Another reason for the "country’s shrinking appetite for nuclear" that I can cite is the North Korean terrorist threat.
Rationally, there is little reason for the North Korean state to cause long term damage to a soil that they claim belongs to them, and also the number of such attacks is now close to zero, but as we all know this kind of fear will not go away.
Renewables could work as a replacement, but this may only further weaken South Korea's position in the energy sector in the 21st century. They have a large petroleum and natural gas refining sector, which as we know needs to be phased out. What will be their trajectory in this context?
No. They can't as long as cheap energy storage on mass scales doesn't exist. Case in point: closing nuclear plants and replacing them with renewables is what Germany has been trying to do and has failed to do so far. They essentially replaced (and will continue to replace) nuclear by renewables paired with coal and gas plants running on standby. They can't cold start these plants fast enough to catch dips in energy production from renewables.
You simply can't replace a constant energy source (nuclear) by an intermittent one (most renewables).
I'm guessing South Korea will go the same route as "good example" Germany. Push renewables. Which translates to; close nuclear plants, invest heavily in solar and wind paired with gas and coal. End result: more CO2 emissions, higher consumer energy prices, but most importantly: a clean reputation through good intentions.
Renewables at this stage are more about politically correct marketing than about clean and safe energy.
Our coal infrastructure is on the way to be phased out, it won't be around for long-term any more - the Kohlekommission proposed 2035-2038 for the final shutdown, with 12.5 GW of 42.6 GW capacity going offline until 2022 (per https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2019-01/kohlekommission-kohle...).
It is planned to be phased out. Just like nuclear. That means that within 15 years Germany will have to replace roughly 70 % of its constant energy sources (nuclear and coals) by the only scalable constant energy source left: gas. Thereby becoming completely reliant on gas from Russia. Creating a massive geopolicital risk that didn't exist previously.
>by the only scalable constant energy source left: gas.
What makes you think coal and nuclear are scalable? Gas has been the only option from the start and simply switching from coal to gas already results in a 50-60% CO2 reduction.
The Tesla grid scale system made that money by stabilizing the grid, essentially providing storage for time periods below 15 minutes. It in no way provides the kind of storage that is needed to use solar or wind power as baseline production.
They also chose Australia on purpose, because the energy market there is pretty messed up and the result is high energy prices, i.e. higher profits than the same system would see somewhere else.
For battery storage to be cost effective in general it has to be quite a bit cheaper than it currently is. The cost has been declining, but people who expect exponential curves to continue forever are generally disappointed. It may or may not hit a stable floor before the cost is low enough to actually replace baseload power generation. What it is likely to be good for is to get over the load hump between dusk and bedtime for solar -- but that requires a lot less storage than being able to carry the whole night. Especially in winter (when the nights are longer), and especially if we expect people to switch from carbon-based to electric heat.
The issue is we need to be building things to replace carbon right now. Even if batteries become cost effective in a decade or more, that's too late. And there is no guarantee of even that.
> To be fair, nuclear power plants can also take a decade or more to build.
That's kind of the point. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
And even if batteries become cost effective in a decade or more, that's when people start installing them at scale. It's not as if you could replace the entire grid with them overnight either.
> Case in point: closing nuclear plants and replacing them with renewables is what Germany has been trying to do and has failed to do so far.
Germany was the global top electricity exporter, by dollar value, in 2017 [0].
If that's what "failing" looks like, then maybe more countries should start "failing" like that?
In that context, coal and gas are only stop-gap technologies until storage technology and deployment has caught up, and coal is mostly only around for the same reasons as in the US: To not piss off the miners/lose those jobs.
The talking point i usually hear against this is "germany exports the huge fluctuation in production caused by green energy to the eu grid, straining the entire system". I haven't come across a good argument against this. Import/Export does indeed seem to vary widely based on time of day [0]. But this doesn't mean there are negative effects. Net frequency might be a better indicator, but I haven't found good graphs, yet.
> coal is mostly only around for the same reasons as in the US: To not piss off the miners/lose those jobs.
Totally agree, especially lignite heavy regions don't have a lot of other industry.
Friendly PSA: do not dare to question nuclear energy safety on HN. I've seen no other subject which triggers such vitriolic responses as this, you'll be called a flat-earther anti-vaxxer luddite, you'll be told "coal kills more..." and so on.
> After the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, most reactor builders had tacked on a slew of new safety features. KHNP followed suit but later realized that the astronomical cost of these features would make the APR1400 much too expensive to attract foreign clients.
> “They eventually removed most of them,” says Park, who now teaches nuclear engineering at Dongguk University. “Only about 10% to 20% of the original safety additions were kept.”
Because a coal power plant is much harder to pin $12.6 billion in direct damage to? Sure they produce pollution that affects millions and contribute to CO2 emissions that affect billions, but it's much harder to point to them as a single source.
Having been on the receiving end of this little downvote coalition for daring to state facts about the Fukushima Daiichi and Daini sites, I can confirm that this is an oddly hot-button issue on HN.
I wonder if they stop making them because it makes a country vunerable? After all enemies of the nation have to just blow up a few reactors to cause major damage, right? But if a solar or wind or even coal plant is bombed, not much happens?
Hydroelectric power is more of a vulnerability in a strategic sense. If everything downstream is flooded it's gone until it's fixed and/or rebuild. If everything is irradiated it's still useful, you just can't let people get too exposed to it.
2 points to consider here, first the damage to the grid in terms of lost power, second the environmental damage.
For nuclear both are quite severe, but blowing up a dam could be devastating in both points too, think of the flooding etc..
Blowing up single wind turbines is ineffective in both terms, and damaging a coal/oil plant only in regards to the first point(Well, there will be environmental damage too, but not on the scale a terrorist desires..)
Solar seems to be the safest with that in in mind.
The problem is a lot of the tech advancements in the last 30 years of the field have not had a chance to play out and instead retrofits are all that's been rolled out to the existing fleet. Criticizing an entire field based on the cutting edge 60 years ago feels really unfair.
Additionally the modern US standard for safety regulation by the NRC is so stringent that anyone criticizing safety often sounds like spreading FUD if not specifically mentioning the caveat of either "outside the US" or "in the 70s".
That's not to say there are "no problems" - to the contrary, age is the biggest problem. And there simply is no preparation for the end of the nuclear powerplant age, which is coming at this rate.
> The problem is a lot of the tech advancements in the last 30 years of the field have not had a chance to play out and instead retrofits are all that's been rolled out to the existing fleet. Criticizing an entire field based on the cutting edge 60 years ago feels really unfair.
AP1000 is a new reactor design from the 2000s. Vogtle 3 and 4 are AP1000 reactors. The construction was started in 2013 and should have taken four years and costed 14.3 billion usd, but now it seems those reactors won't come online until 2022 to the cost of 27 billion usd. Lest anyone thinks that is because Americans are bad at building nuclear power, many other projects around the wold suffers from exactly the same cost and time overruns.
You're bringing very fair critiques on costs and construction time to... a discussion about safety.
There's many ways you could be implicitly connecting the dots to this discussion somehow. I welcome you making those clear. I am not going to put words in your mouth, though.
This is a board full of people who want to see hard facts, numbers and metrics. By the numbers, nuclear kills a hell of a lot less people than fossil fuels, or anything else (even when using an age adjusted metric that more accurately represents the impact of fossil fuels than the "bazillion deaths" that headlines tout). In terms of disaster potential it's on the order of hydroelectric unless for some reason you find waking up underwater to be vastly preferable to radiation poisoning.
> In terms of disaster potential it's on the order of hydroelectric.
Water disappears. Yes, a failed dam may kill thousands to tens of thousands, but the land is generally immediately reusable without major problems as long as there is no chemical industry in the floodpath.
A nuclear reactor blowing up, though? The immediate death potential is mostly limited to the on-site staff and the "liquidators" (as evidenced in Chernobyl), but the land wide swaths around the site can remain uninhabitable for hundreds of years.
