Is nuclear energy the answer to climate change? (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

I’m no nuclear expert. I don’t really get the science, never have. Don’t ask me what to do about nuclear accidents and nuclear waste: I have no idea and I know these are real concerns. But here is what I DO know, or think I know: 

1. We need to find an alternative to oil and coal or we’re ####ed. That’s the basic message of climate change. 

2. None of the proposed liberal alternative energy sources- solar, wind, water- pay for themselves. Maybe they will someday but they don’t. 

3. At least in theory, nuclear pays for itself. And nuclear fusion, if we ever develop it, would do more than pay for itself- it would essentially solve all of our energy needs. It would create incredible prosperity, and change all of our lives for the better. It wouldn’t be the answer to all of life’s problems but it pretty much would be the answer to all of life’s problems. 

4. Promoting nuclear energy is going to take a huge monetary investment. Private firms won’t do it, insurance won’t cover it. It’s going to have to be a government investment like the space program. 

5. As a general rule conservatives are more friendly to promoting nuclear energy than liberals are. Liberals and especially green types appear to be emotional and irrational IMO in their opposition. Yet as enthusiastic as conservatives tend to be, no major Republican politicians that I’m aware of has offered specific proposals. Certainly not for the big government investment that will be necessary. 
 

Thoughts? 

 

[djmich]

I don't think its THE answer, but I think it can and should be a bigger part of the answer.

 

[The Commish]

It's definitely part of the solution...the "fear" around it is absurd IMO.  Of course, we'd have to remove 90% of the rules/regulations created out of fear that cause the timeline to be online being 10-12 years or whatever that timeline is now.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't think its THE answer, but it I think it can and should be a bigger part of the answer.

If nothing else, nuclear helps bridge the transition from fossil fuels to green sources while helping us cut carbon emissions.  

It would be rather disappointing if we couldn't come up with something better than fission reactors in 100 years.  But right now, fission would be great.

 

[John123]

Nuclear is a large part of the answer.  Here is John's answer to our energy needs, and in the context of climate change:

1)  We should be promoting Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) for our vehicles.  It's not 100% clean but it's a hell of a lot cleaner than gas.  And, unlike EV's, existing vehicles can be retrofitted for CNG.  CNG is plentiful and should help us bridge the gap until we can transition to something cleaner.  Honda used to sell CNG vehicles.  Not sure if they still do.  You can even get a CNG line installed at your house and fill up your CNG overnight like an EV.

2)  Speaking of EV's, they aren't nearly as clean as you think they are.  Look at the links I provided you.  In particular, look at the YouTube video of what our "green" revolution is doing to Chile.  That's not "green."  In a generation or two EV's will be much better and greener than they are now.  As it is, we have no plan to recycle or dispose of EV batteries after their useful life ends.  We haven't hit that issue yet since they're new.  What's gonna happen to all those batteries in another 10 years when the first generation of Teslas come to their end of life?

3)  We should be building traditional Nuclear Fission plants right now.  And we need to be coming up with a plan for the waste.  It's reusable so maybe we need to explore that option more but we need a plan.  But, other than that, Fission is a very good energy source. 

4)  We should invest in a Manhattan type project for Nuclear fusion.  Contrary to your post there are private companies working on this but they're moving along at a slow pace.  We should be accelerating that.  If we're going to invest a huge chunk of money in something, this is the most promising.

5)  Solar and Wind should be deprecated as soon as possible.  Again, look at the Twitter thread I posted a link to in the Biden thread.  Wind in particular irks me.  Can't believe anyone thinks this is a good choice.  Solar has it's place but not as a primary source. 

 

[timschochet]

Nuclear is a large part of the answer.  Here is John's answer to our energy needs, and in the context of climate change:

1)  We should be promoting Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) for our vehicles.  It's not 100% clean but it's a hell of a lot cleaner than gas.  And, unlike EV's, existing vehicles can be retrofitted for CNG.  CNG is plentiful and should help us bridge the gap until we can transition to something cleaner.  Honda used to sell CNG vehicles.  Not sure if they still do.  You can even get a CNG line installed at your house and fill up your CNG overnight like an EV.

