Nuclear power

[Astatine]

Like stated, what is your view on nuclear power?

I had been critical on it for some time, especially considering my country phasing out of it and me living close to a French nuclear power plant, but after having done more research, I have changed my view.

1.) Nuclear power has almost no direct CO2 pollution and if the 1.5 °C goal in the Paris Climate Change Agreement is to reached, expanding or at least keeping nuclear energy is inevitable, as stated by the IPCC report.

2.) Nuclear power is providing electricity permanently unlike solar and wind power, which need some saving, which is difficult as of now. Pumped-storage hydroelectric stations seem to be the most efficient solution, but don't work everywhere.

3.) Nuclear is quite safe. Yes, it is, modern types of power plants of Generation III/III+ run without big safety issues, there are several systems avoiding major accidents. Chernobyl is the best example for a flawed reactor type (reaaally flawed) plus Soviet corruption, leading to a disaster. Fukushima is a different thing tho, and it did not even result to more than one radiation-related death. Pollution in any ways is inevitable, either pollution with CO2 worldwide and thus pollution-related deaths. Several studies show that deaths per produced MWh of energy is among the lowest compared to other power plants types, considering that coal- and gas fired power plants cause death by pollution and hydroelectric dams can break. Of course, long time effects have to be taken into account.

4.) Waste disposal is the major issue, albeit there has been some progress. Finland is set to open a nuclear waste storage this year, and if you take into account that chemical waste is already being stored beneath Earth (as chemistry student, I can confirm that most of that is some pretty toxic stuff), why shouldn't it work with nuclear waste? Additionally, new techniques such as transmutation and waste-recycling reactors are being researched on.

So to sum it up, I'm in favor of expanding nuclear energy as long as safety is the number one priority and as long as no solution for energy storage has been found.

What do you think about that?

[PSOL]

Nuclear should be expanded as an underutilized public good through investment by the government on nationalized industry.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Nuclear should be expanded as an underutilized public good through investment by the government on nationalized industry.

While I wouldn't go so far as nationalizing all existing nuclear, I would definitely see much merit in government getting involved in the nuclear industry and pushing the envelope on research and running its own collection of nuclear power plants.

[PSOL]

Nuclear should be expanded as an underutilized public good through investment by the government on nationalized industry.

While I wouldn't go so far as nationalizing all existing nuclear, I would definitely see much merit in government getting involved in the nuclear industry and pushing the envelope on research and running its own collection of nuclear power plants.

The problem is that outside of other energy sources, the maintenance and upkeep keeps working with Nuclear energy unprofitable compared to other sources of energy. Really the only reason to have nuclear energy is for the public good in most cases, so if anything it makes no rational sense to have it owned and operated in private hands if they just need massive subsidies from the government anyway.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Nuclear should be expanded as an underutilized public good through investment by the government on nationalized industry.

While I wouldn't go so far as nationalizing all existing nuclear, I would definitely see much merit in government getting involved in the nuclear industry and pushing the envelope on research and running its own collection of nuclear power plants.

The problem is that outside of other energy sources, the maintenance and upkeep keeps working with Nuclear energy unprofitable compared to other sources of energy. Really the only reason to have nuclear energy is for the public good in most cases, so if anything it makes no rational sense to have it owned and operated in private hands if they just need massive subsidies from the government anyway.

One thing I would worry about though is the fact that government might not handle things perfectly here. As is the case with nationalization in general - it doesn't mean just lower costs more often than not on the consumer end but also more of a burden for the government, to maintain everything. And if the government has minimal interest in upgrading it or treating it with as much care as a private corporation taking into account the profit motive - then nationalization is a step backwards. The government might decide that lower taxes to win over voters matters more than any given so sum of investment to help fortify a nuclear power plant.

[PSOL]

Nuclear should be expanded as an underutilized public good through investment by the government on nationalized industry.

While I wouldn't go so far as nationalizing all existing nuclear, I would definitely see much merit in government getting involved in the nuclear industry and pushing the envelope on research and running its own collection of nuclear power plants.

The problem is that outside of other energy sources, the maintenance and upkeep keeps working with Nuclear energy unprofitable compared to other sources of energy. Really the only reason to have nuclear energy is for the public good in most cases, so if anything it makes no rational sense to have it owned and operated in private hands if they just need massive subsidies from the government anyway.

