Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on March 7, 2015
The Bottom Line on Nuclear Energy
Existing nuclear power plants are extremely valuable societal assets. Shutting them down in the absence of compelling economic or technical reasons is folly.
It sometimes feels like this statement is so obvious that it shouldn’t need to be made and yet you don’t have to look far to see governments which appear not to care.
In Europe, Germany and Belgium have implemented arbitrary caps on reactor lifespans as part of their phase-out policies. Green party pressure in Sweden may yet result in tax hikes which make the ongoing operation of nuclear plants there next to impossible. In Spain the Garoña plant closed due to the impact of a new tax law (the government is now in fact seeking to resurrect the plant). Even in France, that champion of nuclear technology, the Hollande government is introducing legislation that would cut the country’s reliance on nuclear energy to 50% of generation by 2025, down from 75% today. If enacted (and as of writing the senate has just rejected the 2025 time frame) this would surely result in early reactor closures.
In the USA, currently cheap natural gas is putting the squeeze on some plants with the retirement of at least two units in recent years being primarily due to ‘economic’ factors and with three others being negatively impacted by these. Ironically, this is happening just as the country has acknowledged the seriousness of climate change with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the process of finalising new rules for power plants to help the country meet carbon emissions targets. The USA, like many others, is heavily subsidising renewables while utilities are becoming increasingly concerned about the lack of diversification in dispatchable capacity. The idea then that reactor closures have taken place on economic grounds needs some qualifying.
Make no mistake. Closing well-performing nuclear plants before it is technically necessary costs society dearly. Anyone who has ever bought an expensive appliance will understand that you aim to squeeze every bit of useful work out of it before letting it go. You maximise the value of your investment. The economics of nuclear generation is dominated by construction and financing, with fuel and operating costs typically lower than fossil. As with renewables such as wind and solar, once you have gotten through the painful period of paying back the initial capital outlay you should have entered a golden period of low-cost power production.
Nuclear plants form the baseline of healthy power systems in countries lucky enough to have them. Their continuous reliable output helps to keep grids going largely irrespective of the weather and stable low production costs reduce consumer price volatility. Replacing them will almost certainly result in extra expense to consumers as adding new capacity incurs both a new capital and operating charge, while the existing nuclear plant need only cover any upgrades and ongoing production costs.
Many in the green movement like to characterise nuclear energy as ‘uneconomic’ but this is absurd when applied in relation to the vast majority of existing plants – not to mention overly-simplistic for new-build (to be the subject of another post). The existing nuclear fleets in Europe and the USA were built decades ago – and almost to a unit were built by the then regulated or state-controlled energy sectors which made this kind of public serving long-term investment possible. These plants are now in their prime, with the vast majority showing clear potential for decades of additional service.
Nuclear subsidies, a taxing question
‘But what about the subsidies to existing nuclear power plants’ – I hear some of you ask. It is true that all forms of electricity generation receive some form of support, or at least benefit from certain market structures, but not all subsidies can be considered equal. For instance, setting conservative annual charges on future liabilities is a far cry from technology-specific feed-in-tariffs, which result in direct and measurable increases to what consumers pay today. Similarly, a contract above the market price that assures grid stability can only be assessed in relation to the costs that would be incurred if the generating unit wasn’t there.
The idea that currently operating nuclear power plants survive on some kind of subsidy drip is a myth. Unfortunately it is a myth that pops up again and again, sometimes in rather official looking documents. Most recently it was reinforced by environmental consultancy Ecofys which produced an interim report for the European Commission on the Subsidies and Costs of EU Energy. In this work it was alleged that the European nuclear industry received (an admittedly comparatively modest) €7 billion in subsidy for the year 2012. At no point do the authors explain what the subsidy is actually composed of, but by referring to the appendices it is clear that a large part consists of funds directed towards the decommissioning of legacy nuclear sites.
The problems with including legacy sites (which consist of the now-closed first generation of nuclear facilities and dedicated clean-up sites owned by government bodies) is that there is no way to mitigate these costs through policy change. They are in effect sunk. Many legacy sites also contain significant liabilities from military programmes. In contrast, it must be noted that currently operating (and all future) power reactors are required to set aside funds for waste and decommissioning over their generating life. These are monitored and frequently updated. Closing plants prematurely in fact only increases the risk that the amounts collected will prove insufficient.
