The radically moderate solution:
To go big on Nuclear.
It is interesting that going Nuclear has a smaller carbon footprint than setting up renewables.
It may be a good idea, I honestly donāt know, but Sullivanās endorsement makes it seem less likely. He seems to corner the market in wrong.
I mean, this article is typical Sullivan. He says this:
Focus on a non-carbon energy source that is already proven to be technologically feasible, can be quickly scaled up, and can potentially meet all our energy demands.
And then he suggest nuclear, and then says of nuclear this:
The plants take a long time to build, and theyāre difficult to site.
In other words, nuclear can both be scaled up quickly and take a long time to scale up.
On costs, he compares nuclear to the Green New Deal (which is not a fair comparing because thereās much New Deal in the GND that isnāt in nuclear) and then uses a bogus estimate for the GND that has been thoroughly debunked without even mentioning that fact. And he imagines weāll build 61 reactors per year.
Sullivan needs to read a book:
This was an interesting study:
To be fair, safer nuclear power methods exist, but because they are so expensive to research and refine, nobody is doing it. If any future legislation to combat climate change were to help fund research and development of nuclear alternatives, it might have a shot at becoming reality. I havenāt read that book, but based on the excerpt, it seemed like the issue is the industry as it is now, and I think that any future nuclear development would involve a massive restructuring of the entire industry around safety, including better regulation, and investment in new technology and infrastructure around generation IV reactor types.
I watched a PBS special about this, I think it was an episode of Nova, dealing with nuclear incidents and the next generation of nuclear power. It is all exciting, as a lot of the research has been designing the systems to be much more safe, and a massive reduction in waste, as well as waste with half-lifes of a few centuries, rather than a few millenia.
But the problem they brought up, is that there is basically no funding for this. Nobody wants to touch nuclear power because oil and gas are so cheap, and the regulations around nuclear power are in so much flux that nobody wants to invest in it right now, as it is a big gamble.
It is a big ask, but I think to save the planet, we are going to need to do something big.
Nuclear is just not likely to happen. The waste, the cost, and the expertise that goes hand-in-hand with nuclear weapons. And security.
Some studies put natural gas power with carbon capture at or lower cost than nuclear.
I personally benefit as Ontario, Canada is 60% nuclear base-load, and 30% hydro - a great non-CO2 base of electricity. But itās hard to see nuclear gaining much ground.
Iāve gotten my power from nuclear reactors for most of my life.
Yeah, me too (well since moving to Ontario where there is nuclear). But thereās little appetite for the high cost and long procurement, unfortunately. I wish there were, along with some guts to address the waste issue.
@MrGrumpy posted the vox article, please read it. I quote below:
Is nuclear power going to help the United States decarbonize its energy supply and fight climate change?
Probably not.
That is the conclusion of a remarkable new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in early July ā remarkable because it is not written by opponents of nuclear power, as one might expect given the conclusion. The authors are in fact extremely supportive of nuclear and view its loss as a matter of āprofound concernā:
Achieving deep decarbonization of the energy system will require a portfolio of every available technology and strategy we can muster. It should be a source of profound concern for all who care about climate change that, for entirely predictable and resolvable reasons, the United States appears set to virtually lose nuclear power, and thus a wedge of reliable and low-carbon energy, over the next few decades.
Still, despite their evident belief in the need for nuclear power, the researchers are unable to construct a plausible scenario in which it thrives. And itās not for lack of looking ā the paper is a methodical walk through the possibilities for both existing and new nuclear technology. The researchers really want it to work. They just canāt see it happening.
If it costs less than say a certain wall, it seems like we can figure out how to fund it. If we are talking about substantial safety improvements, large reductions in waste and a regulation, real regulation, I might even be on bored with considering it as a viable option. We can certainly afford it, and if private wonāt do it, public can.
Part of the problem of cost isnāt nuclear itselfā¦ We already built a ton of reactors. The cost was not prohibitive.