One thing I would worry about though is the fact that government might not handle things perfectly here. As is the case with nationalization in general - it doesn't mean just lower costs more often than not on the consumer end but also more of a burden for the government, to maintain everything. And if the government has minimal interest in upgrading it or treating it with as much care as a private corporation taking into account the profit motive - then nationalization is a step backwards. The government might decide that lower taxes to win over voters matters more than any given so sum of investment to help fortify a nuclear power plant.

That sounds more of a problem of political will then impossibility or nuclear energy being a negative by itself. The government then should firmly prioritize that everything runs smoothly and explain the clear benefits to the populace at large, while disregarding naysayers that are only concerned with the threat of increased taxes.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Nuclear should be expanded as an underutilized public good through investment by the government on nationalized industry.

While I wouldn't go so far as nationalizing all existing nuclear, I would definitely see much merit in government getting involved in the nuclear industry and pushing the envelope on research and running its own collection of nuclear power plants.

The problem is that outside of other energy sources, the maintenance and upkeep keeps working with Nuclear energy unprofitable compared to other sources of energy. Really the only reason to have nuclear energy is for the public good in most cases, so if anything it makes no rational sense to have it owned and operated in private hands if they just need massive subsidies from the government anyway.

One thing I would worry about though is the fact that government might not handle things perfectly here. As is the case with nationalization in general - it doesn't mean just lower costs more often than not on the consumer end but also more of a burden for the government, to maintain everything. And if the government has minimal interest in upgrading it or treating it with as much care as a private corporation taking into account the profit motive - then nationalization is a step backwards. The government might decide that lower taxes to win over voters matters more than any given so sum of investment to help fortify a nuclear power plant.

That sounds more of a problem of political will then impossibility or nuclear energy being a negative by itself. The government then should firmly prioritize that everything runs smoothly and explain the clear benefits to the populace at large, while disregarding naysayers that are only concerned with the threat of increased taxes.

Oh, definitely, it is a political will problem above all else. I'm just thinking about what we can expect to happen as opposed to what ought to happen.

[GoTfan]

My issue with nuclear power is twofold. We don't have a way to effectively dispose of the waste permanently, and construction of nuclear plants is extremely disruptive to local ecology. Not to mention they take years to come online.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Option 2.

[DINGO Joe]

Really can't justify building new plants without some breakthrough that makes them more affordable.  Phasing out perfectly good ones like in Germany make no sense either.

Option 2

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The big that a lot of people don't seem to realise is that the carbon emissions that come from electricity are probably the easiest thing to deal with, to the extent that most countries could probably end up with zero carbon grids in 2050 by doing absolutely nothing but watch the old fossil plants fall into oblivion and make some token investments in energy storage. Renewables are coming into their own, really; there's no need for nuclear or traditional baseload plants in the grid.

the issue with carbon emissions is things like industrial processes, aviation, shipping, cars, lorries, agriculture, forestry and so on. All of which present their own problems, and nobody really has an agreed upon solution for.

[parochial boy]

the issue with carbon emissions is things like industrial processes, aviation, shipping, cars, lorries, agriculture, forestry and so on. All of which present their own problems, and nobody really has an agreed upon solution for.

Well, irony of ironies is that the Coronavirus might actually help here. Countries and corporations might start looking to relocalise some production, shorten their supply chains and - thanks to the "shortage of X,Y Z" panics - we might see a general decrease in enthusiasm of just-in-time methods and a greater willingness to hold more stock. If that happens, then the overall intensity of international shipping might be reduced, bringing down carbon emissions with it.

Same with the other two massive polluters that are the aviation and cruise ship industries - people might be less enthusiastic about using either in the short to middle term future.

[Virginiá]

Voted should be expanded.

Newer generation designs are much safer, although some may require advances in material sciences.

I did like this article about mass producing small nuclear reactors that could be easily installed (relatively speaking), and scaled up to meet demand in what are essentially modular power plants:

https://www.city-journal.org/next-generation-nuclear-power

SMRs involve a radical rethinking of how to build and operate nuclear plants. Since the early days of atomic power, conventional wisdom has called for making each reactor as large as possible. After all, a reactor is expensive to build and requires a highly skilled workforce to operate. Why not maximize the output from each unit to get the best return on that investment?