More disappointing is that the Ecofys report fails to mention any of the extraordinary financial benefits which nuclear facilities bring. One striking example is the nuclear-specific taxes that exist throughout EU countries such as Belgium, France, Germany, Sweden and the UK. The exact nature of how these taxes work tends to be complex (also some remain the focus of court disputes) but by our count these raked in some €3 billion in 2012. General taxation brings in even more.
Tax is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to understanding the inherent value to society of nuclear power. Facilities form the economic backbone of the rural communities where they are sited. Each plant directly employs hundreds of well-paid skilled workers and supports thousand more jobs in related sectors. This in regions where such positions are not always so easy to come by. A study conducted into Exelon’s nuclear power plants in Illinois describes how 11 reactors pump some $6 billion into the state’s economy every year.
What this all means is that when you add everything up, operating nuclear facilities pay out far more than they receive in terms government support. The net benefit for operating facilities is from the plant to the public – and especially local communities – rather than the other way round.
All this applies before you even consider the world’s approaching climate deadlines. The most recent IPCC synthesis report tells us that 80% of electricity should be decarbonised by 2050 to have even a chance of keeping the world within 2°C of warming. This is a formidably difficult, not to mention expensive, problem to solve. The logic that would force amortised and essentially zero-carbon nuclear plants to close as we continue to burn through our carbon budget at an ever-escalating rate is beyond dubious.
In case you were wondering just how well nuclear scores in terms of CO2 mitigation, the answer is brilliantly. As France (75% nuclear) and Ontario (60% nuclear) demonstrate, a primary reliance on nuclear energy allows you to eliminate coal from your power supply. Nuclear nixes coal. Period. There is no popular renewable energy option that does this. Some 64 gigatonnes of CO2 has been prevented from entering the Earth’s atmosphere due to influence of nuclear power over its history, not to mention some 1.84 million people have lived longer lives.
Forever young
While certain groups like to colourfully describe long-lived nuclear assets as ‘old’, they are deliberately ignoring the many innovations in nuclear equipment, components and fuel cycle technology which have resulted in improvements to efficiency, sustainability, power output and flexibility. There is most certainly a strong case to be made for ramping up the pace at which new nuclear technology is brought to market, but there is also a tradition of constant innovation that has seen the industry improve performance steadily over 50 years of operation.
It is possible to replace almost every conceivable component in the most common types of nuclear reactor, save for the pressure vessel and containment structure. Plants are renewed continuously and with components which are superior to the originals. It is due partly to this that the industry has been able to increase plant safety steadily over time. In the USA most reactors have been licensed to operate for 60 years and research is now underway to see if there are any showstoppers that would prevent 80.
If nuclear operators can prove the ongoing safety of their plants to the competent regulator, then why would anyone insist that they be closed down? Surely we should be seeking to preserve the clear socio-economic and environmental benefits which these plants provide for as long as possible. Governments need to be aware of these benefits and owe it to their people to value them fairly, based on accurate and unbiased expert information.
The longevity and extraordinary robustness of existing nuclear technology is something that deserves to be appreciated to the fullest. As we grapple with climate change and an uncertain economic outlook the question is – can we really afford to shut plants down?
63 Comments on "The Bottom Line on Nuclear Energy"
dave thompson on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 8:43 am
No mention of the actual costs to decommission a nuke and what is to be done with the radioactive remains left behind. The real costs of nukes as usual go no further then our current generation. The industry loves leaving out the part about what happens after the nukes are no longer making electricity for the oligarchs.
Kenz300 on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 8:46 am
Nuclear —- Too costly and too dangerous………
Nuclear snake oil salesmen need to go to Fukishima and Chernobyl and work on the cleanup. Put some nuclear waste under YOUR bed at night. This scam was promoted as “too cheap to meter” only now we realize that it is too costly to exist.
How much will it cost to clean up Fukishima and when will it be completed? When will the displaced people be able to move back home? TEPCO has a 40 year clean up plan and admits in the plan that some of the technology needed to perform the clean up dies not even exist. Without government support and limits on liability no nuclear plant would ever be built.
How much will it cost to store nuclear waste FOREVER?
There are safer, cleaner and cheaper ways to generate electricity.
Wind, solar, wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste are the future.