2)  Speaking of EV's, they aren't nearly as clean as you think they are.  Look at the links I provided you.  In particular, look at the YouTube video of what our "green" revolution is doing to Chile.  That's not "green."  In a generation or two EV's will be much better and greener than they are now.  As it is, we have no plan to recycle or dispose of EV batteries after their useful life ends.  We haven't hit that issue yet since they're new.  What's gonna happen to all those batteries in another 10 years when the first generation of Teslas come to their end of life?

3)  We should be building traditional Nuclear Fission plants right now.  And we need to be coming up with a plan for the waste.  It's reusable so maybe we need to explore that option more but we need a plan.  But, other than that, Fission is a very good energy source. 

4)  We should invest in a Manhattan type project for Nuclear fusion.  Contrary to your post there are private companies working on this but they're moving along at a slow pace.  We should be accelerating that.  If we're going to invest a huge chunk of money in something, this is the most promising.

5)  Solar and Wind should be deprecated as soon as possible.  Again, look at the Twitter thread I posted a link to in the Biden thread.  Wind in particular irks me.  Can't believe anyone thinks this is a good choice.  Solar has it's place but not as a primary source. 

I appreciate this post. 
 

We are so divided as a nation these days. Is this an issue that most of us could get together on? 
Politically speaking, much like Nixon going to China: I think we need a Democrat to promote this. 

 

[moleculo]

It's definitely part of the solution...the "fear" around it is absurd IMO.  Of course, we'd have to remove 90% of the rules/regulations created out of fear that cause the timeline to be online being 10-12 years or whatever that timeline is now.

cutting corners is not the answer.

 

[Dickies]

It's definitely part of the solution...the "fear" around it is absurd IMO.  Of course, we'd have to remove 90% of the rules/regulations created out of fear that cause the timeline to be online being 10-12 years or whatever that timeline is now.

I think if we are going to have increase our nuclear energy capacity we need rules/regulations.  I also think nuclear energy should be run free of profit motives.

 

[The Commish]

I think if we are going to have increase our nuclear energy capacity we need rules/regulations.  I also think nuclear energy should be run free of profit motives.

Yeah, I'm not saying we have no regulation.  I'm saying all the regulation that does exist (and there's a ton....most of which sparked by uneducated fear IMO) needs to be revisited and paired down.

 

[The Commish]

cutting corners is not the answer.

see one post above

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Yes, it should be part of the answer. I don't know if it is THE answer as stated in the thread title, but it should certainly be part of the toolkit. It's kind of embarrassing that it's not, frankly. 

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I think if we are going to have increase our nuclear energy capacity we need rules/regulations.  I also think nuclear energy should be run free of profit motives.

I've never thought this through. Besides my former tribe's usual big government talk, what is the downside to the energy department building and running these things?

 

[FairWarning]

I think if we are going to have increase our nuclear energy capacity we need rules/regulations.  I also think nuclear energy should be run free of profit motives.

Why? There are a lot of fed eegulations with nuclear, not a bad thing either.  The plant 5-10 minutes from me is as safe as can be.  I also live 5 minutes from a major compressed gas pumping station, in fact my father retired from there.  Actually the power generated from the nuclear plant here is sold down south.  Thanks to that plant, my taxes are cheap and we have a great school system.

 

[Dickies]

Why? There are a lot of fed eegulations with nuclear, not a bad thing either.  The plant 5-10 minutes from me is as safe as can be.  I also live 5 minutes from a major compressed gas pumping station, in fact my father retired from there.  Actually the power generated from the nuclear plant here is sold down south.  Thanks to that plant, my taxes are cheap and we have a great school system.

It’s safe as can be until it’s not. I’m all for nuclear energy picking up steam, but the environmental impacts of a nuclear meltdown are severe and basically permanent. No corners can be cut under any circumstance.

 

[-fish-]

Yeah, I'm not saying we have no regulation.  I'm saying all the regulation that does exist (and there's a ton....most of which sparked by uneducated fear IMO) needs to be revisited and paired down.

After Fukushima, Japan concluded that its safety measures, which were considered to be robust (and more robust than those in the US), were inadequate.  

Chernobyl speaks for itself.