>A nuclear reactor blowing up, though? The immediate death potential is mostly limited to the on-site staff and the "liquidators" (as evidenced in Chernobyl), but the land wide swaths around the site can remain uninhabitable for hundreds of years.
If the land is really that valuable it can be cleaned. Nobody is going to remediate a forest in the Ukraine though because the Ukraine doesn't have that kind of money and it's not like they're particularly strapped for land in eastern Europe.
By definition anything radioactive enough to cause harm is not going to be long-lived. After a few years it's generally going to
>To this day, wild pigs and fungi in Bavaria (1700 km away!) have to be radiation tested
If by "have to" you mean "in order to make people feel safe" then sure. If by "have to" you mean "because it is not uncommon to find examples that are too irradiated for human consumption" so we have to test them to get a picture of how common these cases are. Honestly I'd be more concerned about eating deer that have been drinking from god knows what contaminated water source than I would be about radiation in animals around Chernobyl.
> If by "have to" you mean "in order to make people feel safe" then sure.
Keeping people safe is the primary objective for a state, not allowing private entities to extract the most possible profits while offloading the risks to the state. We saw this in Japan, it is impossible for any private entity to shoulder the cost of an accident.
>Keeping people safe is the primary objective for a state
You seem to be confusing "keeping people safe" with "keeping people safe theater". Monitoring the radioactivity of European crops and livestock in 2019 is solidly in the latter category.
>not allowing private entities to extract the most possible profits while offloading the risks to the state.
This it as tangential to a discussion of nuclear safety compared to the safety of any other power source.
>We saw this in Japan, it is impossible for any private entity to shoulder the cost of an accident.
And this is different than a dam failure, or any other industrial accident of similar magnitude, in a similarly populated/developed location how?
> This it as tangential to a discussion of nuclear safety compared to the safety of any other power source.
No, it is not. No other power source comes even close in the amount of time that has to be covered by insurances.
A dam breaks, a gas plant explodes, that's a couple billions of dollars of damage plus a couple billions in payments for the relatives of the dead. For corporations making billions of years in profits, that's pocket change. (Which coincidentally explains why disasters regarding open "seas" of toxic mining slurry occur so regularly)
For Fukushima? That land is inhabitable for decades. Assume the Isar 1 AKW blows up? This is only 100km away from Munich. Can you imagine how much it costs to move an area with over 3M people?
And that doesn't even touch the question: where to put the nuclear trash? Germany doesn't have a permanent waste facility and many other countries don't have one either.
Note that I'm not against nuclear in general: Inherently safe designs such as MSRs? Perfectly fine. But not the often shoddily maintained stuff that is in use today!
Forget Munich (don’t but you get my point) what’s the liability of the 40-year old 2GW Indian Point plant, which is constantly receiving safety citations, being 30 miles upwind from NYC? 20 million people live there..
We permit people to live in Denver or some towns with elevated radium in their water. Heck you can have basements in New Jersey. Are you sure we're drawing a consistent line on radiation exposure?
> A nuclear reactor blowing up, though? The immediate death potential is mostly limited to the on-site staff and the "liquidators" (as evidenced in Chernobyl), but the land wide swaths around the site can remain uninhabitable for hundreds of years.
Because a bit of land is what we are really running out off.
Because of massive government overreaction and idiotic regulation that make no sense at all because they are literally based on fake science that was accidentally adopted by government as a bases for regulation.
Yeah there was greed and corruption but as the article says other countries have stopped too:
>A similar reversal is beginning in China, until recently seen as nuclear energy’s biggest champion. There, as in South Korea, Fukushima awakened public fears and forced the government to adopt tougher safety standards, which now threaten to push the cost of nuclear power out of reach. Of the world’s other major producers of nuclear power, only Russia is still aggressively building more reactors...
> Officially China still sees nuclear power as a must-have. But unofficially, the technology is on a death watch. Experts, including some with links to the government, see China’s nuclear sector succumbing to the same problems affecting the West: the technology is too expensive, and the public doesn’t want it.
> The 2011 meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant shocked Chinese officials and made a strong impression on many Chinese citizens. A government survey in August 2017 found that only 40% of the public supported nuclear power development.
> The bigger problem is financial. Reactors built with extra safety features and more robust cooling systems to avoid a Fukushima-like disaster are expensive, while the costs of wind and solar power continue to plummet: they are now 20% cheaper than electricity from new nuclear plants in China, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Moreover, high construction costs make nuclear a risky investment.
China's electricity consumption growth is also rapidly slowing due to faltering economic growth.
Nuclear power presents the perfect storm for negative public image:
- Environmental movement went anti-nuclear in the '70s for no particular reason.
- Fear Sells in the media. Nothing strikes fear like the invisible killer of radiation. Nuclear disasters get media attention like nothing else.
- Nuclear weapons are scary, and rightfully so. And they share a word in common with "nuclear power," so there you go.
Being tightly regulated and controlled by government makes an industry ripe for "corruption and greed" since it takes political connection and maneuvering to get things done.
It really is amazing, though, how much public image and politics can completely stall forward progress on a power source with so much promise.
Yes, but the design of a nuclear power reactor and a nuclear weapon are pretty different - for a start the really nasty bit of most nuclear weapons is the fission of the secondary tamper by neutrons from the fusion component of the secondary.
Nothing like that happens in a nuclear power station.
Nuclear weapons require the reactors, and a number were built for plutonium production e.g. Windscale/Sellafield. There are plenty of countries that probably shouldn't be allowed unsupervised reactors for this reason.
"no particular reason" is quite a misrepresentation. If you mean that you don't agree with their reasons or think they are incorrect it would be more honest to state that.
I don't think that's quite accurate. It may be more accurate to say they were misinformed or miscalculated.
The reasons were that they believed, and many people still do, that nuclear was bad for the environment because:
1) It required mining to extract the resources necessary, and mining isn't exactly a green activity.
2) Nuclear disasters are unquestionably bad for the environment, and bad in an immediately visible way. (Compared to carbon, which takes many decades for the effects to take hold.)
3) There's a general sense that we don't know what to do with the nuclear waste.
To be clear, I 100% support nuclear power as the most pragmatic and environmentally friendly solution to our energy needs. But if we're going to tackle the political problem, we have to be honest about why that problem exists.
No, not if we look at the entire supply chain and the construction of the power plant (whatever the source of power may be).
But people don't get as emotional about the resources required to build windmills (so long as it's not in my backyard) as they do about nuclear. And once a windmill or a dam or a solar farm has been built, there's a belief that there's no ongoing environmental damage. Whereas nuclear (and coal and gas) require ongoing resource extraction.
Again, I'm not the one making these arguments. I'm saying this is public perception. (Or at least my perception of public perception.) I happen to think the only environmentally responsible way to supply all the energy we need for 7 billion people (and growing), especially when more and more of those people are industrializing, is to go nuclear. Every other option seems like a guaranteed way to kill ourselves in the long run.
> But people don't get as emotional about the resources required to build windmills (so long as it's not in my backyard) as they do about nuclear. And once a windmill or a dam or a solar farm has been built, there's a belief that there's no ongoing environmental damage. Whereas nuclear (and coal and gas) require ongoing resource extraction.
But you need massive amounts of battery storage to actually power a grid with windmills and solar plants (unless you have a bunch of coal and nuclear providing baseload power anyway). And batteries are consumables which require intensive mining.
Why coal or nuclear? Baseload is incompatible with renewables. During peak production of renewables, coal and nuclear can't simply shut down. They are too slow. What happens is that they have to keep running but sell their electricity at a huge loss. Producing energy when you need it the least is bad economics. It's just that simple.
you may need massive batteries now, but there are many ways that grids can adapt to this: refrigerators could have a thermal battery that stores excess ice, for instance. same with A/C. home appliances such as dish washers or laundry can be tied to the smart grid and only come on when there is power. same with EV's. The grid can flex a lot more than it currently is.
Yes, but many people are reluctant to give up electricity which is hard to use without metals. But wooden windmills, water mills and heating with fire are tried technology.