Utility-scale Solar Has Another Record Year in 2014
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/12/utility-scale-solar-has-another-record-year-in-2014
Bob Owens on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 8:49 am
Although I am open to the idea of extending the life of energy plants to maximize their benefits, this author paints too rosy a picture. Take plant decommissioning: In Fla we has a nuke plant that is closed that will not start being cleaned up for 60 years! Our regulators thought this was OK. If you have an accident with one of these plants, you only have to look to Japan to see the problems and costs. They are planning on 40 years of cleanup to their plants! No, this tech is too expensive and dangerous to keep running any longer than necessary. Conservation and solar/wind can replace it so lets get a move on.
TemplarMyst on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 9:23 am
I’ll take my usual counterpoint on whether conservation and renewable energy can get us where we need to be, and on the need for not only the extension of nuclear plants but the development of new technologies.
I’ve posted a lot of info on both. I’d refer folks to the most recent TEPCO news article on this site, and the comments, for the details, since things can get a bit redundant.
Makati1 on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 9:46 am
Yep! nukes are good … for what?
“Japan court battles could delay nuclear restarts further”
“More Fukushima evacuees are deciding to stay away for good”
“Most French Nuclear Plants ‘Should Be Shut Down’ Over Drone Threat”
“Exelon-backed bill seeks $2 more a month for nuclear plants”
“Antinuclear activists ordered to remove tents from ministry premises”
““Radioactive Cover-Up” at Fukushima — Experts Believe “Other Sources of Contamination” Are Flowing Into Ocean”
And on and on…
penury on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 9:49 am
Nuclear like GMO foods are not too expensive for the current generation however, they will destroy following generations. The costs will be amazing and result in changes to humans genetically which no one currently living appears to realize or care about. Like all costs to society if we can pass them to the future generations it is all good to us.
TemplarMyst on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 10:08 am
I’ve posted responses to both issues raised by penury and Makati1 in the previously linked comments section.
The costs for decommissioning are built into the fees charged by the operators, and those decommissioning trusts are, for the most part,very well funded and more than adequate to handle the task.
There is scant evidence for the transmission of genetic issues. The National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII Report covers this in depth.
David MacKay provides a Reality Check on Renewables for those interested in a scientific assessment of what it would take to power the world with renewable energy.
Obviously one has to reach ones own conclusions, but I will continue to challenge some of the antinuclear sentiment here. It is not an ideal source, but neither is any other. I think it is the best of the available options.
welch on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 10:26 am
Nuclear is and will continue to be an essential form of energy production.
dave thompson on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 10:39 am
TEMP SEZ:”The costs for decommissioning are built into the fees charged by the operators, and those decommissioning trusts are, for the most part,very well funded and more than adequate to handle the task”. OK look at the $800 million that was not enough to decommission the Zion nuke here in Chicagoland Illinois. AND the spent fuel rods will be left onsite within spiting distance of the great lakes water shed “indefinitely”.
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 10:45 am
Large scale man made energy production is causing irreversible damage to the planet Earth.
As a species we have survived for tens of thousands of years without burning any significant amounts of fossil fuels, and without electricity, which is an extension of fossil fuels exploitation. Of all of the fossil fuelled based electric power generation that we have built, nuclear power generation is the most dangerous and potentially destructive.
We need a source of power generation to cushion the blow of the transition to a vastly reduced energy future. We have far less dangerous options than nuclear power generation. Install a solar system on your home, supplement it with solar hot water, wind, and micro hydro where possible. The transition will only last for decades at most. Fossil fuels are required for industrial activities. When fossil fuels are no longer available, all of the stuff that we power with electricity will not be manufactured any longer.
Apneaman on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 10:54 am
San Onofre Asking Coast Commission to Expand Nuclear Storage Facility
http://timesofsandiego.com/business/2015/02/23/san-onofre-asking-coast-commission-expand-nuclear-storage-facility/
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 10:59 am
One of America’s First Nuclear Plants Leaking Radioactive Waste
In 1989 the Department of Energy assumed responsibility for safely disposing of this waste, which threatens to leak into the bordering Columbia River and affect downstream industry, habitat and human health.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/One-of-Americas-First-Nuclear-Plants-Leaking-Radioactive-Waste.html
Apneaman on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 11:00 am
Nuclear Power Firms Feel Squeeze
Cost overruns, delays plague current projects, clouding development of future reactors
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nuclear-power-firms-feel-squeeze-1425591380
penury on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 11:09 am
TM your opinions are your own and you are welcome to them. However, the facts that exist show that most of them are wrong. Try reading reports from sources outside the U.S.
