increased in the past 5 years, but I don’t know if they did.
In many studies, nuclear comes out cheaper than virtually all renewable sources, even including things like the insurance and fuel reprocessing costs. AND it’s actually able to produce consistent baseline power, something which virtually none of the other renewables can do. And yet we are effectively not pursuing it at all.
In the long run, but unfortunately in a substantially longer run than most investors are willing to contemplate.
It would need to be a national effort. The free market will not build nuclear plants as long as coal/oil/gas is cheaper in the short term (~10 years).
I agree, it needs to be a national effort. But there is a lot of irrational fear of it, mostly from the left at this point.
But the flip side of that is that the right doesn’t really CARE about transitioning off of carbon based fuel, so we’re at a point where one side recognizes a problem, but only the other side is willing to accept the solution. So neither side is pushing for what is the clear solution to the problem at hand.
I would get fully behind nuclear if:
1: we all just got along better
2: after 1 this would enable a full united effort to push beyond the bounds of our planet
3: Then we could simply ‘eject’ all the nuclear waste into the sun or something (assuming that is a safe thing to do!?)
Until step 1 is arrived at, i just find the notion of nuclear too unsafe (for all the many myriad reasons, Trump being president of the usa fairly high on the list of concerns).
In the meantime some more data on the sea-rise coming all our way:
‘New model shows Antarctica alone could raise sea level a metre by 2100’:
It’s obvious that a warming climate will mean less glacial ice and higher sea level, but putting a precise number on these things is another matter. The landscapes concealed beneath the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are complex in hugely important ways. The interplay of ocean currents, which deliver warmer water to eat away at the underside of floating ice shelves, also varies regionally and even locally. And the ice itself is a dynamic thing, flowing in response to changes at the coastal edges.
So while we use measurements in the present and records from the past to forecast the future, we’re stuck with scientific uncertainty, which means we need the language of risk analysis to discuss things sensibly. What is the possible range of sea level rise? And what are the probabilities for different parts of this range?
While some work in this regard has already been done, we’re continually sharpening those assessments. As data and knowledge accumulate, our models of the ice sheets become more reliable guides to the future.
Last year, researchers published a study that added two key physical processes to an ice sheet model. First, they added the ability of meltwater to fill up crevasses in the ice until the pressure at the bottom of the crevasse is so great the ice breaks apart. Second, the new model accounted for the fact that the cliff of ice at the front of a glacier can’t hold itself up if it grows beyond a certain height. Together, these processes greatly accelerated the rate at which floating ice shelves could disappear and destabilize the rest of the glacier.
The researchers used the model to simulate a time during the Pliocene period when global sea level was as much as 20 meters higher than it is today. Other models were unable to get ocean levels that high without cranking up the heat to temperatures far above the warmth of the Pliocene climate. But with these added processes, the researchers got 17 meters (rather than several) of sea level rise from the melting of Antarctic ice.
Now, Penn State’s David Pollard and University of Massachusetts Amherst researcher Rob DeConto have applied an updated version of that model to the all-important question of Antarctica’s future. They simulated Antarctica’s ice out to the year 2500 for three of the common greenhouse gas emissions scenarios: the business-as-usual growth scenario that produces roughly 4 degrees Celsius of global warming this century, an extreme mitigation scenario that keeps warming well below 2 degrees Celsius, and an intermediate scenario.
In that lowest emissions scenario, Antarctica looks pretty much the same at the end of this century. But in the high emissions scenario, things get, well, interesting. Ice loss kicks into high gear around the middle of this century, resulting in almost 80 centimeters of global sea level rise by 2100. Remember, that’s for Antarctica alone. For reference, the conservative estimates for total sea level rise from all sources in the latest IPCC report called for 50 to 100 centimeters by 2100, with Antarctica contributing very little of that.
Moving beyond this century, the melt rate continues to accelerate, with Antarctica’s contribution to sea level rise growing to more than 4 centimeters per year. That’s a full meter of extra ocean every 25 years. The vulnerable West Antarctic Ice Sheet, much of which lies in bedrock basins that dip below sea level, falls apart over a couple of centuries. And even with atmospheric CO2 stabilizing around the year 2300, Antarctica raises sea level by over 12 meters before the year 2500.
We need snorkels, probably more handy than the dingy (by 2500 certainly).
Irrational fear is not preventing nuclear plant construction, it’s a cost/risk/effort vs reward issue.