I don't really see the point of this comparison. If there is a need to give up quality of life why not stop consuming during times when carbon neutral energy is not available?
Low renewable energy production is only a problem for maybe 20 days in a year and those days are not consecutive, they are randomly distributed over the year so gas or battery storage beyond 7 days isn't even needed. It wont be the end of the world as long as we can stop emitting CO2.
Part of the peace movement is also opposed to nuclear power because the waste products are suitable for building nukes, with claims that certain aspects of the nuclear power industry mainly exist for that reason.
Incidentally the US raises the same objection over Iran's nuclear power program.
And in particular, Three Mile Island happened in 1979 and crystallized a lot of US opposition to nuclear power. One of the problems it exposed is a too-friendly connection between the NRC and the nuclear power industry. According to a recent book [1], this problem still exists.
Citation needed! From what I've read the US government has been incredibly supportive of the nuclear industry. For example, both Obama and Trump have secured federal funding for the Vogtle 3 and 4 plants. US public opinion has also been heavily in favor of nuclear power, even after Fukushima. The "red tape is causing all our problems!" seem, to me, to be just a myth spread by the nuclear lobby.
If everybody is so supportive and the regulatory picture is so rosy why is there a 20 year gap from 1996 to 2016 in the construction of nuclear plants? Even then the 2016 plant is an expansion of an existing plant.
Not to mention the ones that were started but never finished construction like the Virgil C. Summer plants.
Why not mention that cancelled plant? Construction started in 2013 but it became to expensive so the contractors abandoned the project. Why there was a 17 year gap, I don't know. Big cost overruns and time delays plagued nuclear construction projects in the 80's. So perhaps the gap was because that is how long it took politicians to forget the previous decades failures and give the nuclear lobby another chance?
Although [former NRC commissioner] Jaczko's account will become standard reading as an antinuclear book, his reasons have more to do with regulation than nuclear energy per se. Jaczko sees two paths ahead. One has a sustainable future with nuclear reactors that includes widespread recognition that accidents will happen and a greater commitment to safety. The other path is the one he witnessed as NRC chairman, featuring waning public trust in a secretive, uncooperative industry that regards safety regulations as unfair and cumbersome.
The problem that plagued the old Atomic Energy Commission [the predecessor agency to the NRC] — that the promoters and regulators were too cozy with each other — is clearly alive and well. Jaczko describes the relationship as a “corrupt, toxic environment.” It may be a hard warning to hear, but it comes from one who had a fuller view of the nuclear regulatory landscape than most.
Or rather the MASSIVE overreaction compared to the actual events. Chernobyl was a Soviet reactor that was designed to make nuclear weapons. Three Mile Island killed less people then 1000s of mining accidents, pipeline explosions and lots of other things.
The perception of Three Mile Island was hilariously out of scale with the actual danger.
The regulatory overreaction was so big that since then basically the whole nuclear industry died and has been on life support for 30 years.
> In interviews, U.S. and West European officials said that some of the graphite reactors like the four at Chernobyl may be used to produce weapons-grade plutonium, but that their most likely military purpose is to make tritium, a rare isotope of hydrogen used in thermonuclear weapons.
In fairness, nuclear is also just incredibly expensive. Witness Vogtie. Take away all taxes and regulations, then compare the price of, say, Iowa, building a nuclear plant instead of just slapping up windmills wherever they want. (Remember, we're assuming zero regulations. So while slapping up windmills would normally be incredibly illegal, we're able to do that under the conditions that our thought experiment postulates.) There's just no way to make nuclear compete. Which is why when you drive through Iowa, all you see are windmills everywhere. It's cheap. Much cheaper than nuclear.
If people want nuclear, the government has to provide the lion's share of the assistance to make it happen. Even then, there are no guarantees you'll be in love with what that looks like. At Vogtie for instance, the government has taken the unprecedented step of prohibiting future users of Vogtie power from ever switching to cheaper wind or coal alternatives. And that's on top of the government agreeing to pay over half of the initial construction costs. So you basically have government paying the lion's share of the tab, and mandating that everyone use it, and it's still over budget, late, and more expensive than wind and coal alternatives.
Too many analyses of nuclear power ignore the financial realities. Iowans choose wind, because it's cheaper than nuclear, solar, and coal. So they slap up windmills, and they have the old coal plants to fill in the gaps. Now Iowa was not trying to put its nuclear plants out of business, but as a consumer if you can choose an electricity bill at 2 cents per kWh, wouldn't you? Or would you continue to pay the minimum 8x 2 cents per kWh for nuclear? That's why nuclear is on the ropes in the US, if you give people a choice, they tend to vote with their wallets.
Your first paragraph misses the mark, because, unlike a nuclear plant, a windmill or solar plant isn't a standalone power source. To have reliable baseload power with renewables, you need massive battery storage. Right now, you don't factor in the (very high) cost of building battery storage into the cost of wind power because you still have all those coal, gas, and nuclear plants providing baseload power. But the cost of all that baseload capacity that's increasingly sitting around not being used (but has to be there to ensure grid stability) can't be ignored.
>because you still have all those coal, gas, and nuclear plants providing baseload power...
That's right. So why would you not decommission all of that incredibly expensive nuclear, and draw down your use of the coal plants to fill in the gaps? That's how most dispatch stacks work. It's just common sense. Consumers want to save money. Utilities want to make enough money.
There's just no way you use nuclear in any scenario you can come up with, unless the government is paying for it. Then you don't care, because you're not paying the costs.
Coal can't dispatch fast enough, and most coal plants are at the end of their lifecycle and need to be replaced. So you have to build new baseload capacity, usually gas. (And really, you still need a bunch of batteries to handle short-term fluctuations in renewables output.) The problem, then, is that you have all new coal or gas plants, which are expensive capital assets, that you're basically using for standby power. (And they incur operating and maintenance costs even when not running.) You can't say that electricity from renewables is cheap without accounting for the cost of that standby capacity renewables require. A nuclear plant, by contrast, doesn't need a bunch of coal or gas plants sitting around on standby. You can shut down that old coal plant, stop paying the workers, reuse the land, etc.
Baseload is not the necessity, the necessity is to match the power to the load.
Up until now, baseload has been a convenient way to do that matching because baseload was usually the cheapest source of power.
Once baseload is no longer the cheapest source, it's time to re-evaluate that model. Also, when we have a global communication grid and lots of flexibility in our load schedule, it's also fine to re-evaluate how we are doing pricing for electricity.
That time is now. Utilities are highly regulated, and both utility and regulator are slow to adapt to the quickly changing technology that they're now confronting, after nearly a century of glacial technology change. But they will adapt. As we must not only change our economic mode but also become carbon neutral.
Those with huge capital investments may resist, but as you say, we can repurpose that old coal plant and reuse its connections to the grid, which are valuable and expensive to recreate. In Moss Landing, California, gas turbines are getting replaced by over a GWh of lithium ion battery. The change will happen as soon as utilities start bringing recent pricing into their planning process.
No, you don't. The coal plant in another Alliant Energy area has been around since roughly 1900? or so. It's been updated several times. Never was there a need to rebuild from scratch any coal plant. (This is Madison Wi btw.) Now we stopped using coal there in 2011, (all gas now). But the point is, all the renovations are much cheaper than building a nuclear plant. Utilities around here, (the midwest), are run by old, stodgy, conservative guys who are generally not prone to rash action. There are very few executives around here who are going to build entirely new plants because the machinery in the old one has reached its end of service life. They are going to replace the machinery, at a fraction of the cost. I don't think executives in other parts of the nation are all that different in this regard. Now all that said, even if they did completely tear down and rebuild their plants, which they wouldn't, but even if they did, it would still be cheaper than building a nuclear plant.
So the coal plants are fine. And as I mentioned elsewhere, whatever you use to fill gaps will be a transitional technology. Wind turbines will become more efficient. (Work at lower windspeeds.) Pumped hydro storage will be built in new and innovative ways. What will fill the gaps in 2069 will bear little resemblance to what is filling the gaps in 2019. Because the new methods will likely be not only more clean, but much cheaper to boot.