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 11:11 am
Chernobyl’s nuclear threat returns: Forest fires in Ukraine cause radioactive particles to be released over Europe
According to new research, these fires are causing radioactive caesium in the soil around the nuclear plant to be released into the atmosphere as smoke, which then travels across Eastern Europe.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2945929/Chernobyl-s-nuclear-threat-revived-Forest-fires-Ukraine-cause-radioactive-particles-released-Europe.html
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 11:19 am
The Real Costs of
Cleaning Up Nuclear Waste: A Full Cost Accounting of Cleanup Options for the
West Valley Nuclear Waste Site
Thirty miles south of Buffalo, New York, the West Valley nuclear waste disposal site sits on a plateau slowly but certainly eroding away with time. In the 1960’s, when the site was first procured and Nuclear Fuel Services was granted a contract to begin reprocessing nuclear fuels, the potential dangers were rapidly outweighed by the rampant enthusiasm for nuclear reprocessing infrastructure and the economic prosperity it promised. After nearly a half century, there is no doubt that this decision was a mistake for the region’s safety and health. The six years in which this facility reprocessed nuclear fuel have been dramatically overshadowed by over two decades of fierce debate and impasse about the cleanup of the site and implications for the next decade, century, millennium, and untold years beyond.
https://www.nirs.org/radwaste/decommissioning/wvfcareport1108.pdf
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 11:21 am
Sellafield clean-up costs reach GBP53 billion
The estimated cost of decommissioning and cleaning up the Sellafield site in the UK has increased to GBP53 billion ($81 billion), the National Audit Office (NAO) has noted. The increase has been attributed to a better understanding of the tasks involved.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Sellafield-clean-up-costs-reach-GBP53-billion-0503154.html
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 11:24 am
Nuclear costs Britain a bomb? Cleanup bill reportedly spikes by £6 billion
The estimated cost of decommissioning the UK’s nuclear legacy over the next century has rocketed from £63.8 billion ($104.1 billion) two years ago to £69.8 billion ($113.9 billion) by Sunday, with even more increases predicted in the coming years.
http://rt.com/uk/185800-uk-nuclear-cleanup-cost/
jjhman on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 11:29 am
This whole article reads like a cheap magazine ad. Pure marketing blather. The very notion that today any company or any government could allocate away enough money to “decomission” a nuclear plant, pay for an accident and provide for 1,000 years of monitoring nuclear waste sites is delusion.
When enough engineering and analysis is done to show that a “new” version of molton salt or mini or some other nuclear technology can provide power without the environmental and safety horrors now associated with the current mining, production, operation, accident risk, decomissioning and waste production and storage associated with the current state of the art, I’ll sign up.
If that’s not possible now with near zero interest rates and government suport, as seems evident, it is even less likely in the future as interest rates go up.
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 11:34 am
We don’t have the time, energy, resources, and know how to clean these sites up today. Leaving a legacy such as this for future generations to deal with is completely irresponsible.
We never should have screwed around with things that we do not fully understand.
Nuclear energy. One hell of a way to boil water.
Plantagenet on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 11:43 am
Leaving the economics aside, its problematical to close nuclear power plants they are carbon free energy sources. When Germany closed their nukes they replaced them with coal-fired power plants….and Germany’s carbon footprint greatly expanded. We’ll all pay for that with more global warming in the future.
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 11:54 am
Wrong as usual planter.
Nuclear power plants are not carbon free energy sources. Simplistic thought should not be used to describe complex processes. You have proven that, time and time again.
TemplarMyst on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 12:28 pm
GregT, the fact none of this is simple is why I’m willing to take the opposing side here.
I did say by and large on the decommissioning costs for US plants. It’s not a flawless system. One can Google the US GAO reports on the various funds, their investments, and recommended changes. The point is the nuclear industry planned, in advance, for it’s waste stream. The fact it is having issues is an acceptance of the fact the effort was made and adjustments will have to be made too.
