Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear Energy: The Good News and the Bad News In the EPA Clean Energy Plan
Lasrick writes: Peter Bradford explains what the EPA's new Clean Power Plan has in store for nuclear energy. He provides an excellent explanation of the details of the plan, and how the nuclear industry benefits (or doesn't). "The competitive position of all new low-carbon electricity sources will improve relative to fossil fuels. New reactors (including the five under construction) and expansions of existing plants will count toward state compliance with the plan's requirements as new sources of low-carbon energy. Existing reactors, however, must sink or swim on their own prospective economic performance—the final plan includes no special carbon-reduction credits to help them."
3 points...
1. I believe that nuclear energy must be part of our nation's power supply. Wind and solar should as well, but they alone won't do it, we need nuclear to get off coal, oil, and natural gas.
2. I believe that anyone running a nuclear plant needs to be responsible for the total end to end costs of it, from site prep to site clean when the place is shut down.
3. I believe we must repeal the restrictions and bans on various types of reactors. We need new designs, the ability to build breeder reactors, run them on plutonium, and develop newer safer designs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Nuclear waste is a concern, but keep in mind that waste that is highly radioactive generally has a short half-life and waste that is long lasting is generally not very radioactive to begin with, or isn't after a short while.
---
As a side note, I'm always reluctant to say "more government anything", however it is possible that nuclear reactors are just not something that for-profit companies should run, since the temptation to shortcut safety is always present. The US Navy has used nuclear power for years with very few problems, perhaps we should simply have the Navy run our reactors and sell the power.
"Only buckets of money from taxpayers and customers can lead to new reactor construction. The Clean Power Plan contains no such buckets."
This quote from later in the the article is priceless (and a little horrifying):
“Nuclear power requires obedience. Demand what you really need. Just look at Donald Trump. What can possibly go wrong?”
Not sure what to think of it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Citation on the number of deaths per terawatt?
The few accidents have been very localized and killed very few people.
Coal, oil, and natural gas on the other hand, have harmed everyone.
Your item two is in serious conflict with item one. How can nuclear energy be part of our nations power supply if the industry is responsible for the total end costs. The article explains that at a cost of 19 cents/kwh no one will build any nuclear power plant since solar and wind can be built for much less. So, really, if nuclear isn't subsidized, it isn't going to happen.
Nuclear power has always depended on subsidies and it can't survive without those subsidies. It is just too expensive and it seems unlikely that there will be any serious change in the economic arena.
so should every power source. it works or it doesn't. on its own.
The problem right now is that people don't want to see new, safer, more efficient nuclear plants being built, because they're nuclear!
Unfortunately, it means that they spend their time protesting right outside the gates of older, creaky, less safe and more expensive nuclear plants that the operators would actually love to shut down so they could build and operate the newer, safer, more efficient designs.
Believe it or not, the folks that actually live near and work at nuclear plants have more than a passing interest in safe nuclear power, and don't want their kids glowing after dark any more than any other parent. I know, it's crazy, but it's true!
If these people could get their heads out of their asses they might realize that, if nuclear energy must be utilized, that allowing newer, safer plant designs to be built would be the smartest path. Though I'm afraid clear and logical thinking isn't a strong point of the anti-nuclear crowd.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
The question I would ask in response is why is nuclear so expensive?
At its core, it shouldn't be. It is simply heat decay of radioactive materials heating a liquid to run steam turbines, it is simple stuff in concept, but seems to be insanely expensive in practice. One of the challenges is that we have never allowed economies of scale into nuclear, every plant is a one-off build and they are spaced too far apart to really develop. It is like hand building cars vs. Ford's assembly line. Wind and solar are made on assembly lines, so it is hard to compare them. Get nuclear up to 50% of the world's power generation and it may well get cheap.
The other issue is that if price alone determined what we build, then coal, oil, and natural gas would continue to make sense.
Finally, keep in mind that we like a dependable power grid. Wind and solar vary from place to place, and while the idea of "the wind is always blowing somewhere" sounds nice, it often isn't blowing where you need it.
We would need a whole new power grid to really make wind and solar work like people want it to, and that would change the economics of both options.
Your right, the numbers should give people pause, to ask "Why the hell aren't we using nuclear power?"
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) CORRECTED
Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
Was going to paste the whole table but /.'s filter kept complaining about white space and junk characters
Whole thing is here
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
Or just google it, which you obviously didn't do before you posted.
