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

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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.

Union?  These would be built by "illegals".  

 

[BladeRunner]

Union?  These would be built by "illegals".  

I thought there was no such thing as illegals? Besides, Tim has them all employed already anyways.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I thought there was no such thing as illegals? Besides, Tim has them all employed already anyways.

Why do you think it was put in quotes?  And if true I would assume that @timschochetwould gladly subcontract them out.   For a price.  

 

[quick-hands]

cutting corners is not the answer.

Asking the saudis to bail us out is cutting corners.

 

[quick-hands]

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.

Yea profits are evil.   People shouldn't get paid for their work.    So.....let's let the government  do it.   They run stuff so well.

Free of profit motive.    Hilarious.

 

[jon_mx]

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

Nuclear is by far the least subsidized.  Solar is 27 times more subsided than nuclear power.  

 

[quick-hands]

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

When was last one built?

 

[need2know]

There is no answer.   Humans don't have the answer to everything.   Once you realize this you can move forward

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

When was last one built?

I'm not 100% worldwide, but I think this is a trick question.

 

[quick-hands]

I'm not 100% worldwide, but I think this is a trick question.

It's a serious question.    When was last one built in usa?

 

[moleculo]

Asking the saudis to bail us out is cutting corners.

What?  Who said anything about the Saudis?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It's a serious question.    When was last one built in usa?

It is a trick question because all nuclear plants are subsidized.  

I'm not sure.  There was a resurgence during the George W years, but most of that fizzled.  I think a new unit came online in 2015 in Tennessee in a relatively new complex.  There are a few being built now (2 I think in Georgia).  But generally speaking, most all of the nuclear capacity in the US was built before energy prices nosedived in the early '80s, before Three Mile Island.

 

[Quint]

fusion > fission 

let's get this done. 

 

[Stoneworker]

Nuclear is by far the least subsidized.  Solar is 27 times more subsided than nuclear power.  

That's because there hasn't been a nuclear plant built for 30 years. But the most recent one, the Vogtle nuclear plant in GA, received $12 billion in loan guarantees for a single project.

The financing for Vogtle, the first new nuclear power plant to be licensed and begin construction in the United States in more than three decades, was first announced in 2017. The decision brings the federal government’s total in loan guarantees for Vogtle to $12 billion, some of which was provided in 2014 and 2015, during the administration of President Barack Obama.

In addition, the BBB bill extends to nuclear plants the exact same tax credit that wind power gets...

The tax credit included in the BBB plan opens the current 1.5 cent/kilowatt hour credit proposed for wind production to nuclear power plant owners. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-vogtle/u-s-finalizes-3-7-billion-loan-for-vogtle-nuclear-power-plant-idUSKCN1R31X9

https://www.ans.org/news/article-3576/manchin-supports-nuclear-provisions-in-bidens-build-back-better-plan/

 

[jon_mx]

It is a trick question because all nuclear plants are subsidized.  

I'm not sure.  There was a resurgence during the George W years, but most of that fizzled.  I think a new unit came online in 2015 in Tennessee in a relatively new complex.  There are a few being built now (2 I think in Georgia).  But generally speaking, most all of the nuclear capacity in the US was built before energy prices nosedived in the early '80s, before Three Mile Island.

Nuclear is not.  Meanwhile we have flooded hundreds of billions into solar.

 

[Stoneworker]

Nuclear is by far the least subsidized.  Solar is 27 times more subsided than nuclear power.  

That number is only for the period 2011-2016.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Nuclear is not.  Meanwhile we have flooded hundreds of billions into solar.

Nuclear is not what?  If you say it is not subsidized, then at best you are wrong.

TCS-Nuclear-Report.pdf (taxpayer.net)

ETA:  The conclusion from the above link added to answer @timschochet's question.  