And incidentally,
>You can't say that electricity from renewables is cheap without accounting for the cost of that standby capacity renewables require...
the 2 cents per kWh people see on their bill does factor in every source in the dispatch stack.
Running existing coal and nuclear generation appears to be cheap (2nd chart), but new generation appears to be much more expensive (1st chart). The cost of Solar + Storage is low and dropping, and already beats the cost of new nuclear plants (4th chart).
BTW, I grew up on the east side of Madison, Cheers.
Renewables and storage are already beating natural gas in that gap capacity. As both continue to decrease costs, that niche use will grow. Natural gas and coal tech are cost mature, while both renewables and storage are following natural tech development S-curves down and still have a long way to run.
>And really, you still need a bunch of batteries to handle short-term fluctuations in renewables output.
Not really the case. Renewable output does not fluctuate fast enough to require the fast response of batteries.
Fast responding storage, in the case of the UK pumped hydro, is usually needed due to thermal plants tripping and causing the grid frequency to suddenly nosedive.
Power plant failure also generally happens due to extreme environmental effects. During those events renewable energies often reach their maximum production capacity and therefore actually contribute to grid stability.
The promise of new nuclear plant designs is to cut down construction cost. This is pretty exciting. I think nuclear power will make a come back in popularity in the next few years, as more and more news and promises surface about those designs.
Cut down construction costs still won't solve fundamental problems like final waste storage [0] or a lack of proper epidemiological studies into the effects on people, particularly children and pregnant women [1], living near those plants.
Imho the way we've handled nuclear fission so far is far too reminiscent to other environmental disasters that took humanity decades to even recognize and finally act on, even when we had plenty of warnings from the very beginning [2].
You have to be careful baseload power isn't the same thing as battery backed (time shifted) renewable power.
Coal and Nuclear baseload power exists for two reasons. Excess generating capacity at night. And the inability of coal and nuclear plants to shutdown. It's cheap because of oversupply. Time shifted renewable's is more expensive because of under supply.
Some percentage of base load power consumers are only in it for the balance sheet economics. If the pricing structure changes they'll shift their usage to the cheapest source.
Take away: Renewables don't need to generate as much baseload as coal and nuclear plants do now.
You also need base load during the day when wind is blowing and it all of a sudden disappears. Don't say this doesn't happen as I've seen it many times.
Think about it. Wind might be 30% or more of your dispatch and then it just disappears quickly (even with multiple forecast vendors you are lucky to have a 2 hour warning). At this point you have to either have a lot of headroom (excess thermal generation for times like this) or you hope you can startup a resource in time. Therefore you either need storage on a massive unheard of scale, very fast starting resources, or lots of thermal generation for those times of trouble. Another option would be drastically increasing the demand response in the region (basically shut all the A/C's off at a few universities for an hour or so).
In the USA a very large geographical subsection can lose many GW of instantaneous wind generation across an hour, which can be concerning if the system is currently running pretty economic (not a whole lot of excess reserves).
The way dispatch is done is completely different than the way it was done 10 years ago and also completely different than the way it was designed in so many ways.
We can't really think of the electrical grid as a continental-scale system because it is severely constrained by transmission resources. It as to be modeled as, at best, regional networks with weak interconnection between them.
Even within regions it isn't a well-connected grid.
To give a specific quantitative example within Texas the generation network is modeled as several dozen individual markets (the "nodal market" concept) with generation and load grouped together to form nodes, which are mainly separated by key transmission congestion points.
Lack of transmission capacity sometimes leads to strange artifacts in pricing wind power in Texas, such as negative pricing (due to the Production Tax Credit lowering the floor below zero). These artifacts tend to go away as new transmission capacity comes online and paying loads in more distant markets become reachable.
Additional transmission lowers congestion costs, but you actually increase the "wind artifact" you referred to as you have even more wind online (depending on where the transmission is placed) bidding in below zero as long as the PTC is still in effect. I don't think any new thermal generation has come online in Texas despite their extremely high shortage pricing, so you're really just putting more wind online with new transmission build outs.
Don't disagree with anything you said here, however:
> and they have the old coal plants to fill in the gaps
...this is the problem with solar and most renewables. They have gaps.
The question, it seems to me, is are we in a fight for the survival of our species, or not? If we are, then we should pull all the stops. I want my grandchildren and their grandchildren to have a liveable planet. I'll pay the bloody premium to make that happen.
I guess you should help me understand. Why should we use nuclear instead of coal to fill the gaps? They both pollute. With wind providing the lion's share of the energy, the use of coal is drawn down considerably in any case. And coal is far less expensive than nuclear, even with the onerous regulations that have been slapped on it recently. So how are you going to sell nuclear to your consumers when your competitor may be selling a wind/coal package?
And as to the question of the long term, clearly that is using pumped hydro storage and other such technologies along with more efficient wind turbines. Both lowering the duration of gaps, and providing more power during gaps. So your nuclear or coal plant is, even in the optimistic case, transitional. Who's gonna put up money like that for a transitional technology without some kind of draconian government guarantees?
In this "pulling out all the stops" scenario to stop climate change, only one of them pollute in ways that matter.
Unless you mean the CO2 emissions resulting from construction, etc. I admittedly don't know the numbers there, and I'd imagine a nuclear plant uses a LOT of concrete - but it's also very long lived, which means it should amortize and come out ahead of coal which produces CO2 in operation even if it produces more upfront.
All energy production creates pollution in construction. Nuclear is the only source I know of that can produce consistent and reliable energy without creating any emissions from operation.
To my understanding, while nuclear and coal do both pollute, nuclear pollutes in a less environmentally harmful and more containable way - pollutants that stay in boxes instead of going up in smoke.
> Why should we use nuclear instead of coal to fill the gaps? They both pollute.
The idea that nuclear waste disposal is even remotely comparable to fossil fuel pollution is intellectually dishonest in the extreme. Coal plants pump toxic, carcinogenic, and radioactive waste directly into the atmosphere. Nuclear plants produce waste that can be sealed up and buried in a remote area. The hypothetical situations in which nuclear waste disposal could result in poisoning humans are borderline fantasy, usually involving societal collapse to such an extent that all records of the disposal sites are lost and some future civilization digs a mile deep in rural Finland for no conceivable reason.
Hydro is damaging to the local ecosystem and has a long history of fucking over small communities, in particular indigenous communities who somehow never factor into these decisions.
Show me a powerful river than can be dammed with minimal to no impact to the ecology or the communities up- or down-stream of it, and you will have my support.
Oh, so "we should pull all the stops" turns out to be "please don't impact local ecology and communities"? Concerns about local ecology seems like a bit of climb down from "I'll pay the bloody premium"
Sure, but if you say things like "I'll pay the bloody premium" I expect you're willing to take the environment and political issues for the sake of clean, reliable, and fast power.
There has been significant noise in the space, with a SoftBank project set up to install 200GW of solar projects. That project was cancelled relatively quickly though.
> In fairness, nuclear is also just incredibly expensive.
This is only now wit the current regulation and legal technology. There is no fundamental reason, that nuclear power production should be so expensive.
If we go from first principle, nuclear power requires the least amount of land, the least amount of resources and not a lot of people to run. It runs for very long time.
Nuclear plants were massively out-competing coal in the 80s until there was a huge regulatory changes that essentially killed the industry. Since then no new reactor technology has been license, pretty much all research has been killed, access to nuclear materials is basically impossible, almost no new nuclear plants were built.
And just as with anything else, higher production makes things efficient. If you build one nuclear plant ever 10 years its gone be very expensive. This has been proven for nuclear plants over and over, any place that attempted to build many found that you could actually build them pretty fast and cheap.
Also, there is a massive step up in our ability to improve nuclear power. Wind and solar will not get all that much better. With nuclear we are operating on 2% efficiency and we are having to build massive building and civil engineering to get it done. Even if we have know for 40-50 years that we could massively improve this technology, it just wasn't done. For example, having nuclear power plants that can load follow very effectively.