Exactly. If Obama truly believed that climate change was the most serious threat we are facing, he’d be pushing nuclear.
I am a big fan of renewables like solar. As some of you know, and I will often bring up in a debate, I made the considerable investment to build a 20KW solar array at my home so that I am a net generator of power (my car is a Chevy Volt). But it’s not currently viable (and neither is wind).
Nuclear is the only viable alternative to fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. 2/3rd of our CO2 emissions come from power generation and transportation (though transportation includes ships which are really awful).
If the government really cared, they’d be fast-tracking nuclear power plants and fuel cells (not for cars but for shipping). Think how much Obama could have done over the past 8 years on that.
Instead, he uses the issue for pork projects and encouraging nonsense like carbon credits.
Yeah. I’m sure you can find people who have an irrational fear but most people have a very rational fear of a history of massive cost overruns, local power markets changing the profit equation by the time the plant is actually in operation, the future inflexibility to ramp power up and down with demand and market changes, the infinite political punting on dealing with waste. Even with 100% loan guarantees we can’t convince private companies to build plants right now, it’s a hard sell to investors.
I personally think the government should just shove through at least a few more modern plants – if nothing else, it keeps the working knowledge of this industry from going away. But I don’t think they should do more than that if the markets don’t like it.
I’m sure I’ve said this before, probably in this thread, but the government needs to shove through long distance power markets and transmission. This is a political mess rather than a technical mess. That improves the situation for all power sources. For nuclear it means you can build the plant itself in localities willing to build a plant rather than just in the power market it wants to sell for. For wind and solar the advantage is obvious, you can build them in places where it’s most windy and sunny. Currently these places are really far away from the big power markets. And the average power production over the state of the country as a whole is vastly more stable with long distance transmission.
Or he believes that it would politically be a non-starter, and chooses to spend his political capital elsewhere where we might see some long term benefit.
It is disappointing that nobody in power ever even really pays lip service to nuclear though. If it was mentioned at every opportunity, maybe in another 10 years it would have worn down people’s irrational fear response a bit via repetition.
If it is simply a cost issue, then why are we investing in renewables with significantly higher costs?
Perhaps you could explain in more detail the cost issues that you feel are prohibiting the construction of new plants.
Well in the US at least the costs are not significantly higher for renewables; hydro, solar and wind power are all cheaper to set up and cheaper to run (as per these estimates).
Nuclear power requires a huge capital outlay to get going. Yes once up and running (hopefully reliably, another problem that has plagued nuclear power generation) nuclear power is very cheap and competitive but it takes a super long time to recoup those costs and few investors are interested in the high risk of cost overruns and construction delays sending their break even point decades into the future.
Perhaps you could explain in more detail the cost issues that you feel are prohibiting the construction of new plants.
Here’s a very pro-nuclear source that has quite a lot of cost information.
One of the other problems is that you can’t really build a small nuclear power plant for lower cost, whereas you can have small solar and wind farms and even hydro power projects can be more or less ambitious. So for Nuclear you are stuck with that enormous set up cost pretty much no matter what.
Nuclear power is important but why would investors go for it when literally every other option is cheaper and less risky?
That first source is great, it’ll take a while for me to read through it. Thanks for posting it. I’m interested to see how the estimates for the operating costs were established.
One thing to bear in mind though for the solar and wind estimates, is that they likely don’t include the cost of energy storage, which is required to actually be a base power technology. Currently, i believe that when storage is included, it dramatically increases the costs for those technologies.
Hydroelectric is always cheap, but has obvious limitations based on geography.
In terms of the ability to build small plants, this is certainly the case, but it’s also kind of moot in many cases, because there are plenty of places which need large amounts of power.
California, for instance, continually had power shortages, and has to import much of its power from other states. It could definitely benefit from building nuclear plants to feed it’s large metoclopramide areas. But they made it illegal to build plants in their state since the 70s.
‘Rapid decline of coal use leads to drop in UK emissions’:
Plummeting coal use in 2015 led to a fall of 4% in the UK’s annual carbon dioxide emissions, according to government energy statistics published on Thursday. Coal is now burning at its lowest level in at least 150 years.
The closing of old polluting coal-power stations and the rapid rise in renewable energy meant coal consumption fell by 22% compared to 2014, the biggest drop ever seen outside of miners’ strikes, according to analysts at Carbon Brief. Production of coal in the UK also fell to a new record low, dropping by 27% due to mines closing.