The nuclear energy industry in the United States has benefited from cradle to grave subsides throughout its history. In recent decades, as policymakers have sought to incentivize or support new, more sustainable technologies that also will reduce carbon emissions, nuclear continues to receive federal support, despite its prohibitive costs and history of long delays. The subsidies, like those for other legacy fuel sources like oil and gas, have allowed nuclear to remain competitive and maintain a strong market position in the face of growing pressure from renewable sources. Perhaps the best example of the market distortion is the preference nuclear power received in the creation of the Title XVII loan guarantee program. When the loan guarantee programs was created, in 2005, well before the financial crisis, credit was readily available – and yet nuclear energy was unable to obtain financing without federal guarantees

Current scientific consensus suggests that the next decade is critical for reducing carbon emissions to curb climate change. Increasing or even maintaining subsidies for nuclear power runs the risk of crowding out other faster, cheaper sources of low carbon energy as well as saddling taxpayers with long term risks associated with waste and potential liability for catastrophic accidents.

But I'm not a "tax whiner" that this site would appeal to, so go for it.  Just not at the expense of the faster, cheaper sources that the free market (at least as free as it gets in energy) has chosen as the winners.  

 

[Stoneworker]

Nuclear is not.  Meanwhile we have flooded hundreds of billions into solar.

Please provide sources to your claims. Solar has not received "hundreds of billions" and nuclear has received $73 billion in historical federal subsidies.

A 2017 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[11] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2016. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $414 billion, $140 billion, and $112 billion (2015 dollars), respectively, or 65% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $158 billion in federal subsidies, or 16% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 8% of the total and less than half of the total applied to renewables, while hydro power received $105 billion in federal subsidies,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United_States#cite_note-12

 

[jon_mx]

Nuclear is not what?  If you say it is not subsidized, then at best you are wrong.

TCS-Nuclear-Report.pdf (taxpayer.net)

Not subsidized by most accepted definitions.  What you linked to is an anti-nuclear propaganda brochure by a leftist lobby organization. It gets to the $120 billion figure by including rules which provides federal accident indemnification for nuclear plants which otherwise could cost all these plants over a billion per year in insurance.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

That number is only for the period 2011-2016.

For my education, is that an end result of all the planned nuclear projects (with their loan guarantees among other things) abandoned around the time of the Great Recession?  Concurrent with the alternate energy funding in the stimulus package?   

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Not subsidized by most accepted definitions.  What you linked to is an anti-nuclear propaganda brochure by a leftist lobby organization. It gets to the $120 billion figure by including rules which provides federal accident indemnification for nuclear plants which otherwise could cost all these plants over a billion per year in insurance.

In what universe is the federal government picking up the tab for an expense not an accepted definition of "subsidized"?    

Good night!

 

[Stoneworker]

For my education, is that an end result of all the planned nuclear projects (with their loan guarantees among other things) abandoned around the time of the Great Recession?  Concurrent with the alternate energy funding in the stimulus package?   

I'm not certain to be honest but I think you're correct.

There was tons of well-publicized renewables subsidies during that time frame (e.g. Obama's Recovery Act).

But I believe most nuclear subsidies have historically been in the development phase (vs. operating)...so it would make sense that federal outlays for were low during 2011-2016 due to lack of new projects. The BBB bill 1.5 cent/kHw subsidy for nuclear is the first I've seen of an operating subsidy.

This was my source and it doesn't say much about why.

More lately, renewable energy has been the main beneficiary of the government's benevolence, receiving more than three times as federal incentives as oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear combined, and 27 times as much as nuclear energy, between 2011 and 2016.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2021/10/22/what_if_we_had_subsidized_nuclear_power_like_renewables_799826.html

 

[jon_mx]

In what universe is the federal government picking up the tab for an expense not an accepted definition of "subsidized"?    

Good night!

Nuclear plants still pay hundreds of millions every year in insurance, but their liability is limited in an accident. The government is only picking up that big of a tab if there is a major accident.  The government paid out $65 million during three-mile island, which is much less than the $120 billion.

 

[Dickies]

Yea profits are evil.   People shouldn't get paid for their work.    So.....let's let the government  do it.   They run stuff so well.

Free of profit motive.    Hilarious.