Three Mile Island was a partial meltdown and the worst accident in US nuclear power history.

The Hanford site has been deemed the most toxic and expensive environmental disaster in US history.  56 million gallons of radioactive waste with nowhere to go except into the ground and groundwater.   

This isn't uneducated fear.    These are actual things that happened.   Increased regulation prevents them from happening again.  Paring down regulations means we've learned nothing at all.

 

[The Commish]

After Fukushima, Japan concluded that its safety measures, which were considered to be robust (and more robust than those in the US), were inadequate.  

Chernobyl speaks for itself.

Three Mile Island was a partial meltdown and the worst accident in US nuclear power history.

The Hanford site has been deemed the most toxic and expensive environmental disaster in US history.  56 million gallons of radioactive waste with nowhere to go except into the ground and groundwater.   

This isn't uneducated fear.    These are actual things that happened.   Increased regulation prevents them from happening again.  Paring down regulations means we've learned nothing at all.

I'd recommend reading through our US regs before going here.  It takes a DECADE or more to go from ground break to active use.  That is not efficient or sustainable and certainly has no bearing on operational regs.  There's no question our initial regs were insufficient....we've gone to the other extreme as a result...especially in construction regs/process

 

[joffer]

Gen 4 reactors should be a big piece of the effort to move to carbon neutral power generation (including capture/sequestration).

 

[Insein]

Welcome to the argument people have been saying for the last 20 years. There is no moving past coal and oil without nuclear. That's why all these plants being shut down with no replacements is insane. Especially in CA. They should have at least a dozen nuclear plants up and running right now to power that state and yet they are finalizing the closure of their last one this coming year. While they still tell the people to expect energy rationing and rolling blackouts as they push everyone to buy an electric car. It's completely bonkers. 

 

[Insein]

Yeah, I'm not saying we have no regulation.  I'm saying all the regulation that does exist (and there's a ton....most of which sparked by uneducated fear IMO) needs to be revisited and paired down.

Exactly. Many of the regulations currently in place assume that every nuclear reactor is Chernobyl or 3mile island by default. The technology has greatly improved in safety since then. The rules need to be adjusted accordingly. 

 

[Dickies]

I'd recommend reading through our US regs before going here.  It takes a DECADE or more to go from ground break to active use.  That is not efficient or sustainable and certainly has no bearing on operational regs.  There's no question our initial regs were insufficient....we've gone to the other extreme as a result...especially in construction regs/process

I have no idea what the regulations are and I'm not sure I'm smart enough to comprehend them if I did read through them.  I'll leave that to people smarter than me to figure out.  I just know that I'd rather be over regulated than under regulated.

 

[Stoneworker]

2. None of the proposed liberal alternative energy sources- solar, wind, water- pay for themselves. Maybe they will someday but they don’t. 

I have no idea where you get your information from, but whatever is implied here is simply false.

Newly developed renewables (wind/solar) are the cheapest form of electricity on the planet on a $/kWh basis (Lazard, 2020) and getting cheaper by the day due to technology/learning curves.

The primary issues with renewables is not cost, but a) intermittency (i.e. not predictable, and don't provide energy 24/7 unless have storage) and b) lack of transmission line infrastructure to get electricity from optimal generation geographies (e.g. desert Southwest, windy North Dakota) to population centers.

Nuclear and fossil fuels are more expensive, but are highly predictable generation sources, run 24/7 and thus fit best with the way the electric grid was constructed.

The notion of achieving a zero carbon future by simply ditching renewables and 100% swapping nuclear for fossil fuels is highly misguided and misinformed.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-from-renewable-energy-sources-is-now-cheaper-than-ever/

 

[Stealthycat]

the climate WILL change, it has for millions of years, it will continue to for millions of years

we can be way, way less pollution and the list is long but for energy ?

yes, nuclear right now is the best chance we have at generating the electricity we need to phase out fossil burning

how we get there I'm not sure, Democrats have fought against nuclear for decades though, how we get them on-board I don't know

 

[-fish-]

I'd recommend reading through our US regs before going here.  It takes a DECADE or more to go from ground break to active use.  That is not efficient or sustainable and certainly has no bearing on operational regs.  There's no question our initial regs were insufficient....we've gone to the other extreme as a result...especially in construction regs/process

It looks like a 5 year process.   From reading Southern Energy's own materials, Vogtle 3 and 4 took 10 years because Westinghouse went bankrupt and the contractor didn't finish its work.   It wasn't due to regulation.