> That's why nuclear is on the ropes in the US, if you give people a choice, they tend to vote with their wallets.
If its all about cost then nothing competes with gas most of the time. If you take into account end-to-end cost of solar its quite a bit more expensive then people like to quote. In reality with intensive and tax credits, solar and wind would not be so successful outside of a few perfectly located places. And the cost goes up the closer you want to go to 100%. The approach the government likes of slowly getting utilities to up their % of green energy will run into more and more problems the longer it goes on.
>Nuclear plants were massively out-competing coal in the 80s until there was a huge regulatory changes that essentially killed the industry. Since then no new reactor technology has been license, pretty much all research has been killed, access to nuclear materials is basically impossible, almost no new nuclear plants were built.
The US and the West in general. China is going in that direction but China is expanding everything quite hard. The are using the 'lets do everything' strategy.
But yes. By now, you can actually order pretty interesting reactors from China. Their Pebble Bed reactor is interesting.
The environmental movement went anti-nuclear over two very real things: the dumping of waste at sea, and nuclear testing - both because of the threat and the waste products ending up in the atmosphere. This was the era of direct action, culminating in the French government carrying out a state-sponsored terrorist attack that sunk the Rainbow Warrior and killed a photographer who was on board.
"For no particular reason" may not be quite right. One candidate for a particular reason is the same grouchiness about orthodox[] technology that shows up in many double standards. E.g., chemicals that fail the Ames Test are alarmingly sinister if they are synthetic pesticides, vs. so perfectly fine that only a pedant would ever consider the issue if they are pesticidal toxins present at elevated levels in pest-resistant breeds of crops. Any given number of people killed in a coal mine or nuclear accident is a very big deal compared to the same number killed by bacterial infection related to organic farming. Low-tech paintlike or gluelike goo and gunk is not generally subject to witch hunt standards for sinister toxicity when used to caulk or paint charming fishing boats, but is fair game when used in fracking a formation which contains oil. Microquakes are so irrelevant that only a pedant would ask about them when the facility in question is geothermal, but scary as hell for an oil fracking facility. Bird kills are absolutely intolerable ecological atrocities for oil spills, irrelevant pedantry for wind farms.
[] I don't know a word for the distinction I'm trying to get at here with "orthodox". I mean the way that various important technological niches seem to get a pass: e.g. optics (eyeglasses, cameras), and selective breeding of crop species. It's hard for me to imagine persistent enthusiasm for rumors that eyeglasses cause brain cancer in the way that rumors about low-intensity low-frequency EM radiation (from power lines to cell phones) persist. The distinction seems to be roughly "stuff descended from the early Industrial Revolution, the Scottish Enlightenment, and/or sufficiently hardcore scientific method that the Royal Society would be respectfully impressed."
I think Nuclear energy also represent situations that are both hyper rewarding and hyper risky.
An oil tanker can spill millions of gallons off the coast but that can be cleaned up and the damage will repair.
Meanwhile Chernobyl and Fukushima are still abandoned and under constant surveillance and there are still no firm dates for when it will be "safe" to live there.
People who study Nuclear Engineering tend to be targets of assassination / surveillance by sovereign nations (The US and Irael has an active history of eliminating Iranian Nuclear Engineers for example [1]) in an effort to avoid the creation of nuclear weapons or require levels of security and bureaucracy that you don't see elsewhere in the energy industry, scaring off potential candidates.
I'm no ecologist, but as far as I was aware the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is actually quite vibrant due to lack of human interference, while oil spills have extreme consequences for local wildlife.
What they didn't explain was that this crazy APR1400 is the same design is the one of most dangerous and experimental US reactors, South Texas and Palo Verde, with vessels of double size and half the security measures. The only ones matching them in size and dangerousness were the experimental Korean 1400 ones.
South Texas is a 4 loop Westinghouse design and Palo Verde is a 2 loop System 80 Combustion Engineering design. Neither is experimental or unusually dangerous.
South Texas is a French P4 Framatime design with 1400 MW vessels, not used anywhere else in the US (rated experimental) just Korea, with the highest incident rate in the US and the biggest vessels.
Palo Verde is also overlarge and so dangerous with any external cooling possibilities (it's in the dessert), that US fighters regularly have to protect it from unknown planes flying nearby. Anti-Terror measures.
Both were labeled experimental and are extremely dangerous. South Texas just recently was very close to a meltdown during the Houston hurricane. The river nearby rose to the levels almost spilling over into their huge coolant pools. It was something like 40cm. They didn't utter a single word.
Okay, I’m a South Korean citizen.
That, is one aspect.
Consider another aspect.
Nuclear reactors are dangerous. That doesn’t change. We get the Fukushima accident much more prominently because Japan is so close th Korea and everyone (literally everyone) had to worry about eating Fukushima fish.
Nuclear reactors are dangerously close to so many cities, and that can’t change, because our country is too small, and there are so many mountains (which take up space).
It’s different from saying ‘Hey, it’s failure rate is super small, it’s gonna be safe.’ and living close to the reactors and worrying about the tiny failure rate.
And, I was Science High School student which studied nuclear reactors in detail. What would usual people feel?
Doesn't Korea have coal? Shows up as over a quarter of your generation. Have you been to a region that uses coal for energy generation and seen what it does to the land? Mining it causes heavy metal pollution of water that kills people, the fish pick up mercury and lead, and people consume the fish. Shouldn't you be more concerned about coal plants in China contaminating your waters?
> Shouldn’t you be more concerned about coal plants in China contaminating your waters?
Oh course we are concerned, and for what I know our government is keep contacting the Chinese government; however it is hard for Korea to make changes in China’s energy plans.
Korea is both migrating from neuclear reactors, coal plants, etc... to LNG plants (which are much more clean and do not produce much dust) and renewable energy.
129 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 167 ms ] threadRationally, there is little reason for the North Korean state to cause long term damage to a soil that they claim belongs to them, and also the number of such attacks is now close to zero, but as we all know this kind of fear will not go away.
Renewables could work as a replacement, but this may only further weaken South Korea's position in the energy sector in the 21st century. They have a large petroleum and natural gas refining sector, which as we know needs to be phased out. What will be their trajectory in this context?
No. They can't as long as cheap energy storage on mass scales doesn't exist. Case in point: closing nuclear plants and replacing them with renewables is what Germany has been trying to do and has failed to do so far. They essentially replaced (and will continue to replace) nuclear by renewables paired with coal and gas plants running on standby. They can't cold start these plants fast enough to catch dips in energy production from renewables.
You simply can't replace a constant energy source (nuclear) by an intermittent one (most renewables).
I'm guessing South Korea will go the same route as "good example" Germany. Push renewables. Which translates to; close nuclear plants, invest heavily in solar and wind paired with gas and coal. End result: more CO2 emissions, higher consumer energy prices, but most importantly: a clean reputation through good intentions.
Renewables at this stage are more about politically correct marketing than about clean and safe energy.
It does, Tesla's grid-scale Powerwall made 25% of its cost in profits in 6 months (per https://insideevs.com/news/340702/tesla-powerpack-in-austral...).
Aside from using Powerwalls, us Europeans have extensive experience with using hydro pump storage.
It's not like Germany just started building a lot of coal plants, to replace the closed nuclear plants.
What's left will be gas and renewables.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/201...
I'll believe it when I see it. Also. What problem exactly is that supposed to solve?
I thought the whole energiewende stunt was about decreasing CO2 emissions. I'm not seeing this.
What makes you think coal and nuclear are scalable? Gas has been the only option from the start and simply switching from coal to gas already results in a 50-60% CO2 reduction.
While currently most imports are from Russia,there‘s an effort to start building LNG terminals to be able to import from the US.
https://www.reuters.com/article/germany-lng/update-1-germany...
Part of this is appeasement to the US but it is a good backup to have.
For battery storage to be cost effective in general it has to be quite a bit cheaper than it currently is. The cost has been declining, but people who expect exponential curves to continue forever are generally disappointed. It may or may not hit a stable floor before the cost is low enough to actually replace baseload power generation. What it is likely to be good for is to get over the load hump between dusk and bedtime for solar -- but that requires a lot less storage than being able to carry the whole night. Especially in winter (when the nights are longer), and especially if we expect people to switch from carbon-based to electric heat.
