What's Holding Back Nuclear Power?

Nuclear is a failed industry with no chance for recovery. Years of subsidy, cost overruns, 60 yrs with no solution for waste disposal. These are some of the reasons it will probably take 10yrs to get a nuke permitted and built. Then it will take 17 more yrs to offset the embodied energy of construction. So, 27 yrs from now we will see the first positive net energy...

John Ward wrote:

Nuclear is a failed industry with no chance for recovery. Years of subsidy, cost overruns, 60 yrs with no solution for waste disposal. These are some of the reasons it will probably take 10yrs to get a nuke permitted and built.

All energy sources in the use have some type of subsidy. The subsidy for nuclear is small and indirect. That subsidy has been of no value to nuclear utilities for decades. On the other hand, nuclear utilities pay millions in taxes and fees to federal, state and local governments. There has always been a solution for waste disposal. Nuclear power waste disposal is much easier and simpler than waste disposal for coal power. Before the discovery of the Oklo natural fission reactors, there was a weak waste disposal argument. But the Oklo reactors proved that there is no problem associated with nuclear waste disposal. What is holding back nuclear power is fearmongering by the ignorant and the dishonest.

John Ward wrote:

Nuclear is a failed industry with no chance for recovery. Years of subsidy, cost overruns, 60 yrs with no solution for waste disposal.
..........
These are some of the reasons it will probably take 10yrs to get a nuke permitted and built. Then it will take 17 more yrs to offset the embodied energy of construction. So, 27 yrs from now we will see the first positive net energy...

As opposed to say coal (subsidized by our lungs), oil (subsidized by the sacrifice of US armed forces which are keeping the oiltrade lane opens), or hydro - siubsidized by displacing millions in the name of the "greater good".
And the second part even if true, is not an argument against nuclear power. A plant will function between 60 and 80 years - that 45-65 years of plant's functioning is gravy. 300-400% energetic profit on investment.
Wow, if not for political stooges of oil industry, nuclear would be the way to go...

The ensuing government in Germany wish to prolong the Nuclear reactor.
Most of the people/voters are up against this DREAM.

actually its the enviro idiots that are keeping us from Nuclear.There is no money for OBAMA and his friends like there will be in Green energy.

eric wrote:

actually its the enviro idiots that are keeping us from Nuclear.There is no money for OBAMA and his friends like there will be in Green energy.

No, it's the CONSERVATIVES in the insurance industry who charge for liability coverage. The insurance costs make nuclear energy too expensive to bother with. Green energy is the safest, cleanest and cheapest.

mountaingal wrote:

No, it's the CONSERVATIVES in the insurance industry who charge for liability coverage. The insurance costs make nuclear energy too expensive to bother with. Green energy is the safest, cleanest and cheapest.

Then get a liberal insurance company to cover the risk. Some green energy is nice, but there will never be enough of it to matter much.

John Ward wrote:

Nuclear is a failed industry with no chance for recovery.

It provides 20 percent of our electricity. That is more than solar and wind will ever provide.

mountaingal wrote:

<quoted text>
No, it's the CONSERVATIVES in the insurance industry who charge for liability coverage. The insurance costs make nuclear energy too expensive to bother with. Green energy is the safest, cleanest and cheapest.

Right you are, Mistress O'da Cliffs. The cornholing of nuclear energy is a bi-partisan effort.

OTOH, neither solar, nor wind, nor geothermal have any advantage to nuclear in terms of safety, cleanliness, or price.
I should not complain, tho. Radiation-phobia is responsible for 30% of my salary, and very likely for my finding a job in the field. My family is very thankful for the enviro scaremongering.

The fear factor is a big part of the problem. It has held back the development of new generation reactor designs for fear of increased risk of an accident during the development phase. Coming generation reactors produce much less waste. The current generation reactors leave 95% of the fuel unfissioned. This waste product remains radioactive for 1000s of years.

The Integrated Fast Reactor and the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor produce very little waste and it decays to stable elements in a few hundred years. These new reactor designs can be cooled with liquid metals. The advantages are: 1) No need for water cooling, 2) without water that must be under high pressure to achieve efficiency, no billion dollar dome is required. 3) Liquid metal cooling makes possible higher operating temperature which boosts efficiency to the 50% range. 4) Uranium enrichment is not required. 5) The bomb proliferation issue is reduced as compared to current LWR reactors. 6) Because of the high efficiency, uranium and thorium mines will provide fuel for more than 1000 years. Successful experimental reactors or these designs have been built and operated for years, going way back into the 1950s. 7) Besides the cost savings of eliminating the expensive dome, the coming reactors can be factory built and delivered on a truck greatly reducing construction cost. 8) Simple design eliminates need for the presence of an operator. This means that they can be buried in the ground, thus eliminating terrorist attack from the air. 9) Meltdown proof: They are designed so that if the coolant fails the fuel expands causing the nuclei of the fuel to be farther apart resulting in a reduced rate of fission. Without cooling the reactor goes into idle mode rather than meltdown. 10) Some designs can follow load by rapidly increasing the rate of fission when the load goes up. Our current reactor design can not respond rapidly to an increase in load. 11) Liquid fuel reactors do not require shutdown for refueling and very little processing of the fuel is required. 12) All of the fuel is fissioned, leaving only fission products. 13) Fuel from our current light water reactors can serve as a fuel for the coming reactors. It will be decades before any more uranium or thorium needs to be mined. 14) Coming reactors can be made in a range of sizes. Not much loss of efficiency is anticipated in building smaller sizes.

Why don’t we move ahead with new designs? The industry has a reliable product and it can not afford the risk of an accident because of the fear factor.. Research must be funded by the State. Congress gets pressure from a strong coal lobby to fund coal sequestration – a doubtful undertaking. The coal, oil and gas lobbies are much stronger that the nuclear lobby. It takes many fewer laborers to produce nuclear energy so the workers have little clout. It also gets lobbied from environmentalist to fund renewables. Renewables are not competitive without large subsidies.

The anti-nukes claim nuclear energy costs too much. This is not true. Nuclear plants are expensive to build, but they last 60 to 80 years. The kWh cost is low when the time period is factored in. Denmark residents pay 40c/kWh. The highest in Europe. France Sweden and Finland have cheap electricity because of nuclear and also a lower amount of CO2 output. Denmark claims 20% of their electricity is made by wind but only 10% is actually used as they have to sell the excess at bargain basement prices to their neighbors. Wind and solar power are more expensive than nuclear power.