 

[Stoneworker]

More problems: skilled workers, construction delays and cost overruns.

The nations that gave birth to the nuclear age are short on managers and skilled workers with experience in building reactors after shunning nuclear energy for years. A handful of plants already under construction across the U.S. and Europe are years late and billions over budget. The projects have left companies insolvent and exposed weaknesses in U.S. and European nuclear engineering capabilities.

Georgia Power is building two reactors, among the first new U.S. nuclear units to break ground in more than three decades. The project is behind schedule and billions of dollars over its estimated cost. “We had to train welders and all these other crafts to be nuclear workers,” said Will Salters, a union official working on the construction at the Vogtle plant in Burke County, Ga. “We hardly had them in the country. All the ones we had were either retired or passed away.”

A decline in the cost of electricity from wind turbines, solar panels and other renewable technologies has raised questions about whether nuclear power is worth the investment.

“Why not just develop more renewable energy, which is safer and cheaper and much faster to build? It doesn’t make any sense,” said Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University. “Storage adds cost, but the cost is trivial relative to new nuclear.”

Source: WSJ June 2022

 

[-fish-]

There does need to be a choice at some point   If you want to stop using fossil fuels, you're not doing it without nuclear unless some new technology is created to fill the gap.  Wind and solar just aren't there yet.

 

[Stoneworker]

It looks like a 5 year process.   From reading Southern Energy's own materials, Vogtle 3 and 4 took 10 years because Westinghouse went bankrupt and the contractor didn't finish its work.   It wasn't due to regulation.

Plus inevitable construction delays...at least six years in the case of Vogtle.

Vogtle has been beset by numerous delays and cost overruns. It was originally scheduled to open in 2016, and the total cost of the two planned Vogtle reactors tops $27 billion—more than double the initial estimates approved by state regulators in 2008.

Southern Co., SO -1.08%▼ the Atlanta-based utility building the nuclear-power plant, said it expects the first reactor to be completed during the first quarter of 2022. 

Source: WSJ

 

[ShamrockPride]

I think if we are going to have increase our nuclear energy capacity we need rules/regulations.  I also think nuclear energy should be run free of profit motives.

Cute, but this isn't how America works.

Which means we can never really truly trust whichever corporations at the forefront of such a movement to not be cutting safety corners in order to save a few bucks. I don't know how we get around that.

Yes anybody can list some regulations or whatever, but it's a guarantee when something does happen, all the penalty will be is a slap on the wrist, and a seemingly eternal uninhabitable chunk of the earth.

 

[Insein]

I have no idea what the regulations are and I'm not sure I'm smart enough to comprehend them if I did read through them.  I'll leave that to people smarter than me to figure out.  I just know that I'd rather be over regulated than under regulated.

Over regulation means no one builds any. So we need to build more coal and gas based power plants. We need realistic regulation that makes it worthwhile for companies to pursue building them. 

 

[Stoneworker]

More myth-busting about the relative costs of renewables vs. nuclear...

Despite generating carbon-free electricity, the nuclear-power industry has struggled in recent years. Competition from renewables and low-cost natural-gas-fired plants has lowered wholesale power prices and hurt the economics of existing [nuclear] plants. Several power plants have shut, most recently Entergy Corp.’s ETR -1.32%▼ Indian Point Energy Center, north of New York City, which closed permanently in April.

Over the past decade, the cost of generating electricity from new nuclear-power plants has increased about 33% and the cost of new solar generation has fallen 90%, said Mycle Schneider, publisher of the 2020 World Nuclear Industry Status Report.

Source: WSJ

 

[Stoneworker]

And good luck finding private investors to finance projects that routinely have major time and construction cost delays, then when it's finally completed have to convince a gov't regulatory authority they deserve to raise their electricity prices significantly beyond the original rate case to make any money. 

