Nuclear Power is not going away.......or is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

You sure?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/..._ghosts_1.html

---

Yes I'm sure. As your links posted, given the subsidies available for wind power its costs for the power industry is less than that of nuclear.

In most western countries, the state does not build powerplants. They merely regulate the power industry and try to affect its behaviour with subsidies which can be of varying size. The power industry decides what to build and I'm explaining things from their point of view.

Admittedly my only source is a trader who deals in the financing of power production infrastructure throughout the world, but as far as he can see the major growth areas are in wind and natural gas powerplants. There is little interest in nuclear power from the power generation industry because of its costs and the political headaches associated with it.

Take a look at Germany that has decided to reconsider its new reactor programme after the events in Japan. Those projects had gone pretty far down the line already, the companies involved had already invested quite a bit of cash. Now, because nuclear energy is such a political football it looks like that money has gone down the drain.

Few other energy sources are as risky as an investment as nuclear because projects can be cancelled by fickle governments or face constant delays thanks to anti-nuclear pressure groups.

Factor all these things in and it just isn't seen as a worthy power source by the industry. Tell me how many new powerplants are being built in the Western world?

The countries that are producing the most new nuclear powerplants are the ones that are exempt from the pressures I described above, ie where nuclear power is exempt from political pressures because there is no or little democratic process, eg China and Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Yes I'm sure. As your links posted, given the subsidies available for wind power its costs for the power industry is less than that of nuclear.

---

Ok I mis-understood you then. I thought that you were saying that wind power was cheaper without subsidies. I would agree with you, factoring in the subsidies it would probably be cheaper for wind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

In most western countries, the state does not build powerplants. They merely regulate the power industry and try to affect its behaviour with subsidies which can be of varying size. The power industry decides what to build and I'm explaining things from their point of view.

Admittedly my only source is a trader who deals in the financing of power production infrastructure throughout the world, but as far as he can see the major growth areas are in wind and natural gas powerplants. There is little interest in nuclear power from the power generation industry because of its costs and the political headaches associated with it.

---

I would agree with that. Natural gas is probably the plant of choice from the suppliers, but they are also getting somewhat forced into wind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Take a look at Germany that has decided to reconsider its new reactor programme after the events in Japan. Those projects had gone pretty far down the line already, the companies involved had already invested quite a bit of cash. Now, because nuclear energy is such a political football it looks like that money has gone down the drain.

---

Yeah, you're right. But that doesn't mean that all the political BS is completely justified. I think there has been waaaaaay too much over reaction to the Japanese situation. Just like prior to that the over reaction from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were over the top and for a prolonged period of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Few other energy sources are as risky as an investment as nuclear because projects can be cancelled by fickle governments or face constant delays thanks to anti-nuclear pressure groups.

Factor all these things in and it just isn't seen as a worthy power source by the industry.

---

I would agree with you on this. But again, I think there is too much over reaction from too many sources that are ignorant, or mis-informed, about nuclear power and it's dangers and risks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I would agree with you on this. But again, I think there is too much over reaction from too many sources that are ignorant, or mis-informed, about nuclear power and it's dangers and risks.

---

Yes, and its a vicious cycle. Part of the press feeds on the paranoia and ignorance of its readership to sensationalise purely to get more sales whereas little is done to increase the level of knowledge of the public.

All this talk about meltdown, Chernobyl and the threat of radiation to the public from Fukushima is a case in point.

The problem with nuclear power though is that it has to make a case for itself to a fearful public that does not understand it but is far more tolerant of other power sources without questioning them. That is the political reality and sadly why nuclear power isn't the future.

Nuclear is not economically viable?

USA uses Nuclear and they have an abundance of Coal but Nuclear makes sense to them because they have more than anyone else. Surely they would go for a cheaper option.

China is a growing economy but per capita income is much lower than Western countries yet they have invested heavily in Nuclear so it makes economic sense to them. Same with India. They both have huge coastlines so why minimal tidal?

Russia again has massive natural resourses yet has a big nuclear project project so it makes financial sense to them rather than wind farms.

And that's just the economic reasons which are insignificant when compared to the pollution and safety issues. This world is going downhill with Hydrocarbons and Nuclear is the only current viable option. I would rather some clean, green energy that is free, is fuelled by sh*t and farts scented flowers, but until that happens, NUCLEAR IS THE ONLY OPTION!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Yes, and its a vicious cycle. Part of the press feeds on the paranoia and ignorance of its readership to sensationalise purely to get more sales whereas little is done to increase the level of knowledge of the public.

All this talk about meltdown, Chernobyl and the threat of radiation to the public from Fukushima is a case in point.

The problem with nuclear power though is that it has to make a case for itself to a fearful public that does not understand it but is far more tolerant of other power sources without questioning them. That is the political reality and sadly why nuclear power isn't the future.

---

I would agree with all of that except your last statement.