(if you where being sarcastic just ignore my snark, my sarcasm detector isn't good at picking up subtle jabs)
Note the above does not include Fukishima. Other sources that account for that increase nuclear to .09 (90 dead per trillion kWh)
"The four reactors being built in Georgia and South Carolina were supposed to demonstrate that new construction techniques and a new licensing process had finally brought nuclear plant cost overruns and construction delays under control, but they have shown the reverse. Construction of the fifth new US reactor, Watts Bar Unit 2 in Tennessee, began in 1973."
Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
A whole new power grid is probably where we are headed. Tesla is cranking up its battery business precisely for this reason. If every home had a car or two with a battery that could be tapped for grid supplementation, the grid can be very dependable. And don't forget at least part of the US has huge hydro plants that can be kicked in when needed to balance the grid to demand. The barriers here are only political. The timeline to make these changes makes the timeline for nuclear power seem positively glacial.
A new nuclear power plant takes decades to plan and construct. Wind and solar can be implemented in a few years, depending on the scale of the individual project. Why would we subsidize a nuclear plant that would take decades when we can have new wind or solar up and running in a few years?
If every home had a car or two with a battery that could be tapped for grid supplementation
That is a MASSIVE 'IF"... And you're assuming I WANT my car battery to take wear and tear to balance the grid...
The barriers here are only political.
You may have a different idea of what "only" means than I do... those are some of the biggest barriers that exist, they don't go away just because you wave your hand and say "politics be gone!".
A new nuclear power plant takes decades to plan and construct.
Then perhaps that is the problem that needs fixing. We designed, invented, built, and used nuclear power and weapons from scratch in less time than it takes to build one plant. When no one knew how to use them.
Perhaps the problem is not with nuclear power, but with the politics? :)
How the hell can Fukishima increase nuclear related deaths when nobody died from it???
And if we're counting radiation induced cancer and subsequent deaths (which, from fukishima is basically non-existent) then why do we give coal/oil/etc. a pass on pollution induced deaths?
The question I would ask in response is why is nuclear so expensive?
Because they can't increase capacity because they can't build new plants because of the anti-nuke people, and so they are forced to maintain and run old plants and verify their safety to the NRC (which costs a lot). Nuclear would be cheap generation except for this.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
How the hell can Fukishima increase nuclear related deaths when nobody died from it???
And if we're counting radiation induced cancer and subsequent deaths (which, from fukishima is basically non-existent) then why do we give coal/oil/etc. a pass on pollution induced deaths?
A good a place as any to throw in this link to a well written piece regarding undue radiation fears. Some people are wising up, but many still just can't accept that radiation risk isn't what its been made out to be all these years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09...
All power sources have gotten subsidies over the years, mainly because abundant low cost energy is seen a central to a thriving economy. Nuclear has received a lot of subsidies, but has also produce huge amounts of clean air power in return. If you calculated in on a per MWH basis, no energy source has ever been subsidized nearly as heavily as solar and wind are. Its not even close. And that includes estimating future generation from installed sources. If you would give nuclear 1/3 of what solar and wind are getting on a per MWH basis, there would be a rush to get going.
Levelized cost projections from a credible, objective source can be found here: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/a...
Of course, there is value in being consistent and dispatchable rather than variable and non-dispatchable that is not reflected in these numbers, nor are the cost of overcapacity required if were were to be fully wind and solar based. What is included in the levelized cost for nuclear is waste disposal and decommissioning, just in case you were wondering.
The question I would ask in response is why is nuclear so expensive?
It costs a lot to build, but proved cost effective over time. Existing plants are very economical, we need to keep them going and not let market shifting policies force them out.
Cost of Exiting Generation - IEA REPORT – 2015
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...
EXISTING NUCLEAR: $50/MWH
EXISTING WIND : VARIES BETWEEN 45 and 140 $/MWH
EXISTING SOLAR: VARIES BETWEEN 150 and 300 $MWH
the problem is that we live in a world where businesses are not held accountable for their actions. Look at VW. Their CEO resigns and gets a 30 million golden parachute. Look at GM and Toyota. Token fines that aren't even a fraction of their annual profits for something that deaths were linked to. Christ, look at Fukushima. Just the idea that some of the people responsible might get indicted is historical and even there it's only happening because of a bizarre loophole the 1% forgot to close. It's the old "Don't spill the blood of kings" crap.