Cost overruns doomed the only other new U.S. nuclear-power plant (other than Vogtle) begun this century.

In 2017, Scana Corp. SCANA -2.07%▼ scrapped plans to finish a half-built nuclear-power plant in South Carolina. When first proposed in 2008, the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station was expected to cost $11.5 billion. A minority owner of the plant, state-owned electric utility Santee Cooper, said cost estimates had ballooned to $25.7 billion.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The market has mostly rejected nuclear power.   For the past thirty plus years the government has been relaxing regulations, renewing expired licenses, and creating incentives which the market has largely rejected largely because other forms of energy just kept getting cheaper.  And the experience of the late 70s and early 80s of cost overruns and construction delays still haunt investors.  Having the same experience for the few exceptions certainly does no't help.  At no point ever has the "no nukes" movement been relevant in this conversation beyond being an easy scapegoat.  

If we want nuclear (and I'm not opposed) the Government is going to need to do most of the investing.  The layers of incentives ($$$$) that exist now are not enough to get investors all that interested,    

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I should shut up and let @Stoneworkerhandle this.  My liberal credentials make me the wrong person to correct the conservative mythology that if not for the liberals....

 

[Stoneworker]

The market has mostly rejected nuclear power.   For the past thirty plus years the government has been relaxing regulations, renewing expired licenses, and creating incentives which the market has largely rejected largely because other forms of energy just kept getting cheaper.  And the experience of the late 70s and early 80s of cost overruns and construction delays still haunt investors.  Having the same experience for the few exceptions certainly does no't help.  At no point ever has the "no nukes" movement been relevant in this conversation beyond being an easy scapegoat.  

If we want nuclear (and I'm not opposed) the Government is going to need to do most of the investing.  The layers of incentives ($$$$) that exist now are not enough to get investors all that interested,    

Completely agree. Which means a nuclear solution faces the same political quagmire as everything else.

I'm just amazed that many seem to be unaware that there are just as many warts on nuclear as all the other technologies. If one takes an objective view, of course.

 

[timschochet]

I have no idea where you get your information from, but whatever is implied here is simply false.

Newly developed renewables (wind/solar) are the cheapest form of electricity on the planet on a $/kWh basis (Lazard, 2020) and getting cheaper by the day due to technology/learning curves.

The primary issues with renewables is not cost, but a) intermittency (i.e. not predictable, and don't provide energy 24/7 unless have storage) and b) lack of transmission line infrastructure to get electricity from optimal generation geographies (e.g. desert Southwest, windy North Dakota) to population centers.

Nuclear and fossil fuels are more expensive, but are highly predictable generation sources, run 24/7 and thus fit best with the way the electric grid was constructed.

The notion of achieving a zero carbon future by simply ditching renewables and 100% swapping nuclear for fossil fuels is highly misguided and misinformed.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-from-renewable-energy-sources-is-now-cheaper-than-ever/

Cost is not the same as “pay for themselves”. If an energy source is too intermittent to use on a large scale basis then it doesn’t pay for itself. 

 

[-fish-]

Who's the FBG who works in nuclear energy?   He's always been willing to engage in thoughtful conversations about the pros and cons, and he knows a lot more about the regulations than any of us.

 

[timschochet]

And good luck finding private investors to finance projects that routinely have major time and construction cost delays, then when it's finally completed have to convince a gov't regulatory authority they deserve to raise their electricity prices significantly beyond the original rate case to make any money. 

Cost overruns doomed the only other new U.S. nuclear-power plant (other than Vogtle) begun this century.

In 2017, Scana Corp. SCANA -2.07%▼ scrapped plans to finish a half-built nuclear-power plant in South Carolina. When first proposed in 2008, the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station was expected to cost $11.5 billion. A minority owner of the plant, state-owned electric utility Santee Cooper, said cost estimates had ballooned to $25.7 billion.

Nope, I made the point in the OP that it has to be funded by the government. 

 

[Mister CIA]

I'm with you fellers.

 

[timschochet]

Completely agree. Which means a nuclear solution faces the same political quagmire as everything else.

I'm just amazed that many seem to be unaware that there are just as many warts on nuclear as all the other technologies. If one takes an objective view, of course.