I don’t think profits are evil, but I don’t think certain industries should have a profit motive that encourages cutting corners. Nuclear power is one of them as the consequences of something going wrong are astronomical. 

 

[dickey moe]

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!

The market for energy is one of the least free markets. 

 

[FairWarning]

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.

Maybe we take the west coast out of consideration for nuclear.  The Fukushima disaster was a result of a earthquake and tsunami.  

IDK if we need more regulation or not, they seem to be pretty regulated now.   I’m unfamiliar with Hanford, but we’ve had one incident in 40 years, thats pretty good.

 

[timschochet]

Just to clarify my point: nuclear doesn’t pay for itself either, which is why I wrote that it’s going to need a huge government investment to pursue. 
 

Nuclear fusion WOULD pay for itself a trillion times over. If we could just get there. 

 

[timschochet]

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.

This is the standard conservative response I hear to ALL government spending: cut out the waste and the boondoggle and the unions and we’ll sign on to it. 

It’s a decent argument so far as it goes but it’s also an excuse to oppose all spending. There will never be a complete end to waste so you can always make this argument. And Republicans always do, and the result is exactly what I wrote: whenever anything needs to get done it’s the Democrats who act like the grownups and do it and the Republicans are dragged along kicking and screaming. Rinse and repeat, this is the way of modern politics for at least the last 30 years or so. 

 

[FairWarning]

This is the standard conservative response I hear to ALL government spending: cut out the waste and the boondoggle and the unions and we’ll sign on to it. 

It’s a decent argument so far as it goes but it’s also an excuse to oppose all spending. There will never be a complete end to waste so you can always make this argument. And Republicans always do, and the result is exactly what I wrote: whenever anything needs to get done it’s the Democrats who act like the grownups and do it and the Republicans are dragged along kicking and screaming. Rinse and repeat, this is the way of modern politics for at least the last 30 years or so. 

No matter what, we really need to upgrade our power grids.  I know a lot of people who work on traveling maintenance crews for nuclear plant, they make serious coin.  Thanks to government regulations, there really isn’t the waste like 20 years ago.  

 

[quick-hands]

I don’t think profits are evil, but I don’t think certain industries should have a profit motive that encourages cutting corners. Nuclear power is one of them as the consequences of something going wrong are astronomical. 

The amount of radiation on 3 mile island  that got out was like getting and xray.

That's it.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-facts-know-about-three-mile-island

 

[quick-hands]

Just to clarify my point: nuclear doesn’t pay for itself either, which is why I wrote that it’s going to need a huge government investment to pursue. 
 

Nuclear fusion WOULD pay for itself a trillion times over. If we could just get there. 

You know what else would be good.   If we used the earth's magnetic field as an energy source.   That WOULD  pay for itself a quadrillion times over.   

And everyone should  have a goose that lays golden eggs.   

 

[quick-hands]

I don’t think profits are evil, but I don’t think certain industries should have a profit motive that encourages cutting corners. Nuclear power is one of them as the consequences of something going wrong are astronomical. 

Chernobyl was run without a profit  motive.

 

[Boston]

This is the standard conservative response I hear to ALL government spending: cut out the waste and the boondoggle and the unions and we’ll sign on to it. 

It’s a decent argument so far as it goes but it’s also an excuse to oppose all spending. There will never be a complete end to waste so you can always make this argument. And Republicans always do, and the result is exactly what I wrote: whenever anything needs to get done it’s the Democrats who act like the grownups and do it and the Republicans are dragged along kicking and screaming. Rinse and repeat, this is the way of modern politics for at least the last 30 years or so. 

Just a biased response...we could list 100 projects where this nonsense happened...it is unacceptable, and it is very unfortunate you accept this type of misuse of taxpayer money as standard-operating-procedure. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Nuclear plants still pay hundreds of millions every year in insurance, but their liability is limited in an accident. The government is only picking up that big of a tab if there is a major accident.  The government paid out $65 million during three-mile island, which is much less than the $120 billion.

