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.
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?
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.