The issue is we need to be building things to replace carbon right now. Even if batteries become cost effective in a decade or more, that's too late. And there is no guarantee of even that.
That's kind of the point. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
And even if batteries become cost effective in a decade or more, that's when people start installing them at scale. It's not as if you could replace the entire grid with them overnight either.
Germany was the global top electricity exporter, by dollar value, in 2017 [0]. If that's what "failing" looks like, then maybe more countries should start "failing" like that?
In that context, coal and gas are only stop-gap technologies until storage technology and deployment has caught up, and coal is mostly only around for the same reasons as in the US: To not piss off the miners/lose those jobs.
[0] http://www.worldstopexports.com/electricity-exports-country/
> coal is mostly only around for the same reasons as in the US: To not piss off the miners/lose those jobs.
Totally agree, especially lignite heavy regions don't have a lot of other industry.
[0] select "import, export" at https://energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=all-sources&year=2...
> After the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, most reactor builders had tacked on a slew of new safety features. KHNP followed suit but later realized that the astronomical cost of these features would make the APR1400 much too expensive to attract foreign clients.
> “They eventually removed most of them,” says Park, who now teaches nuclear engineering at Dongguk University. “Only about 10% to 20% of the original safety additions were kept.”
Additionally the modern US standard for safety regulation by the NRC is so stringent that anyone criticizing safety often sounds like spreading FUD if not specifically mentioning the caveat of either "outside the US" or "in the 70s".
That's not to say there are "no problems" - to the contrary, age is the biggest problem. And there simply is no preparation for the end of the nuclear powerplant age, which is coming at this rate.
AP1000 is a new reactor design from the 2000s. Vogtle 3 and 4 are AP1000 reactors. The construction was started in 2013 and should have taken four years and costed 14.3 billion usd, but now it seems those reactors won't come online until 2022 to the cost of 27 billion usd. Lest anyone thinks that is because Americans are bad at building nuclear power, many other projects around the wold suffers from exactly the same cost and time overruns.
http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/new-plants/ap1000-pwr/ove... https://www.utilitydive.com/news/southern-increases-vogtle-n... https://theecologist.org/2014/sep/19/three-every-four-nuclea...
There's many ways you could be implicitly connecting the dots to this discussion somehow. I welcome you making those clear. I am not going to put words in your mouth, though.
This is a board full of people who want to see hard facts, numbers and metrics. By the numbers, nuclear kills a hell of a lot less people than fossil fuels, or anything else (even when using an age adjusted metric that more accurately represents the impact of fossil fuels than the "bazillion deaths" that headlines tout). In terms of disaster potential it's on the order of hydroelectric unless for some reason you find waking up underwater to be vastly preferable to radiation poisoning.
Water disappears. Yes, a failed dam may kill thousands to tens of thousands, but the land is generally immediately reusable without major problems as long as there is no chemical industry in the floodpath.
A nuclear reactor blowing up, though? The immediate death potential is mostly limited to the on-site staff and the "liquidators" (as evidenced in Chernobyl), but the land wide swaths around the site can remain uninhabitable for hundreds of years.
To this day, wild pigs and fungi in Bavaria (1700 km away!) have to be radiation tested (https://www.welt.de/regionales/bayern/article154639428/Bayer...) due to Cs exposure in the fallout of Chernobyl.
If the land is really that valuable it can be cleaned. Nobody is going to remediate a forest in the Ukraine though because the Ukraine doesn't have that kind of money and it's not like they're particularly strapped for land in eastern Europe.
By definition anything radioactive enough to cause harm is not going to be long-lived. After a few years it's generally going to
>To this day, wild pigs and fungi in Bavaria (1700 km away!) have to be radiation tested
If by "have to" you mean "in order to make people feel safe" then sure. If by "have to" you mean "because it is not uncommon to find examples that are too irradiated for human consumption" so we have to test them to get a picture of how common these cases are. Honestly I'd be more concerned about eating deer that have been drinking from god knows what contaminated water source than I would be about radiation in animals around Chernobyl.
Not really. Even in Japan, regulators basically screwed over regulations to declare the land as "inhabitable" again (https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2017-03/fukushima-japan-...).
> If by "have to" you mean "in order to make people feel safe" then sure.
Keeping people safe is the primary objective for a state, not allowing private entities to extract the most possible profits while offloading the risks to the state. We saw this in Japan, it is impossible for any private entity to shoulder the cost of an accident.
You seem to be confusing "keeping people safe" with "keeping people safe theater". Monitoring the radioactivity of European crops and livestock in 2019 is solidly in the latter category.
>not allowing private entities to extract the most possible profits while offloading the risks to the state.
This it as tangential to a discussion of nuclear safety compared to the safety of any other power source.
>We saw this in Japan, it is impossible for any private entity to shoulder the cost of an accident.
And this is different than a dam failure, or any other industrial accident of similar magnitude, in a similarly populated/developed location how?
No, it is not. No other power source comes even close in the amount of time that has to be covered by insurances.
A dam breaks, a gas plant explodes, that's a couple billions of dollars of damage plus a couple billions in payments for the relatives of the dead. For corporations making billions of years in profits, that's pocket change. (Which coincidentally explains why disasters regarding open "seas" of toxic mining slurry occur so regularly)
For Fukushima? That land is inhabitable for decades. Assume the Isar 1 AKW blows up? This is only 100km away from Munich. Can you imagine how much it costs to move an area with over 3M people?
And that doesn't even touch the question: where to put the nuclear trash? Germany doesn't have a permanent waste facility and many other countries don't have one either.
Note that I'm not against nuclear in general: Inherently safe designs such as MSRs? Perfectly fine. But not the often shoddily maintained stuff that is in use today!
According to UNSCEAR radon (which you probably mean?) actually causes 9% of lung cancers in Europe: https://www.focus.de/gesundheit/ratgeber/krebs/vorbeugung/ti...
> Are you sure we're drawing a consistent line on radiation exposure?
We're not doing this, and the result is (easily!) preventable illness and death.
Because a bit of land is what we are really running out off.
> To this day, wild pigs and fungi in Bavaria (1700 km away!) have to be radiation tested (https://www.welt.de/regionales/bayern/article154639428/Bayer...) due to Cs exposure in the fallout of Chernobyl.
Because of massive government overreaction and idiotic regulation that make no sense at all because they are literally based on fake science that was accidentally adopted by government as a bases for regulation.
>A similar reversal is beginning in China, until recently seen as nuclear energy’s biggest champion. There, as in South Korea, Fukushima awakened public fears and forced the government to adopt tougher safety standards, which now threaten to push the cost of nuclear power out of reach. Of the world’s other major producers of nuclear power, only Russia is still aggressively building more reactors...
I hope renewables and batteries play out.
"China is no stranger to nuclear power. The stated PRC goal is to raise domestic nuclear energy output from 43 gigawatts (GW) to 300 GW by 2030." https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2019/04/25/china-ent...
> Officially China still sees nuclear power as a must-have. But unofficially, the technology is on a death watch. Experts, including some with links to the government, see China’s nuclear sector succumbing to the same problems affecting the West: the technology is too expensive, and the public doesn’t want it.
> The 2011 meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant shocked Chinese officials and made a strong impression on many Chinese citizens. A government survey in August 2017 found that only 40% of the public supported nuclear power development.
> The bigger problem is financial. Reactors built with extra safety features and more robust cooling systems to avoid a Fukushima-like disaster are expensive, while the costs of wind and solar power continue to plummet: they are now 20% cheaper than electricity from new nuclear plants in China, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Moreover, high construction costs make nuclear a risky investment.
China's electricity consumption growth is also rapidly slowing due to faltering economic growth.
- Environmental movement went anti-nuclear in the '70s for no particular reason.
- Fear Sells in the media. Nothing strikes fear like the invisible killer of radiation. Nuclear disasters get media attention like nothing else.