What other energy source has to account for it’s waste stream? What other energy source has set aside funds to deal with it? Coal? Oil? Natural Gas?
Take a look at the tailing ponds being created in China for the extraction and production of the rare earth metals which go into the manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines. Is the fact the waste stream is in another country what makes these technologies so appealing?
And how much land area will be required to generate sufficient energy from these sources? David MacKay lays that out very well. Want to power Britain with renewables? Basically, cover the whole country in them. And then ask for some land from someone else. The same goes for Germany.
No, none of this is simple. If we want to decommission and power down, fine. Just recognize what that means in terms of human suffering and misery. Ask a peasant farmer in China or India how awesome that lifestyle is. Ditto for Africa. Sure, there are some places where you might be able to pull it off, but can you cram 7 billion people into those places?
No, it’s not simple. Definitely not simple at all.
Kenz300 on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 12:36 pm
Energy Collective — another RepubliCON front group…….. promoting snake oil to the gullible…
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 1:02 pm
Templar,
It is not a matter of wanting to decommission and power down these plants, they will all eventually need to be decommissioned and powered down. Leaving that process to future generations without access to fossil fuels is a recipe for disaster, for them. We can’t figure out a way to do it now, when we still have fossil fuels available. These plants take decades to power down, and massive resources. As our economies unravel over the next decade, civil unrest appears very likely. Institutions and governments will almost certainly break down. Adding 400 ticking time bombs to the mix is not only irresponsible, it has the potential to be devasting for large groups of people that will already have enough to deal with.
Apneaman on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 1:18 pm
TemplarMyst, having a few more nuclear power plants is not going to save anyone from suffering. It will only allow the privileged to be less inconvenienced for a little while longer. Why would you want to spend billions to generate electricity when the delivery system (grid) is on it’s last legs and there are no plans, political will or money to upgrade it? Not thinking whole systems is not thinking. This is what it means when it is said that industrial civilization is not sustainable. Everything is connected and it all must function for the system itself to function. None of it will function without cheap and plentiful oil. It is the master resource. No oil no uranium and so on.
Apneaman on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 1:24 pm
Aging US Power Grid Blacks Out More Than Any Other Developed Nation
““The root causes” of the increasing number of blackouts are aging infrastructure and a lack of investment and clear policy to modernize the grid. The situation is worsened by gaps in the policies of federal and local commissioners. And now there are new risks to the grid from terrorism and climate change’s extreme impacts, Amin said.”
http://www.ibtimes.com/aging-us-power-grid-blacks-out-more-any-other-developed-nation-1631086
TemplarMyst on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 1:30 pm
GregT and Apneaman,
First, to the issue of the economics of the oligarchy and then to the maintenance of the grid sans oil.
The reason there is no money available to maintain the infrastructure is, in my opinion, because the financialization of the global economy has proceeded under the faulty assumption debt can substitute for productive activity. It is clear that sort of assumption can last a certain amount of time, but it destabilizes the entire system and will eventually cause a massive restructuring.
If there are enough reasonable, informed, and honest people at hand this could be done. Money which is based on a commodity has worked very well in the past, and would work well again in the future. It inherently limits growth, and limited growth is essential to any potential viable future. This would be fodder for an entirely separate discussion, of course.
Second, the issue, again in my opinion, is energy density. At approximately a million times greater energy density that oil, uranium has the inherent energy properties to both sustain it’s own use, recycling, and disposal, and on top of that to produce the relatively limited amount of hydrocarbons a revamped industrial society would require.
We use massive amounts of energy to drive around. If hydrocarbons were manufactured and priced accordingly, that would largely cease. We’d go back to electric rails systems, which worked quite well here in the States a century ago, and which work quite well in Europe today.
So I am thinking whole system. Just differently than you are.
Apneaman on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 1:37 pm
“So I am thinking whole system. Just differently than you are.”
Sounds like your thinking the way things should be. I just call them as I see them. I would love it if things were the way the they should be. Nothing changes if nothing changes.
TemplarMyst on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 1:40 pm
“Sounds like your thinking the way things should be.”
I’m certainly trying to. Something has to give. When it does we’ll have an opportunity, again, to change things.
We probably won’t. But we will at least have the opportunity.
Apneaman on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 1:49 pm
There never was any shortage of good ideas to implement. Most just don’t seem to be concerned……yet.