In China, they built the first AP1000, and it cost about $6B. The one we tried to build in Georgia was cancelled after spending about $9B, and only achieved 40% completion.
There are problems holding us back which are not technological.
The cost isnāt coming down much, if at all. Itāll probably continue to rise. It was looked at as part of the article linked.
In fact, you might think nuclear is expensive because you get a clinically efficient clean and endless supply of power for ever. Itās not like that. Itās so expensive that there is cost cutting at every step of the way, from the toilets to the Chinese steel to the ventilation system in the attic. There has to be, the public and political leadership are already screaming at the insane cost and criticizing every dollar over. Multiple contracts always to the lowest bidder. Look into Hinkley and itās a legacy of inadequate consultation and contractor shoddiness and rework and skipped environmental remediation and poor record keeping all in the name of cost savingsā¦ and it was $23 billion?
Nuclear isnāt expensive because ābureaucracy and regulationsā. Itās expensive because planning, design, site selection, environmental impacts, finance, procurement, construction, materials, insurance, commissioning, maintenance, operations, security, waste management, and decommissioning are all incredibly expensive. Feel free to pick a few of those to sacrifice I suppose :). Also there isnāt a single long-term solution to the waste problem, anywhere, despite 100ās of billions spent.
And how could that be? We built tons of nuclear power plants more than half a century ago. Thereās no reasonable explanation for how it could suddenly need prohibitively expensive now, but was somehow affordable 70 years ago.
We already did it, 70 years ago. And since, we hadā¦ one? nuclear accident? Which had litterally no measurable impact on the environment? And the plant is still functional today?
Hell, Franceās entire energy supply was basically nuclear.
Thatās just no reasonable way that it could somehow be prohibitively expensive now, but wasnāt 70 years ago. The materials havenāt become more scarce. Production of things becomes cheaper over time, not more expensive. We are better at making nuclear reactors now than we were 70 years ago. So why are they more expensive? Nothing else works like that.
The reality is that we have overregulated the processā¦ And Iām not saying that without cause. In saying it because we built so many under simpler regulations, and didnāt have problems.
Other technologies like gas and solar have gotten cheaper. And when you build a nuclear plant the costs are up front so youāre competing against the future cost of those technologies as well, and they still seem to be dropping. Obviously nuclear would look better with a strong carbon tax though.
But thatās not itā¦ Because nuclear plants that we built in the 50ās didnāt cost the equivalent of $25 billion dollars. It wasnāt even close.
Itās not simply that competing technology has become cheaper. Itās that something else has made building nuclear plant more expensive. Dramatically so.
And yet those old Reactors are still running, safely, decades after they were createdā¦ So itās not like we did a crappy job.
And really, nuclear technology has advanced hugely since thenā¦ Because we built tons of reactors since then. Hell, we put them on boats now.
Sorry but things cost more now. Take any element of dozens that need to be worked out to build a nuclear power station - say initial site selection. That was a $30K study in 1950, translating to say $900K today?
A site selection study today would probably be $10-30 million. Itās because the site selection today needs to look at:
-Forestry, wildlife, endangered species, plant, marine, land, insect, migratory patterns, water effluent impacts, downwind impacts. Find an endangered slug and it can delay the whole project four years (seriously)
-Air, noise, traffic, security, haulage routes
-Land values, social impact, housing, retail impact, sight impact, shadow impact
-Fluvial geomorphology (I like that one), hydrology, soil, groundwater
-Community consultation, open houses, design charettes, workshops, stakeholder consultation, First Nations, agencies, public health, conservation authorities, active transportation committees, business improvement associations, community groups
Do you want me to keep going? Ok I willā¦
-local municipal councils, state government, a dozen federal agencies
-evacuation routes, catchment areas, highway capacity analysis of evacuation scenarios
-emergency services (fire, police, ambulance), travel times, hospitals
-archaeology, cultural heritage
-site drainage, contaminated soils
Again, feel free to pick through a half dozen of these to sacrifice, then enjoy your 10-year delay in court for inadequate consultation and appeals.
