And again, lets weigh what you described against the problems that we currently experience with coal ash, global warming, etc. I feel like a lot of the arguments against nuclear are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
In 2016 the WHO estimated that ambient air pollution was responsible for 4.2 million deaths per year. And thatâs not even counting climate change deaths.
How many died because of nuclear power combined? Ten thousand?
Itâs like how people have fear of flying, even though itâs one of the safest ways to travel, only because air plane crashes are such impactful events (pun not intended).
That is a really good comparison to make. Because of the very highly publicized incidents, nuclear power safety is often perceived to be low, when in fact it is safer that alternatives. Much like airline accidents.
The only way I can envision a massive drive to build more reactors is if some future Administration has the stones to declare climate change a national security risk (which the Pentagon already has) and then followup with a national emergency. The nuclear regulatory agency would then have to release streamlined regulations and somehow that administration would then need to authorize the funds, probably 100âs of billions.
Most of the fear of nuclear isnât even based on actual incidents. Very few people know about things like SL-1, given itâs minimal impact on anything (sorry if you are related to one of the 3 guys who died).
Most of the fear is based, literally, on movies. Tons of people, especially from older generations, confuse the plot of âThe China Syndromeâ with TMI. They think that movie actually happened. They also think that the movieâs description of a melt down is what happens, that the nuclear core will burn down through the crust of the earth, to china (lols).
I think the real way that this happens, is for the people who have traditionally been opposed to nuclear power, to pull their heads out of their asses and realize that itâs exactly that opposition which has largely contributed to our current reliance on fossil fuels.
The GND should include a dramatic upscaling of nuclear power, in conjunction with other renewables.
France alreay did this once. In 10 years, they did a massive increase of their nuclear power plants, and made dramatic reductions to their carbon footprint. We can totally do this.
The GOP has traditionally supported nuclear power. If the left wing shifts to also supporting it? Then we can actually do it.
Because we arenât like france, business have to take government loan guarantees (subsidies) and still decide to invest in a 20 year nuclear plant. And it just doesnât happen in the US because there are so many better investments they could make with the same money, even with the loan guarantees. The reasons why nuclear doesnât get built in the US are purely because it just isnât attractive to business.
But also we shouldnât pick a winner in a market. The government should appropriately tax carbon, and weâll see if Nuclear can compete as a low carbon source. Meanwhile all carbon-free tech should get a lot of taxpayer funded subsidized research to lower the cost of all sources. Including stuff like carbon capture for natural gas, etc. Whatever hits, is what gets build.
My guess is that other sources are better (cheaper), combined with natural gas peaking plants that just turn on to fill in the gaps, and a generally expanded electric grid to enable larger power markets (which would also help nuclear: you could build the plant in a community that wants it for the jobs, and sell the power long distance). HVDC lines are great nowadays.
I donât think this concern applies. If a two foot rise in sea levels, or acidification of the oceans are really possible/likely then we arenât talking about the free market. We are talking about an existential threat and we need to deal with it as such. We need every reliable technology available and now. That means nuclear power is the first wave. Itâs a proven tech that we KNOW can meet the power demand. Obviously we should still invest and invest heavily in technologies to replace fission plants. If we are staring mass extinction in the face, why is this even a debate?
Power in our country is actually the easier thing. Itâs industrial production like steel, agriculture, and spreading carbon free tech to the other 84% of the world that is going to be the hard part.
None of them were meltdowns, of course, but a number did leak substantial amounts of radiation into the environment. Less total than coal mining, to be sure, but still some real lapses that caused damage.
But nuclear fission is clearly better than coal once the waste problem is settled. Itâs just that there are serious issues to consider that donât arise for other kinds of power plants, and right now the cost of solar and wind is dropping so rapidly that soon fission may not even be cost-effective anymore.
And the waste problem is still a hot potato and an absolute barrier to progress that no administration has seriously attempted to address for decades.
Iâm going to keep making comments like this until some one listens: Solar and Wind are ready and reliable and cheaper than any other low carbon option. Right now, a watt of nuclear power costs ~3x what a watt of solar/wind power costs. That ratio is only going to get worse for nuclear power in the future (barring next gen technologies). The amount of solar power you can buy for a dollar has been increasing exponentially for the last 6 decades, and seems set to continue to do so for the foreseeable future as research and economies of scale continue to drive its price down. There does seem to be a place for nuclear, but thatâs really only after youâve switched 50% to 80% of your generation to renewables. E.g. once weâve built $5T+ worth of renewables in America. Which we havenât done yet.
Correction:
Solar and Wind are cheaper WHEN THEY CAN BE DEPLOYED.
Thatâs a really critical aspect to the problem that you are missing.
Wind power can only be used in certain areas. The economic viability you are talking about is based upon placement of wind turbines in areas where there are high enough constant wind speeds to provide power. Itâs not a standard cost per megawatt for any turbine anywhere. Due to the nature of the power source, the variability based on location is dramatically higher than you see with traditional power plants.
Likewise, with Solar, you have not only variability based on geographic location, but based on time of day and weather. This is why itâs generally considered unsuitable for baseline power generation, since itâs not cheaper once you include the necessary battery storage to provide for round the clock generation.
In theory, you could work around these kinds of things by transporting power all over the place, but the reality is that our power grid is nowhere near capable of such a feat. Overhauling it would cost immense amounts and take quite a while.
Solar and wind cannot, today, serve the same role as nuclear power.
Yes, I feel the same. Iâm happy to have nuclear provide baseline power, though Iâm skeptical it will happen.
Here is some math I came up with using the the US EPA.
28% of GHG is electricity
67% of electricity GHG is coal
Therefore 19% of GHG in US is coal
Therefore switching coal to natural gas could reduce roughly 10% of total US GHG.
28% of GHG is transportation
55% of transportation GHG is private cars and small trucks used for passenger transport
Therefore 15% of GHG is private cars and trucks.
So in total, to put it in magnitude, switching US coal to natural gas is the same as removing two-thirds of the cars and car-based travel of the entire United States.
In terms of feasibility, GE could probably crunch out the turbines by the end of next year. Certainly within five years. Five years is about when the request for proposals, for a new nuclear power plant, gets first reading.
I think coal is down to 27.4% actually. From 39% in 2014. At least according to wikipedia.
The nice thing about switching to natural gas is that natural plants make great peaking power sources. They can pretty much turn on for a brief period of time and only pay the fuel costs, whereas even other fossil sources like coal canât ramp up and down on such quick timetables so they canât meet that need.
So even if carbon capture never works out you can just make good use of the plants.
Clearly one thing that needs to be done ASAP is phasing out coal immediately.
Great ide⌠oh.
In Australia we have a number of old coal plants that are being phased out by the private power companies with no plans to build new ones. The Liberal party, who are in power (and are the conservative party, itâs not âliberalâ in the US sense of the word), tried pressuring the private companies to keep the old plants open. When they refused, they have been trying to underwrite / subsidise / lend to anyone to build new plants or buy the old ones to keep them open.
When this happened, I finally learnt that opposition to climate change policy is not borne out of an ideological obsession with laissez faire capitalism. Itâs a direct assault on science and reason, partially caused by a generation of religious parents telling their children not to believe in Evolution and that scientists are all liars.
This was a scary sobering article to read this morning:
Some more info about nuclear stuff.
Shellenberger lol. https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/853/exposing-misinformation-michael-shellenberger-and-environmental-progress
FAKE SCIENCE FAKE SCIENCE