Apneaman on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 1:54 pm
The longer I have been around and watching, the more of a determinist I have become. I do not think most people even know why they do and feel what they do.
OVERSHOOT LOOP:
Evolution Under The Maximum Power Principle
http://www.dieoff.org/
green_achers on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 2:05 pm
I’m open to maintaining existing plants as long as fuel that has already been mined and is in the pipeline lasts. I have no idea whether that’s enough to run most of them until the end of their design lives, and don’t much care.
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 2:06 pm
Templar,
The reason that there is not enough money available, and the reasons for financialization and debt, are rising energy costs. Our economies were built up upon, and are fuelled by oil. Not just any oil, but ~$20-$30 a barrel oil.
“If there are enough reasonable, informed, and honest people at hand this could be done.”
And therein lies one of the largest limiting factors. People are generally not reasonable, (i.e., they are not willing to reduce their lifestyles) they are not well informed, and our policy makers are not being honest with us.
If fossil fuels were priced high enough to curb ICE usage, our economies would collapse from the bottom up. Like they are slowly beginning to unravel already.
A century ago, we had far fewer mouths to feed, the peoples’ expectations were much lower, and the vast majority of the infrastructure in place today, did not exist. That infrastructure requires a complex society, fuelled by cheap and abundant fossil fuel energy.
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 2:10 pm
“We probably won’t. But we will at least have the opportunity.”
I agree, WE probably won’t, but that does not mean that I (or you) can’t make plans to reduce the impacts to ourselves from what will likely be the most challenging time in all of human history.
There is plenty that one can do. Waiting for THEM to do it for us, IMHO, is not a viable strategy.
Davy on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 3:12 pm
It is crazy at this point to power down NUK with what is immediately facing us with oil. If we do that we will damn sure not be able properly decommission NUK plants and secure waste in the future. There is consequences to action on that scale. The consequences is collapse. Oh, we could fire up mothballed coal plants. AGW people will love that idea…yea right!
I want to mention the bullshit I hear all the time about the US grid being so substandard. We have few issues around here in Missouri. I hear few issues across the country especially as the economy is stagnating. The growth in supply was once an issue stressing the grid.
I get really tired of the constant anti-American cat piss about our grid and energy system. Sometime I think it is the industry wanting to drum up dollars for new infrastructure then we have the anti-Americans ponce on that propaganda to power their agenda.
J-Gav on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 3:27 pm
Without having read every comment above, I’ll still comment. Nuke is dead in the water and pretends not to know it.
The risks involved (earthquakes, tsunamis, floods …) are borne by the general public without their even knowing it, as no insurance comapany in the world will have anything to do with it.
Fuck nature, insanity is our game.
Mark David on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 3:30 pm
Without subsidies the nuclear power industry would not exist. As far a greenhouse gas production, only the actual generation process is. Fossil fuels used in front end of operation, mining, processing, transporting the fuel.etc.
Here in the US most plants are beyond the design operating life and no solution to waste issue in site. Bad news, no easy way to replace lost generation capacity.
penury on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 4:10 pm
I love to read the comments by people who are certain that nuclear is safe and effective for the use of humans. Just as a thought experiment check out the following questions. When was the Nevada test site used? When was the clean up finished? When was Hanford used? When was the clean-up finished? When did Enewetok(SP)used? When were the natives allowed back?When was Chernobyl? When was the clean-up finished? What year was Fukishima? When is the clean-up scheduled to be finished? What is the total cost (in current dollars).lives and illness from these incidents? Nuclear is safe, clean and cheap. Just keep repeating that and someday it may be true,
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 5:59 pm
Davy,
“I want to mention the bullshit I hear all the time about the US grid being so substandard.”
If you prefer to see things more clearly, if I may suggest, take off the Red White and Blue glasses.
The US grid, which also happens to be the Canadian grid, is in need of trillions of dollars in maintenance and upgrades. Trillions of dollars that we do not have available Davy.
Please stop with the anti-American stuff already.
TemplarMyst on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 6:00 pm
J-Gav, I know you said you didn’t read the comments, but buried in many I’ve made is a set of assertions about the inherent dangers of nuclear power and radioactivity.
I’m pointing out an alternative perspective on both. I’m citing my sources on them. I’m not claiming nuclear is safe, just that it’s the best of a bad set of options, given the level of human population and the slow onslaught of peak oil and climate change.