China doesnāt deal with these things - so move to China, where the government gives you a check for $200 and then builds a nuclear power plant on top of your house.
We havenāt even hired a design consultant yet, by the wayā¦
I felt this was a good read, with a pertinent clip quoted below
An insight into the magnitude of different elements of capital cost was provided by testimony to a Georgia Public Service Commission hearing concerning the Vogtle 3&4 project in June 2014. Here, for Georgia Powerās 45.7% share, the EPC cost was $3.8 billion, owner cost $0.6 billion, and financing cost $1.7 billion (if completed by 2016-17). The cost of possible delayed completion was put at $1.2 million per day. The total cost of the project was expected to be about $14 billion.
The 2016 edition of the World Nuclear Associationās World Nuclear Supply Chain report tabulated two breakdowns in capital costs, by activity and in terms of labour, goods and materials:
Design, architecture, engineering and licensing 5% Project engineering, procurement and construction management 7% Construction and installation works: Nuclear island 28% Conventional island 15% Balance of plant 18% Site development and civil works 20% Transportation 2% Commissioning and first fuel loading 5% Total 100%
Equipment Nuclear steam supply system 12% Electrical and generating equipment 12% Mechanical equipment 16% Instrumentation and control system (including software) 8% Construction materials 12% Labour onsite 25% Project management services 10% Other services 2% First fuel load 3% Total 100%
Dude, you realize that the list you just posted indicates exactly my point. A ton of that is stuff you donāt actually NEED to do. Its stuff that we didnāt do in the past. I mean, ok, so the land is more expensive, but thatās a trivial chunk.
I mean, look at the stuff in the site surveyā¦ Archeology and cultural heritage? In the grand scheme of shit, that aināt really that important.
I mean, sure, maybe you think that stuff is more important than making carbon free energy fast. But thatās the choice you are making.
Because you absolutely could just say, āyou know what? Weāre not gonna really sorry about that crap. This is a serious problem, and there isnāt really anything that big thatās gonna happen from taking a tiny plot of land to build a nuclear plant on.ā
Because, again, we did this beforeā¦ More than half a century ago. And apparently, it worked out fine.
Nuclear is a technology of the 20th century and nothing will bring it back to former āgloryā.
And if you tried to introduce your brand new invention of the automobile today, it would be banned as too dangerous to the public. Rules and expectations for many things are higher today than decades ago. Nuclear power is a tough nut to crack, because there are so many people opposed to it in any form, that they have the power to block new plants just by delaying and slowing construction with lawsuits, etc. Every day of construction delay costs over $1Million.
The plants built in the 70s were designed and tested against the most extreme accident models at the time, which we have since learned are not nearly the most extreme possible failure modes, and there are much more common and more dangerous ones. And the amount of refits and upgrades to safety for existing plants is one reason we canāt build new ones, itās so crazy expensive just to keep up with safety for the ones we have already.
But humans are terrible at understanding risk, even the analytical humans. If you want to make the argument that itās maybe better for humanity to build nuclear plants and statistically suffer a few local nuclear disasters in order to save the planet, you must an actuary or engineer, but no politician or brand manager will ever do that.
Well, in a practical sense, too bad. These studies are built in now, and part of a legal framework for this type of development. The government doesnāt have the authority to break its own laws. Skip cultural heritage and a farmer that owns a nice late 19th century farmstead will be able to appeal the approval. The permit will get revoked and the study will get done, at higher cost and longer delay than if it were done properly in the first place.
In a less practical and more philosophical sense, again too bad. Cultural heritage is important, so is archaeology. That farmstead might be worth preserving. The study you want to skip will tell us something about its history, the people that came before. The study might find that the house can be moved, or that money should be set aside to restore it. Yes it costs money, but so what? We live in a culture that values those things. By skipping it, you quite literally just became the Chinese government that plowed over a historical community and didnāt compensate itās residents enough. Most of us donāt want to live in that place, even if it means we get a clean nuclear power plant.