If there was no such government backing would this insurance be the same price?  Would it exist at all?

 

[The Commish]

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.

I wasn't speaking of a specific project, just the average times it takes for the stages (deciding on the site, construction, testing).  I am sure depending on circumstance, you can trim some time off on the deciding site part as it's the most time consuming.  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has to grant a license to the companies before even talking about building a plant.  Then the site has to be chosen and the type of plant agreed on.  Once decided the company then has to get a "combined license" (COL) application going and this is where the public is introduced.  Every single regulatory plan has to be gone through by all parties and agreed upon.  On average, the approval process alone is 5ish years.  Once all that is agreed to, the NRC issues the combined license and construction can begin.  For a large plant it's at minimum 5 years to build...smaller ones can be 3-5.  They alot a year to two years for testing once construction is complete.  

Full Disclosure...these were the timeframes in the 2014-2016 timeframe, so things may have changed.  However, I am unaware of a plant that's been built in the last 25ish years so.  To me, it feels like people have been convinced that the amount of time to go through these steps are what make us safe.  The government has convinced us it's a safety feature, not inefficiency on their part...similar to how some view vaccines these days.  

 

[moleculo]

I wasn't speaking of a specific project, just the average times it takes for the stages (deciding on the site, construction, testing).  I am sure depending on circumstance, you can trim some time off on the deciding site part as it's the most time consuming.  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has to grant a license to the companies before even talking about building a plant.  Then the site has to be chosen and the type of plant agreed on.  Once decided the company then has to get a "combined license" (COL) application going and this is where the public is introduced.  Every single regulatory plan has to be gone through by all parties and agreed upon.  On average, the approval process alone is 5ish years.  Once all that is agreed to, the NRC issues the combined license and construction can begin.  For a large plant it's at minimum 5 years to build...smaller ones can be 3-5.  They alot a year to two years for testing once construction is complete.  

Full Disclosure...these were the timeframes in the 2014-2016 timeframe, so things may have changed.  However, I am unaware of a plant that's been built in the last 25ish years so.  To me, it feels like people have been convinced that the amount of time to go through these steps are what make us safe.  The government has convinced us it's a safety feature, not inefficiency on their part...similar to how some view vaccines these days.  

do you think all of that should be accomplished in an afternoon?

 

[The Commish]

do you think all of that should be accomplished in an afternoon?

Of course not....but merely putting deadlines/timeframes on each step would be HUGE in moving things forward even if you kept every single step.  Almost every single step is open ended.  That's a problem and it contributes significantly to why we don't have more nuclear.  The second most significant factor is the "fear" factor.

 

[moleculo]

Of course not....but merely putting deadlines/timeframes on each step would be HUGE in moving things forward even if you kept every single step.  Almost every single step is open ended.  That's a problem and it contributes significantly to why we don't have more nuclear.  The second most significant factor is the "fear" factor.

I think a major impediment is utility companies bilking the public.  There was a John Oliver show a month ago or so that talked about this - IIRC, utility companies are incentivized to construct things but not complete things.  Like, plan to build Santee Cooper, issue bonds and add surcharges to customers.  As long as you are in the planning/building phase, they have an open checkbook funded by a captive public. 

I could be misremembering though. 

 

[nysfl2]

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

I wouldn't think of expanding fission power as a step in the journey to getting to sustainable fusion power. The technologies, risks, and challenges are completely different.

But expanding the use of fission power should be part of the solution to allow us to move away more and more from fossil fuels.

 

[nysfl2]

Recent U.S. nuclear construction activity

In 2016, the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Watts Bar Unit 2 in Tennessee became the first new U.S. reactor to come online since 1996.

In February 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) voted to approve Southern Company's application to build and operate two new reactors, Units 3 and 4, at its Vogtle plant in Georgia. The new Vogtle reactors are the first new reactors to receive construction approval in more than 30 years.

In March 2012, the NRC voted to approve South Carolina Electric and Gas Company's application to build and operate two new reactors, Units 2 and 3, at its Virgil C. Summer plant in South Carolina. However, construction on these reactors stopped in 2017.