Except-as I pointed out in the OP- for the possibility of fusion. 

 

[timschochet]

If we want nuclear (and I'm not opposed) the Government is going to need to do most of the investing.  The layers of incentives ($$$$) that exist now are not enough to get investors all that interested,    

Which is why, like almost everything else these days, if this is going to be done Democrats will have to do the heavy lifting. Republicans can claim to love nuclear all they want, but they never want to spend money on anything. Democrats will have to drag them into it. But first we need to find enough Democrats willing to defy the green types….

 

[Stoneworker]

Cost is not the same as “pay for themselves”. If an energy source is too intermittent to use on a large scale basis then it doesn’t pay for itself. 

What does this "pay for itself" even mean? Seriously, I've never heard of this concept.

 

[timschochet]

What does this "pay for itself" even mean? Seriously, I've never heard of this concept.

It means that if your wife tells you she wants to start a side business selling antiques, and that the start up costs are $5000 but that she’s sure to make a killing, most likely she just wants to buy stuff and won’t ever make a penny of profit out of it. (Do I speak from personal experience? Unfortunately I do.) 

 

[Stoneworker]

Except-as I pointed out in the OP- for the possibility of fusion. 

You seem to be looking for some pie-in-the-sky silver bullet technology solution to climate change. That doesn't exist.

All the technologies needed to be carbon-free exist today. The primary issue is they haven't been fully deployed due to various obstacles.

What is needed is an accelerant to a deployment that is already well underway.

Not some Jules Verne science fiction newfangled gadget.

 

[Stoneworker]

It means that if your wife tells you she wants to start a side business selling antiques, and that the start up costs are $5000 but that she’s sure to make a killing, most likely she just wants to buy stuff and won’t ever make a penny of profit out of it. (Do I speak from personal experience? Unfortunately I do.) 

Please explain how First Solar has a market cap of $7.4 billion if investors don't think it's going to sell renewables that "pay-for-themselves."

First Solar, Inc. is an American manufacturer of solar panels, and a provider of utility-scale PV power plants and supporting services that include finance, construction, maintenance and end-of-life panel recycling.

https://www.google.com/search?q=first+solar+stock&oq=first+solar+stock&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i512l9.3875j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[timschochet]

Please explain how First Solar has a market cap of $7.4 billion if investors don't think it's going to sell renewables that "pay-for-themselves."

First Solar, Inc. is an American manufacturer of solar panels, and a provider of utility-scale PV power plants and supporting services that include finance, construction, maintenance and end-of-life panel recycling.

https://www.google.com/search?q=first+solar+stock&oq=first+solar+stock&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i512l9.3875j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I was just explaining the concept. I get your point about solar. It can be profitable obviously (though I wonder how much of that is simply taking advantage of subsidies and tax write offs?) But it’s not the solution to climate change not yet. The purpose of this thread is to discuss if nuclear could be. 

 

[jon_mx]

I’m no nuclear expert. I don’t really get the science, never have. Don’t ask me what to do about nuclear accidents and nuclear waste: I have no idea and I know these are real concerns. But here is what I DO know, or think I know: 

1. We need to find an alternative to oil and coal or we’re ####ed. That’s the basic message of climate change. 

2. None of the proposed liberal alternative energy sources- solar, wind, water- pay for themselves. Maybe they will someday but they don’t. 

3. At least in theory, nuclear pays for itself. And nuclear fusion, if we ever develop it, would do more than pay for itself- it would essentially solve all of our energy needs. It would create incredible prosperity, and change all of our lives for the better. It wouldn’t be the answer to all of life’s problems but it pretty much would be the answer to all of life’s problems. 

4. Promoting nuclear energy is going to take a huge monetary investment. Private firms won’t do it, insurance won’t cover it. It’s going to have to be a government investment like the space program. 

5. As a general rule conservatives are more friendly to promoting nuclear energy than liberals are. Liberals and especially green types appear to be emotional and irrational IMO in their opposition. Yet as enthusiastic as conservatives tend to be, no major Republican politicians that I’m aware of has offered specific proposals. Certainly not for the big government investment that will be necessary. 
 

Thoughts? 