Jose Reyes began questioning the bigger-is-better model in 2004, when he spent a year overseas as an advisor to the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency. “I met folks from Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia,” he said. “They all said the same thing: ‘We need power, but we need it in smaller increments. We can’t afford big reactors.’ ” When he returned to the U.S., Reyes began working on a prototype. His design is a scaled-down version of the kind of water-cooled reactor in common use today—but radically simplified. The entire system operates in a vacuum inside a sealed containment vessel not unlike a thermos bottle. It requires no complex plumbing or pumps. Large nuclear plants demand a constant flow of water to stay cool even when they are shut down. (The Three Mile Island and Fukushima nuclear accidents were partly caused by the failure of their cooling pumps.) But the NuScale reactor is designed to stay cool passively. In the event of malfunction, the water surrounding the containment vessel would safely carry away heat, and even if the tank eventually went dry, the residual heat would dissipate harmlessly into the atmosphere.

[Person Man]

Voted should be expanded.

Newer generation designs are much safer, although some may require advances in material sciences.

I did like this article about mass producing small nuclear reactors that could be easily installed (relatively speaking), and scaled up to meet demand in what are essentially modular power plants:

https://www.city-journal.org/next-generation-nuclear-power

SMRs involve a radical rethinking of how to build and operate nuclear plants. Since the early days of atomic power, conventional wisdom has called for making each reactor as large as possible. After all, a reactor is expensive to build and requires a highly skilled workforce to operate. Why not maximize the output from each unit to get the best return on that investment?

Jose Reyes began questioning the bigger-is-better model in 2004, when he spent a year overseas as an advisor to the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency. “I met folks from Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia,” he said. “They all said the same thing: ‘We need power, but we need it in smaller increments. We can’t afford big reactors.’ ” When he returned to the U.S., Reyes began working on a prototype. His design is a scaled-down version of the kind of water-cooled reactor in common use today—but radically simplified. The entire system operates in a vacuum inside a sealed containment vessel not unlike a thermos bottle. It requires no complex plumbing or pumps. Large nuclear plants demand a constant flow of water to stay cool even when they are shut down. (The Three Mile Island and Fukushima nuclear accidents were partly caused by the failure of their cooling pumps.) But the NuScale reactor is designed to stay cool passively. In the event of malfunction, the water surrounding the containment vessel would safely carry away heat, and even if the tank eventually went dry, the residual heat would dissipate harmlessly into the atmosphere.

My best buddy from college wants to start a company to build these things. He was working for a guy in Huntsville that wanted to do it but my friend left because the guy was a complete jackass.

[Astatine]

Really can't justify building new plants without some breakthrough that makes them more affordable.  Phasing out perfectly good ones like in Germany make no sense either.

Option 2

A carbon pricing system (whether carbon certificate trading system or carbon tax) could help make nuclear power plants more affordable. I could see that being one of the reasons why power generating costs differ much less for fossil fueled and nuclear power plants in EU in comparison to US (besides that US has more gas available). EU has a carbon pricing system (EU-ECTS). Not sure tho.

[jaymichaud]

Yes please.

[fhtagn]

I openly embrace our (hopefully) nuclear future.

Voted that it should be expanded.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The primary problem nuclear power currently has is the extremely high up front capital costs it has. Combined with the relatively low capital and fuel costs for natural gas generation, plus expected improvements in renewables and efficiency over the operating lifetime of a nuclear plant, it just doesn't make much economic sense, as SCANA learned the hard way.

[AGA]

Option 1. They are expensive to build, but like others said, they could be partially financed by a carbon tax. We cannot afford to waste precious time worrying about trivial issues like nuclear waste considering the magnitude of the threat that climate change poses. It should be expanded along with renewables.

[cris01us]

Ideally it would be nice to see electric and energy companies be incentivized to expand in this area, either through tax credits, or some other means.  There are new and emerging technologies in this field that have great potential.  Unfortunately people still think of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima when they think of nuclear power.