When will new reactors in the United States come online?

The two new reactors that are now under construction—Vogtle Units 3 and 4—in Georgia are expected to come online before 2023.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/us-nuclear-industry.php

 

[John123]

I wasn't speaking of a specific project, just the average times it takes for the stages (deciding on the site, construction, testing).  I am sure depending on circumstance, you can trim some time off on the deciding site part as it's the most time consuming.  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has to grant a license to the companies before even talking about building a plant.  Then the site has to be chosen and the type of plant agreed on.  Once decided the company then has to get a "combined license" (COL) application going and this is where the public is introduced.  Every single regulatory plan has to be gone through by all parties and agreed upon.  On average, the approval process alone is 5ish years.  Once all that is agreed to, the NRC issues the combined license and construction can begin.  For a large plant it's at minimum 5 years to build...smaller ones can be 3-5.  They alot a year to two years for testing once construction is complete.  

Full Disclosure...these were the timeframes in the 2014-2016 timeframe, so things may have changed.  However, I am unaware of a plant that's been built in the last 25ish years so.  To me, it feels like people have been convinced that the amount of time to go through these steps are what make us safe.  The government has convinced us it's a safety feature, not inefficiency on their part...similar to how some view vaccines these days.  

Don't forget all the environmental lawsuits that seem to prevent/delay a lot of these types of projects. 

 

[The Commish]

I think a major impediment is utility companies bilking the public.  There was a John Oliver show a month ago or so that talked about this - IIRC, utility companies are incentivized to construct things but not complete things.  Like, plan to build Santee Cooper, issue bonds and add surcharges to customers.  As long as you are in the planning/building phase, they have an open checkbook funded by a captive public. 

I could be misremembering though. 

Certainly part of it.....goes to putting dates on all of it, so things like this can't happen.  This open ended timeline stuff has got to go.  We don't do it with anything else that I am aware of in these types of sectors.  It's by design IMO.

 

[FairWarning]

Union?  These would be built by "illegals".  

The feds are not going to use illegals to build a nuclear plant.  

 

[The Commish]

Don't forget all the environmental lawsuits that seem to prevent/delay a lot of these types of projects. 

Right....those are typically in the part where the combined license application is obtained.  

Reality is, our federal government could take a big portion of the problem off the table if they agreed to have some of these things built on federal property.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The feds are not going to use illegals to build a nuclear plant.  

No, but the contractors will.

 

[Stoneworker]

Reality is, our federal government could take a big portion of the problem off the table if they agreed to have some of these things built on federal property.  

Reality is, our federal government could take a big portion of the climate change problem off the table if they simply agreed to do anything.

 

[jon_mx]

No, but the contractors will.

Pretty sure construction of nuclear reactors are watched and regulated far more than housing contractors and have thousands of pages of contracts and associated regulations which would bar using illegals.  

 

[jon_mx]

If there was no such government backing would this insurance be the same price?  Would it exist at all?

Government limits and protects all kinds of businesses from liabilities from news organizations to gun manufactures to medical providers to drug manufacturers to lawyers.  I doubt if you consider most of those as subsidies and calculate the savings.  

 

[-fish-]

Of course not....but merely putting deadlines/timeframes on each step would be HUGE in moving things forward even if you kept every single step.  Almost every single step is open ended.  That's a problem and it contributes significantly to why we don't have more nuclear.  The second most significant factor is the "fear" factor.

Since there hasn't been one completed in 30 years, I don't know that anyone can accurately assess what the actual period of time is relating to regulatory processes.   The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it can be "up to 5 years."

So far, nuclear energy has "only" resulted in 2 complete meltdowns and 2 partial meltdowns.   And a cleanup of a waste site that has been going on for 40 years and still isn't done, at a projected cost of up to $640 billion.  

 The least of my concerns is whether the construction of a new nuclear plant takes 5 years or 7 years to get through a regulatory approval process.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Looks like solar panels may not be the answer either: Environmental danger of solar panels