If you want to have a gov't run nuke plant then fine. Take the profit motive out of it. But I wouldn't even trust that because sooner or later a bunch of those free market yabos are gonna want to hand it of to a private contractor in the name of efficiency. Until you can tell me how to stop that or make it more profitable for the plants to be safe than dangerous in the _short_ term then I won't trust nukes.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I had to look this up, because I was wondering how the heck it would take 40+ years to finish building a nuclear reactor. Apparently, the construction was started in 1973 but halted in 1988, then restarted in 2006 again. It's very close to completion - either end of this year or early next year.
Sort of sad that we're just now opening a reactor with state-of-the-art 1970's technology here in 2015.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
The figure of "just a few thousand" as given by the WHO for Chernobyl ignores the huge uncertainties given by the nature of radiation exposure, and is not least thanks to an 56 year old agreement with the IAEA that provides the latter with "an effective veto on any actions by the WHO that relate in any way to nuclear power".
(Source: http://www.theguardian.com/com... )
Chernobyl for one was certainly not "very localized" and whether it "kill[ed] very few people" is contested.
The figure of "just a few thousand" as given by the WHO for Chernobyl ignores the huge uncertainties given by the nature of radiation exposure, and is not least thanks to an 56 year old agreement with the IAEA that provides the latter with "an effective veto on any actions by the WHO that relate in any way to nuclear power".
(Source: http://www.theguardian.com/com... )
Chernobyl was communist fuck-ups that lied about what they were doing with the reactor, what went wrong with the reactor, and who died.
The US, are not communist fuck-ups. Maybe, a different kind of fuck-up, but not likely to the same degree.
Not a massive "if" at all. Here is how it works. You buy an electric car and keep it plugged in. You charge it when energy costs are low, and SELL electricity back to the grid when rates are high. This is assuming you want to make some spare cash while your car is parked. Most cars will be out driving during at least part of the daylight hours when solar power is being generated. As the sun goes down the car can sell some of its leftover power while demand is still high but solar power is unavailable. The battery will be recharged later in the night when demand for power is down but power is still being generated by fixed output sources like coal, nuclear, and geothermal plants.
No one is forced to participate. If you want to make some cash you sign up for this. If you imagine even half of the electric cars participating in this program, you have a massive power storage grid. And there are more electric cars being built every day.
Second, the political barriers in the power grid involve power companies cooperating to maintain power availability. This isn't an insurmountable problem. This is really different from the political issues that surround the construction of nuclear plants.
OK, this is the politics thing I mentioned earlier. Your power rates shouldn't be the same 24/7 since the electric utility pays a vastly different rate for power depending on supply and demand. If they passed these changes on to you, there would be incentives for you to make choices that would be beneficial to the operation of the power grid so that it would require less peak generating capacity, i.e. fewer power plants. If you had variable power rates you could save money by doing laundry in the late evening. You could program your hot water heater to heat the water during the night when it could. You could charge your car in the pre-dawn hours. If you insisted on doing these things during the peak load period you would pay extra to help defray the cost of the extra generating capacity.
The question I would ask in response is why is nuclear so expensive?
At its core, it shouldn't be. ...
The situation you have with power plants is that turbine costs are pretty much the same per watt -- whether you run steam, burn natural gas, run water (e.g. hydro), or have the wind turn it. Yes, there are quite a bit of engineering differences in the details, but everything in modern power production is pretty optimized so you end up with costs in the same general range. Now you can't run uranium (or coal) through a turbine, so you need a separate stage to heat the water (or working fluid of your choice). That right there adds enough cost and complexity to make fission (and coal, for that matter) uncompetitive. Unless you can make the nuclear part free you aren't going to get very far.
Given the direction costs are going on wind and solar, you'd be better off building three times the capacity and buying a bunch of batteries over building a nuclear plant.
For all of the talk about fission plants being dispatchable, very few people point out that current plant designs don't really let you throttle the power output very well, so in their own way fission plants are about as annoying as renewables in terms of balancing the grid.
The other problem with a fission plant over a renewable plant is that a fission plant is a bigger investment risk. If you are deploying solar panels out in the Mojave Desert you can start selling power pretty quickly, and if you decide to scale back your project you won't lose everything. A similar argument applies to wind power projects. With a fission plant you are looking at 5 years to build one on an existing site if everything goes perfectly. And if something goes wrong you can't build half a plant.
That is wrong. Nuke, coal, fossil fuels have been subsidized since they started. And when each was started, they were much larger subsidies than wind or solar.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.