- Nuclear weapons are scary, and rightfully so. And they share a word in common with "nuclear power," so there you go.
Being tightly regulated and controlled by government makes an industry ripe for "corruption and greed" since it takes political connection and maneuvering to get things done.
It really is amazing, though, how much public image and politics can completely stall forward progress on a power source with so much promise.
Now you're being specious. They share rather more than a word, they are based on the same physical process.
Nothing like that happens in a nuclear power station.
I don't think that's quite accurate. It may be more accurate to say they were misinformed or miscalculated.
The reasons were that they believed, and many people still do, that nuclear was bad for the environment because:
1) It required mining to extract the resources necessary, and mining isn't exactly a green activity.
2) Nuclear disasters are unquestionably bad for the environment, and bad in an immediately visible way. (Compared to carbon, which takes many decades for the effects to take hold.)
3) There's a general sense that we don't know what to do with the nuclear waste.
To be clear, I 100% support nuclear power as the most pragmatic and environmentally friendly solution to our energy needs. But if we're going to tackle the political problem, we have to be honest about why that problem exists.
But people don't get as emotional about the resources required to build windmills (so long as it's not in my backyard) as they do about nuclear. And once a windmill or a dam or a solar farm has been built, there's a belief that there's no ongoing environmental damage. Whereas nuclear (and coal and gas) require ongoing resource extraction.
Again, I'm not the one making these arguments. I'm saying this is public perception. (Or at least my perception of public perception.) I happen to think the only environmentally responsible way to supply all the energy we need for 7 billion people (and growing), especially when more and more of those people are industrializing, is to go nuclear. Every other option seems like a guaranteed way to kill ourselves in the long run.
But you need massive amounts of battery storage to actually power a grid with windmills and solar plants (unless you have a bunch of coal and nuclear providing baseload power anyway). And batteries are consumables which require intensive mining.
Low renewable energy production is only a problem for maybe 20 days in a year and those days are not consecutive, they are randomly distributed over the year so gas or battery storage beyond 7 days isn't even needed. It wont be the end of the world as long as we can stop emitting CO2.
Incidentally the US raises the same objection over Iran's nuclear power program.
[1] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6424/237
https://news.gallup.com/poll/153452/americans-favor-nuclear-...
Can you source that claim? My personal experience is that people I encounter in the US are pretty nuclear-hostile, but that's just anecdotal.
Not to mention the ones that were started but never finished construction like the Virgil C. Summer plants.
Although [former NRC commissioner] Jaczko's account will become standard reading as an antinuclear book, his reasons have more to do with regulation than nuclear energy per se. Jaczko sees two paths ahead. One has a sustainable future with nuclear reactors that includes widespread recognition that accidents will happen and a greater commitment to safety. The other path is the one he witnessed as NRC chairman, featuring waning public trust in a secretive, uncooperative industry that regards safety regulations as unfair and cumbersome.
The problem that plagued the old Atomic Energy Commission [the predecessor agency to the NRC] — that the promoters and regulators were too cozy with each other — is clearly alive and well. Jaczko describes the relationship as a “corrupt, toxic environment.” It may be a hard warning to hear, but it comes from one who had a fuller view of the nuclear regulatory landscape than most.
The perception of Three Mile Island was hilariously out of scale with the actual danger.
The regulatory overreaction was so big that since then basically the whole nuclear industry died and has been on life support for 30 years.
Source?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
> the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, near the now-abandoned town of Pripyat, in northern Soviet Ukraine.
Weapons:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-10-03-mn-4176-s...
> In interviews, U.S. and West European officials said that some of the graphite reactors like the four at Chernobyl may be used to produce weapons-grade plutonium, but that their most likely military purpose is to make tritium, a rare isotope of hydrogen used in thermonuclear weapons.
If people want nuclear, the government has to provide the lion's share of the assistance to make it happen. Even then, there are no guarantees you'll be in love with what that looks like. At Vogtie for instance, the government has taken the unprecedented step of prohibiting future users of Vogtie power from ever switching to cheaper wind or coal alternatives. And that's on top of the government agreeing to pay over half of the initial construction costs. So you basically have government paying the lion's share of the tab, and mandating that everyone use it, and it's still over budget, late, and more expensive than wind and coal alternatives.
Too many analyses of nuclear power ignore the financial realities. Iowans choose wind, because it's cheaper than nuclear, solar, and coal. So they slap up windmills, and they have the old coal plants to fill in the gaps. Now Iowa was not trying to put its nuclear plants out of business, but as a consumer if you can choose an electricity bill at 2 cents per kWh, wouldn't you? Or would you continue to pay the minimum 8x 2 cents per kWh for nuclear? That's why nuclear is on the ropes in the US, if you give people a choice, they tend to vote with their wallets.
That's right. So why would you not decommission all of that incredibly expensive nuclear, and draw down your use of the coal plants to fill in the gaps? That's how most dispatch stacks work. It's just common sense. Consumers want to save money. Utilities want to make enough money.
There's just no way you use nuclear in any scenario you can come up with, unless the government is paying for it. Then you don't care, because you're not paying the costs.
Up until now, baseload has been a convenient way to do that matching because baseload was usually the cheapest source of power.
Once baseload is no longer the cheapest source, it's time to re-evaluate that model. Also, when we have a global communication grid and lots of flexibility in our load schedule, it's also fine to re-evaluate how we are doing pricing for electricity.
That time is now. Utilities are highly regulated, and both utility and regulator are slow to adapt to the quickly changing technology that they're now confronting, after nearly a century of glacial technology change. But they will adapt. As we must not only change our economic mode but also become carbon neutral.
Those with huge capital investments may resist, but as you say, we can repurpose that old coal plant and reuse its connections to the grid, which are valuable and expensive to recreate. In Moss Landing, California, gas turbines are getting replaced by over a GWh of lithium ion battery. The change will happen as soon as utilities start bringing recent pricing into their planning process.
No, you don't. The coal plant in another Alliant Energy area has been around since roughly 1900? or so. It's been updated several times. Never was there a need to rebuild from scratch any coal plant. (This is Madison Wi btw.) Now we stopped using coal there in 2011, (all gas now). But the point is, all the renovations are much cheaper than building a nuclear plant. Utilities around here, (the midwest), are run by old, stodgy, conservative guys who are generally not prone to rash action. There are very few executives around here who are going to build entirely new plants because the machinery in the old one has reached its end of service life. They are going to replace the machinery, at a fraction of the cost. I don't think executives in other parts of the nation are all that different in this regard. Now all that said, even if they did completely tear down and rebuild their plants, which they wouldn't, but even if they did, it would still be cheaper than building a nuclear plant.
So the coal plants are fine. And as I mentioned elsewhere, whatever you use to fill gaps will be a transitional technology. Wind turbines will become more efficient. (Work at lower windspeeds.) Pumped hydro storage will be built in new and innovative ways. What will fill the gaps in 2069 will bear little resemblance to what is filling the gaps in 2019. Because the new methods will likely be not only more clean, but much cheaper to boot.
And incidentally,
>You can't say that electricity from renewables is cheap without accounting for the cost of that standby capacity renewables require...
the 2 cents per kWh people see on their bill does factor in every source in the dispatch stack.
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
Running existing coal and nuclear generation appears to be cheap (2nd chart), but new generation appears to be much more expensive (1st chart). The cost of Solar + Storage is low and dropping, and already beats the cost of new nuclear plants (4th chart).
BTW, I grew up on the east side of Madison, Cheers.
Not really the case. Renewable output does not fluctuate fast enough to require the fast response of batteries.
Fast responding storage, in the case of the UK pumped hydro, is usually needed due to thermal plants tripping and causing the grid frequency to suddenly nosedive.
Since when was natural gas ever good for base load? It's almost always used peak load because it spins up quickly.
Here's an article shared by Bill Gates last week: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/sunday/climate-ch...
Imho the way we've handled nuclear fission so far is far too reminiscent to other environmental disasters that took humanity decades to even recognize and finally act on, even when we had plenty of warnings from the very beginning [2].