Nuclear is not the immediate future. But it must become a bigger part of our long-term future. We must do a better job of educating our children (not just on this issue either, but in general) so that they will not harbor any irrational fears of nuclear power. Part of that must also be that we need to have a rational discussion about waste, re-processing, and the like. That is a big issue that needs to be taken care of. And as someone else brought up, the fact that the ban was imposed by Carter, or all people, is just a real head scratcher to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

USA uses Nuclear and they have an abundance of Coal but Nuclear makes sense to them because they have more than anyone else. Surely they would go for a cheaper option.

---

They are.

Thats why the US nuclear industry isn't growing. Almost all of their reactors were built in the 60s and 70s. Only two new powerplants are under construction. There is no plan at the moment to replace those existing nuclear reactors with new ones when they are decommissioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

China is a growing economy but per capita income is much lower than Western countries yet they have invested heavily in Nuclear so it makes economic sense to them. Same with India. They both have huge coastlines so why minimal tidal?

Russia again has massive natural resourses yet has a big nuclear project project so it makes financial sense to them rather than wind farms.

---

re: China and Russia see my previous posts.

re: India, the options are not restricted merely to nuclear and tidal. They have a solid and cheap natural gas supply from Iran and plenty of coal which they take advantage of. They had just agreed a nuclear reactor deal which when I visited India a week ago was being reviewed due to safety concerns. Again, as a democracy they have to cater for public concern about nuclear safety however misguided it may be. I don't see the Indians building many more nuclear reactors if their public opinion is set against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

And that's just the economic reasons which are insignificant when compared to the pollution and safety issues. This world is going downhill with Hydrocarbons and Nuclear is the only current viable option. I would rather some clean, green energy that is free, fuelled by sh*t and farts scented flowers, but until that happens, NUCLEAR IS THE ONLY OPTION!

---

Read my previous posts re: the economic factors. Sadly the power industry does not care so much for pollution except where such concerns affect costs through subsidies or financial penalties, and there are precious few subsidies around for nuclear power. The industry reality is that they are not considering nuclear power as an option in Western countries. The number of new reactors in production confirms this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

USA uses Nuclear and they have an abundance of Coal but Nuclear makes sense to them because they have more than anyone else. Surely they would go for a cheaper option.

---

I agree with you whole-heartidly. Just one point of clarification. The US has more reactors than anyone else. But our percentage of total power output provided by nuclear power is quite far down the list. The US is about 20%, whereas France leads that list at about 75% or so. It's just a minor point, but one that should be pointed out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Nuclear is not the immediate future. But it must become a bigger part of our long-term future. We must do a better job of educating our children (not just on this issue either, but in general) so that they will not harbor any irrational fears of nuclear power. Part of that must also be that we need to have a rational discussion about waste, re-processing, and the like. That is a big issue that needs to be taken care of. And as someone else brought up, the fact that the ban was imposed by Carter, or all people, is just a real head scratcher to me.

---

Hey I agree with you, if I ran things nuclear power would definitely be my choice. I also agree about education but I'm pessimistic. As a species we're appalling at assessing relative risk even in matters where we have a decent understanding of the subject.

Nuclear power's main problem is that the whole technology was introduced to the public by wiping out two cities killing hundreds of thousands of people. Even 70 years later the image of the mushroom cloud is what people tend to think of as soon as the word 'nuclear' is mentioned. Its a deep seated fear and I really don't think we can get rid of that phobia despite raising public understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

Fact:
Western nations, i.e. North American and Europe are by far the largest per-capita consumers of natural resources, including energy.

Fact:
Nuclear fission is the only viable energy source capable of sustaining the world’s continually growing demand for electricity. Fossil fuels are a non-renewable source that are being quickly depleted, and as has been mentioned, solar and wind simply are woefully inadequate and unreliable.











Fact:
When all is considered, the long-term cost of electricity produced from nuclear fission on a $ per kilowatt-hour basis, is comparable with coal-fired production.

Fact:
Over the last ~50 years there have been far more human deaths and long-term health issues due to exploiting fossil fuels than nuclear energy production.

I can’t be bothered to post links. Google it for yourselves.

---

Quite right old bean, Australia needs Nuclear power if they are completely reliant on coal.

Let’s not forget that we have a serious situation with auto exhaust. My Fellow Americans are some of the worst offenders.
Then again everyone on this board is culpable :s mokin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Hey I agree with you, if I ran things nuclear power would definitely be my choice. I also agree about education but I'm pessimistic. As a species we're appalling at assessing relative risk even in matters where we have a decent understanding of the subject.

Nuclear power's main problem is that the whole technology was introduced to the public by wiping out two cities killing hundreds of thousands of people. Even 70 years later the image of the mushroom cloud is what people tend to think of as soon as the word 'nuclear' is mentioned. Its a deep seated fear and I really don't think we can get rid of that phobia despite raising public understanding.

---

It can be done. It just takes hard work. Oh wait, we have a pretty appalling record at hard work too. I guess we're just going to have to get used to not having electricty every time we want it, just like our friends in the UK. :(

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...g-electricity/

Quote:

---

let us consider the words of Steve Holliday, chief executive of the National Grid, interviewed last week on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“The grid is going to be a very different system in 2020, 2030. We keep thinking that we want it to be there and provide power when we need it. It is going to be much smarter than that. We are going to change our own behaviour and consume it when it is available and available cheaply.”

---