Pricey Alternative: Nuclear Energy

[jpak]

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/nuclear-energy-an

The nuclear industry is getting slapped with some serious sticker shock.

A wary acceptance of nuclear has only recently entered the public conversation. As America grapples with its dependence on ever more expensive foreign oil and the perils of climate change, many cite nuclear power as an attractive energy alternative. Yet critics and even some supporters argue that the only thing keeping the nuclear dream alive is support from federal subsidies. This could give taxpayers something to worry about over the next few years.

The Wall Street Journal reports that cost estimates for new plants are up to four times higher than originally anticipated, soaring to $12 billion and beyond for an individual unit.EnergyBiz says (pdf here) that rising costs could "put an end to the nuclear renaissance before it ever gets started."

<snip>

A 2003 report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology entitled "The Future of Nuclear Power" raised significant economic concerns. "Today, nuclear power is not an economically competitive choice," the report said. This is partly because the federal government would have to foot the bill for many costs. New nuclear plants would require major government involvement to deal with issues of safety, waste and proliferation, MIT researchers found.

<more>

[Zachstar]

1. I agree that we are not going to be able to get that many online due to time and cost.

But I'm glad to see people accepting that as the reason that Fission wont save us instead of fantasies about nuclear accidents and bunnies getting irradiated.

[Terry in Austin]

2. Even if they were safe as mother's milk

Nukes still won't cut it. Finally comes down to the money, doesn't it?

It's a huge job, for one thing. The MIT scenario mentioned in the WSJ article (summary here) shows a fleet of up to 1500 reactors worldwide by 2050, taking care of about 20% of world electric demand. (Present count is 439.) Even with a relatively modest program like that, it still means building 35 units per year -- at $12 bil a pop, now.

In any scenario that looks at shifting our energy base from fossil fuels to nuke/electric, the effort escalates by an order of magnitude -- a couple of hundred plants per year. On that scale, before you even start asking where the money is going to come from, you have to take a cold-blooded look at your fuel reserves.

Uranium is yet another nonrenewable, finite resource, and current estimates of reserves appear to go all over the place. You'd think we'd have learned something going through peak oil. Breeder reactors? Not much of a track record, as well as truly staggering expense. Oh, and I'd love to get a tape of the guy who has to go to the bankers to tell them their multi-trillion-dollar bonds depend on getting uranium out of seawater!

NNadir will probably be chiming in -- we went several good rounds on this a couple of years ago. All points of view will be heard!

[losthills]

3. They know that they can't build enough to replace coal.

But if they can get us to allow them to build a few, they can pocket billions in profits and leave future generations to deal with the waste, the dangers and the health problems.

It's a scam.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. And the bad news is ...

... that the same problems increasing the price of nuclear energy are also increasing the price of solar energy, wind energy, gasoline, TVs, automobile parts, semiconductors, chainsaws, bread, and popcorn.

From the same article:

High construction costs threaten the future of the nuclear industry, before it really takes off, but plans for new projects remain on the table.

Every energy sector is struggling right now with rising costs of materials and labor for new and expanding power plants. But nuclear is getting hit the hardest. The industry is particularly vulnerable because of its high electricity costs relative to coal or natural gas.

Bold formatting is mine.

The article also illustrates how the nuclear industry ISN'T getting all those subsidies we like to complain it gets. (And most of the citations are from strongly anti-nuclear sources.) Most are going to non-nuclear renewables, oil, gas, and coal. That 2005 energy bill is well worth wading through. Citing select quotes from anti-nuclear organizations fails to show just how pervasive the system is -- they want you to focus on Evil CheneyChernobylDeathEnergy, but the entire system is dependent on hidden subsidies.

I have to admit, I'm perplexed by the attitude of the anti-nuclearists. They are gloating over this, and it's by far the main argument they use nowadays. But it shows that a wave of inflation is rolling in and inundating the non-consumer high-tech sector first. If you're not part of the bubble, you sink, and if the bubble ever breaks (as it certainly will), so will you.

By "you", of course, I mean "us".

This wave itself comes from the rapidly escalating price of energy and accumulating problems in the world economic system.

"Hooray" No Nukes!" seems to be like the response of a child in an airline that's crashing in flames: "Hooray! No school for at least a week!"

--p!

[Zachstar]

5. Well I MUCH rather them be against it due to cost than fantasies of accidents.

Nuclear Power is one of our greatest triumphs and the FIRST step towards climate change free energy decades ago. Can you imagine what the world would be like if even 70 percent of today's Nuc plants were coal and oil based? Can you say environmental disaster?

So its quite saddening when people bring up fantasy figures and even want to shut existing plants down or protest NASA launches to Saturn. I use modifications of the "Don't let the bunnies get irradiated!" to show how I feel about people who needlessly toss crap about fission energy.

Fission is old tech and it will be replaced with fusion energy. It has done its job and the existing plants will obviously slowly be torn down or replaced.

The waste is a simple matter. Specially designed fusion reactors don't produce much energy but a hell of alot of the stuff needed to quickly burn away Fission waste. And no that does not mean more Fission reactors because they will still be many times more expensive than fusion.

[Terry in Austin]

7. Fusion: energy of the future

Permanently!

Gotta keep trying stuff, though...

[Javaman]

6. 3...2...1... nt