The rapid decline in coal use is continuing in 2016, with four more stations closed in the last fortnight, including Longannet, Ferrybridge and Eggborough, leaving six operational. The government has pledged to close all coal plants by 2025 to help meet climate change targets.
The future of the large new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset is also in serious doubt, leading to concerns about energy security.
But experts said coal plant closures would not lead to the lights going out. “We have seen at least five years of “lights out” headlines, so far without so much as a flicker caused by insufficient capacity,” said Prof Michael Grubb, at University College London. “Despite tight margins, extreme weather is far more likely to cause any household disconnections than insufficient generating capacity.”
“Closure of these coal plants is both expected and necessary,” said Jonathan Gaventa, director of thinktank E3G. “The UK has plenty of options to cover the loss of coal-fired power through energy efficiency, renewables, interconnection with other countries and smart demand. This combination can deliver low-cost electricity reliably and quickly.”
Renewable electricity generation surged in 2015, rising by 29%, allowing it to claim a record 25% share of all electricity. Most of this came from wind power and bioenergy, the latter being boosted by the continued conversion of Drax - once the UK’s biggest coal plant - to burning wood pellets.
Solar power increased by 50% in 2015 to make up 9% of all renewable electricity. The government has been repeatedly criticised for cutting support for renewable energy and energy efficiency programmes.
“If anything is to blame for tight margins, it’s previous governments’ history of incoherent energy policy,” said Paul Massara, former CEO of “big six” energy company RWE npower. “Investors need long-term clarity on policy, and they simply have not been getting it.”
“Look outside the UK and it’s clear that the direction of travel in is only in one direction, towards primarily low-carbon, flexible, smart energy systems,” said Andrew Garrad, senior consultant at DNV GL energy. “It’s been accelerated by the Paris climate agreement, and Britain is by no means ahead of the pack in this transition.”
The share of electricity generated by gas remained unchanged at 30% while nuclear’s share rose by two percentage points to 21%. The energy used by transport rose, which the government said was probably due to lower petrol prices.
Oil production in the UK was 13% higher than in 2014 and gas production 8% higher, both bucking the trend of steady decline seen since the peaks seen in 1999 and 2000 respectively. The UK is the only G7 country increasing fossil fuel subsidies, according to a report in November.
I was skimming the link from Soapyfrog here and I saw the section on pumped hydro storage. Basically during time of low demand power is used to pump water up hill, and in times of high demand it’s a conventional hydroelectric plant.
I’ve read about it before and mostly forgot about it. So I scrolled up to the top and the costs are also interesting - capital comes in around nuclear, off-shore wind, and solar-thermal. But O & M costs are much, much lower than all three of those, in fact almost the lowest of all save conventional hydro and natural gas, lower than coal even.
There are probably still limited sites, but a lot less limited than conventional hydropower. It could serve an ideal purpose in terms of solar wind intermittent supply.
Yeah, it’s been an idea for a long while now. Hell, some dude made a really cheap, primitive version which is basically a cheap generator with a weight on a spool of line. A person lifts the weight up, and then releases it, and over time it extends itself, powering a generator that can drive a lightbulb for a few hours as the line extends. It was designed to provide electric light to remote, impoverished areas like sections of africa.
The issue with hydro storage for things like solar power, is that the transfer of energy is not perfect. You bleed power in the efficiency losses driving the pump, the water flowing through the pipes, and then lose more energy in the efficiency losses of the hydroelectric generator. Plus the added maintenance costs of maintaining what is essentially a hydroelectric dam and pump system.
It’s definitely a feasible idea, but when sources like solar are already fighting an uphill battle in terms of efficiency, taxing that efficiency further with the storage mechanism hurts the bottom line.
You don’t need much storage if you have a large enough power market even with a hypothetical mostly wind and solar setup. This is because those power sources are decorrelated – it’s generally windy when it’s not sunny and vice versa, and because weather tends to travel in bands, so as you increase the size of your power area you get way more consistency. You can use past weather data to simulate what you need where, and how much interconnection you need, to get whatever level of consistency you want. Generally anomolous gaps are made up for with natural gas which is very good at quickly turning on and off. And the plants already exist all over the country.
Actually, it’s windy pretty much all the time wherever you set up wind turbines. There is no correlation between sunshine and wind.