[0] http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/looking-trash-can-nuc...
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757021/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Controversy_and...
You have to be careful baseload power isn't the same thing as battery backed (time shifted) renewable power.
Coal and Nuclear baseload power exists for two reasons. Excess generating capacity at night. And the inability of coal and nuclear plants to shutdown. It's cheap because of oversupply. Time shifted renewable's is more expensive because of under supply.
Some percentage of base load power consumers are only in it for the balance sheet economics. If the pricing structure changes they'll shift their usage to the cheapest source.
Take away: Renewables don't need to generate as much baseload as coal and nuclear plants do now.
Think about it. Wind might be 30% or more of your dispatch and then it just disappears quickly (even with multiple forecast vendors you are lucky to have a 2 hour warning). At this point you have to either have a lot of headroom (excess thermal generation for times like this) or you hope you can startup a resource in time. Therefore you either need storage on a massive unheard of scale, very fast starting resources, or lots of thermal generation for those times of trouble. Another option would be drastically increasing the demand response in the region (basically shut all the A/C's off at a few universities for an hour or so).
The way dispatch is done is completely different than the way it was done 10 years ago and also completely different than the way it was designed in so many ways.
Even within regions it isn't a well-connected grid.
To give a specific quantitative example within Texas the generation network is modeled as several dozen individual markets (the "nodal market" concept) with generation and load grouped together to form nodes, which are mainly separated by key transmission congestion points.
Lack of transmission capacity sometimes leads to strange artifacts in pricing wind power in Texas, such as negative pricing (due to the Production Tax Credit lowering the floor below zero). These artifacts tend to go away as new transmission capacity comes online and paying loads in more distant markets become reachable.
> and they have the old coal plants to fill in the gaps
...this is the problem with solar and most renewables. They have gaps.
The question, it seems to me, is are we in a fight for the survival of our species, or not? If we are, then we should pull all the stops. I want my grandchildren and their grandchildren to have a liveable planet. I'll pay the bloody premium to make that happen.
But is coal not one of the stops?
I guess you should help me understand. Why should we use nuclear instead of coal to fill the gaps? They both pollute. With wind providing the lion's share of the energy, the use of coal is drawn down considerably in any case. And coal is far less expensive than nuclear, even with the onerous regulations that have been slapped on it recently. So how are you going to sell nuclear to your consumers when your competitor may be selling a wind/coal package?
And as to the question of the long term, clearly that is using pumped hydro storage and other such technologies along with more efficient wind turbines. Both lowering the duration of gaps, and providing more power during gaps. So your nuclear or coal plant is, even in the optimistic case, transitional. Who's gonna put up money like that for a transitional technology without some kind of draconian government guarantees?
In this "pulling out all the stops" scenario to stop climate change, only one of them pollute in ways that matter.
Unless you mean the CO2 emissions resulting from construction, etc. I admittedly don't know the numbers there, and I'd imagine a nuclear plant uses a LOT of concrete - but it's also very long lived, which means it should amortize and come out ahead of coal which produces CO2 in operation even if it produces more upfront.
All energy production creates pollution in construction. Nuclear is the only source I know of that can produce consistent and reliable energy without creating any emissions from operation.
The idea that nuclear waste disposal is even remotely comparable to fossil fuel pollution is intellectually dishonest in the extreme. Coal plants pump toxic, carcinogenic, and radioactive waste directly into the atmosphere. Nuclear plants produce waste that can be sealed up and buried in a remote area. The hypothetical situations in which nuclear waste disposal could result in poisoning humans are borderline fantasy, usually involving societal collapse to such an extent that all records of the disposal sites are lost and some future civilization digs a mile deep in rural Finland for no conceivable reason.
Show me a powerful river than can be dammed with minimal to no impact to the ecology or the communities up- or down-stream of it, and you will have my support.
I am not up to date with current projects.
This is only now wit the current regulation and legal technology. There is no fundamental reason, that nuclear power production should be so expensive.
If we go from first principle, nuclear power requires the least amount of land, the least amount of resources and not a lot of people to run. It runs for very long time.
Nuclear plants were massively out-competing coal in the 80s until there was a huge regulatory changes that essentially killed the industry. Since then no new reactor technology has been license, pretty much all research has been killed, access to nuclear materials is basically impossible, almost no new nuclear plants were built.
And just as with anything else, higher production makes things efficient. If you build one nuclear plant ever 10 years its gone be very expensive. This has been proven for nuclear plants over and over, any place that attempted to build many found that you could actually build them pretty fast and cheap.
Also, there is a massive step up in our ability to improve nuclear power. Wind and solar will not get all that much better. With nuclear we are operating on 2% efficiency and we are having to build massive building and civil engineering to get it done. Even if we have know for 40-50 years that we could massively improve this technology, it just wasn't done. For example, having nuclear power plants that can load follow very effectively.
> That's why nuclear is on the ropes in the US, if you give people a choice, they tend to vote with their wallets.
If its all about cost then nothing competes with gas most of the time. If you take into account end-to-end cost of solar its quite a bit more expensive then people like to quote. In reality with intensive and tax credits, solar and wind would not be so successful outside of a few perfectly located places. And the cost goes up the closer you want to go to 100%. The approach the government likes of slowly getting utilities to up their % of green energy will run into more and more problems the longer it goes on.
Are you talking about the US or South Korea? China seems to be investing pretty hard into nuclear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
But yes. By now, you can actually order pretty interesting reactors from China. Their Pebble Bed reactor is interesting.
NO particular reason?
> Nothing strikes fear like the invisible killer of radiation. Nuclear disasters get media attention like nothing else.
Other than that, maybe.
[0] https://qz.com/1163140/us-nuclear-tests-killed-american-civi...
[] I don't know a word for the distinction I'm trying to get at here with "orthodox". I mean the way that various important technological niches seem to get a pass: e.g. optics (eyeglasses, cameras), and selective breeding of crop species. It's hard for me to imagine persistent enthusiasm for rumors that eyeglasses cause brain cancer in the way that rumors about low-intensity low-frequency EM radiation (from power lines to cell phones) persist. The distinction seems to be roughly "stuff descended from the early Industrial Revolution, the Scottish Enlightenment, and/or sufficiently hardcore scientific method that the Royal Society would be respectfully impressed."
I think Nuclear energy also represent situations that are both hyper rewarding and hyper risky.
An oil tanker can spill millions of gallons off the coast but that can be cleaned up and the damage will repair. Meanwhile Chernobyl and Fukushima are still abandoned and under constant surveillance and there are still no firm dates for when it will be "safe" to live there.
People who study Nuclear Engineering tend to be targets of assassination / surveillance by sovereign nations (The US and Irael has an active history of eliminating Iranian Nuclear Engineers for example [1]) in an effort to avoid the creation of nuclear weapons or require levels of security and bureaucracy that you don't see elsewhere in the energy industry, scaring off potential candidates.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nucle...
Palo Verde is also overlarge and so dangerous with any external cooling possibilities (it's in the dessert), that US fighters regularly have to protect it from unknown planes flying nearby. Anti-Terror measures.
Both were labeled experimental and are extremely dangerous. South Texas just recently was very close to a meltdown during the Houston hurricane. The river nearby rose to the levels almost spilling over into their huge coolant pools. It was something like 40cm. They didn't utter a single word.
Guy made world record He drive car on two wheels See his video how he is driving http://bit.ly/2ZOYaWX
See the video of this man he is catching balls and he is wearing blindfold http://bit.ly/2Vx4Mdl
https://blog.dilbert.com/2019/04/30/episode-512-scott-adams-...
Doesn't Korea have coal? Shows up as over a quarter of your generation. Have you been to a region that uses coal for energy generation and seen what it does to the land? Mining it causes heavy metal pollution of water that kills people, the fish pick up mercury and lead, and people consume the fish. Shouldn't you be more concerned about coal plants in China contaminating your waters?
EDIT: Korea study on mercury sources: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1309104215302713