We have two examples.  Germany who went full throttle for wind and solar while France went the nuclear route.  Germany is still very heavily dependant on coal and natural gas with about 43% of their power coming from those.  Meanwhile France dependency of coal and natural gas is at 18 percent.  Germany dependency on those may actual go higher as they are taking their last few nuclear plants offline soon.  Nuclear is actually the greener than solar.  According to IPCC data, solar farms produce four times more carbon pollution than nuclear

 

[Stoneworker]

And so we hate solar/wind because of...reliability, but we love French nuclear because of....reliability?

EDF [Electricity de France] reported a 27% drop in output from its French reactor fleet in June compared with the same period last year, as the world’s largest owner of nuclear-power plants grappled with unexpected corrosion on the cooling systems of its nuclear reactors.

EDF currently has 12 of its 56 reactors in France offline just as energy prices have surged during the war in Ukraine. Officials are investigating the origin of the problem but say it is unlikely to be resolved before winter when electricity demand in Europe peaks.

EDF is vital to Europe’s energy supply. Its nuclear reactors usually export significant amounts of low-cost electricity to the European market, helping stabilize the region’s electricity grid, but France has been regularly importing electricity from its neighbors since the shut down.

EDF has struggled to build reactors in recent years, with projects at Flamanville in France and Hinkley Point in the U.K. running years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. The company has also had to absorb billions of euros in losses because the French government capped retail electricity prices, forbidding the company from passing on higher costs to consumers.

Source: WSJ, July 13, 2022

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Which is why, like almost everything else these days, if this is going to be done Democrats will have to do the heavy lifting. Republicans can claim to love nuclear all they want, but they never want to spend money on anything. Democrats will have to drag them into it. But first we need to find enough Democrats willing to defy the green types….

We would need a lot more democrats elected for this to be feasible.  For that reason, I think you have it backwards.  For your "Nixon going to China" analogy to work you needed democrats to be "no nuke" and break from that.  Or you need the republican who only "spend" on target tax expenditures for themselves to break from that and spend.  I think the second choice is more likely.  The liberals just need to pretend to be the "no nuke" stereotype so we can fund it with "liberal tears".

But if the free market is choosing solar or wind or whatever else other than nuclear, does it really make sense for the government to disrupt for nuclear?  Maybe, but I think one of the reasons for this is that solar and wind are operational and returning on the investment a whole lot sooner.   But again, I'm a tax and spender so I'm in!

 

[Stoneworker]

I was just explaining the concept. I get your point about solar. It can be profitable obviously (though I wonder how much of that is simply taking advantage of subsidies and tax write offs?) But it’s not the solution to climate change not yet. The purpose of this thread is to discuss if nuclear could be. 

Doesn't look like the U.S. nuclear industry "pays-for-itself" either...

The government is going to spend billions of dollars to keep nuclear power plants open in the United States because they’re losing too much money to stay open otherwise.

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law President Joe Biden signed in November includes a $6 billion program intended to preserve the existing U.S. fleet of nuclear power reactors.

That money is needed because multiple nuclear plants are “at risk for early closure” and several others “have already closed prematurely due to economic circumstances,” according to government documents.

While the $6 billion in the Infrastructure law is helpful to stem a potential flood of closures, it is still not enough....[what is needed is] closer to $23 billion [in additional subsidies to be provided in the Build Back Better bill.]

Why the U.S. government plans to spend billions to keep money-losing nuclear plants open

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I was just explaining the concept. I get your point about solar. It can be profitable obviously (though I wonder how much of that is simply taking advantage of subsidies and tax write offs?) But it’s not the solution to climate change not yet. The purpose of this thread is to discuss if nuclear could be. 

How many nuclear plants have been built in the US or anywhere else that were not heavily subsidized?  

 

[Boston]

Which is why, like almost everything else these days, if this is going to be done Democrats will have to do the heavy lifting. Republicans can claim to love nuclear all they want, but they never want to spend money on anything. Democrats will have to drag them into it. But first we need to find enough Democrats willing to defy the green types….

I really disagree with this...prove that it can be done within budget and on time and not turn into a Union boondoogle where cronyism takes place, and I am sure you will get a ton of support from the right.