At the end of the day we’re very likely screwed. It’d be nice if something survived after us, but that’s looking pretty unlikely too. We’ll take everything down with us.
To have any chance at all of pulling out of the nose dive I think we’d need a lot of energy. The actinides have that. They might be able to help. I can’t think of any other source that can.
To the dangers of radioactivity, there are two distinct perspectives. The NAS, WHO, IAEA, and host of others who ran there analysis and concluded if the levels are low enough the danger is minimal. Greenpeace, NRDC, Helen Caldicott, and may others look at the same situation and conclude millions of people have been killed by even the slightest levels.
Clearly I favor the prior assessment. Clearly many here favor the latter. Given I think the actinides might help, that’s why I continue to post.
TemplarMyst on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 6:04 pm
GregT, I can agree energy plays a pivotal role in wealth formation, but I disagree we are running low on it. We may be running low on the type that built the current grid, but another type does exist and can power it. It would transform, but it could, I think, prevent collapse and permit some small chance we won’t take everything down with us.
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 6:06 pm
Here’s a thought Davy.
Try to think of yourself as an individual, rather than a member of a group of 320 million people that could really care less about your well being. If I were your neighbour Davy, I would be there for you in a heartbeat. The same cannot be said for the people that you are supporting in Washington DC.
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 6:17 pm
Templar,
You appear to be focused on the grid, or electric power generation. We are not facing an electricity crisis, we are facing a liquid fuels crisis.
If we were able to build out enough alternate electric power generation to replace fossil fuels electric, it would do nothing to solve the problem that we face. Basically, it would allow us to keep the lights on at night for a while longer, and little else.
It has taken us over a century to build an entire society that runs on fossil fuels. Take a long hard look around you, where you are right now, and try to imagine the processes involved in almost every single item that you see.
Electricity is nothing more than a transitional energy source, to a vastly reduced energy future, and IMO, that future is much closer than most can fathom.
TemplarMyst on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 6:33 pm
GregT,
I focus on the grid because I do in fact think it could transform to support a very large number of human beings in relative comfort. Electricity is a significantly less destructive underpinning for an industrial society, IMO.
The liquid fuels arose in force at the turn of the last century and hit their stride with the Second World War. They spilled over into the postwar period because, as you say, they were cheap and readily available.
They built out an infrastructure which was (is) destined to collapse when they are available in much smaller quantities and much higher prices.
However, that infrastructure is not necessary to a continued human existence, again, in my opinion. Driving cars and trucks around, at this point, seems rather, well, silly and wasteful. Sure, we all do it, but there will come a time when we need to go back to the civilization we had before the automobile.
It wasn’t that bad. The interurbans ran on electricity, and delivered goods, services, and people pretty efficiently and effectively.
And I think an aweful lot of people are realizing our industrial form of agriculture is a dead end. Various forms of permaculture, organic, hydroponic, and old world rotational farming will, sooner or later, need to supplant fossil fuel fertilizers, and there is a growing body of evidence to indicate the new (and old) techniques can produce just as much, if not more, food than the current system. And they maintain the soil and the biosphere vastly better.
So yeah, I focus on the grid. Electricity is where we ought to be headed.
Makati1 on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 6:41 pm
Sure glad the Ps decided to never open the nuke plant that was built during the US puppet years when Marcos was in power. Some still want to open it (power companies), but it gets voted down every time. Also glad that we are not down wind from any of China’s nuclear plants. And 10,000 miles of ocean buffer he eastern side of the islands.
Davy on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 6:49 pm
Greg, I am only human sometimes I lose my temper.
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 6:54 pm
Templar,
I agree that electricity is where we ought to be headed. My observations tell me that what WE are doing is much too little, too late. If THEY manage to come up with something to buffer the transition, I’m all for it. In the mean time I am taking action myself. I am not going to wait for somebody else to take care of me, because I really do not think that they will. YMMV.
Apneaman on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 6:55 pm
Davy, if I say I prefer real cheese to processed American cheese slices does that constitute being anti American? The definition of anti American seems to be expanding all the time.
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 6:56 pm
Sorry Davy,
I know that I probably piss you off from time to time. Not my intention. From what I know about you, I would be glad to have you as a neighbour.