@Drithius:
Skittles is a bro at the Codex, not a troll.
@Skittles:
Not necessarily. "Energy consumption increases" is not an immutable law—it relies on assumptions of population growth and certain assumptions about efficiency—but lol continue, that's a minor quibble.
Actually, in addition to population growth (which is a reality) it relies on the assumption of economic development. Economic development and increased energy production per capita go hand in hand. Unless the economic development stops, additional energy production will be needed. And we don’t want to stop the economic development.
First, that's a silly argument, especially when you're trying to rebut a claim that the actual cost of nuclear power is ridiculously under-exaggerated. More on that in a minute.
Second, please allow me to quote from another source:
Originally Posted by Thomas B. Cochran, director of the NRDC's nuclear program
No energy generation company in the Unites States has been willing to order and construct a new nuclear plant in more than thirty years, and none have taken anything more than preliminary steps towards purchasing and constructing a new nuclear plant today in the absence of a promise of huge Federal subsidies. This is not because of public opposition; not for want of a licensed geologic repository for the disposal of spent fuel; and not because of the proliferation risks associated with commercial nuclear power. Rather, it is because new commercial nuclear power plants are uneconomical in the United States.
Source
Perhaps not an unbiased source, I fully admit, but he sheds light on cost calculations and can help explain why some sources estimate that nuclear powers is as cheap as 2.14 cents USD/kWh while others put it as high as 30—the latter estimate being some three or four times what the US pays now on average, I believe.
…
It's not very competitive at all. That's why the US hasn't seen a new reactor in thirty years, and those countries like France that have relied on them heavily have subsidised them heavily. The rest of these paragraphs I think I've sort of covered already—where I agree and disagree.
Nope, that was not an actual rebuttal, but a clarification about the issue since you have stated the claim (which wasn’t very clear from the wording) without supporting it. Now that you’ve kind of supported your claim by presenting the arguments that show that nuclear power may be cheap or expensive and an external opinion, I’ll back my claim about nuclear energy as economically viable alternative to oil and coal with some of my own numbers.
Numbers are from France, the country you’ve mentioned yourself.
79% of electrical energy in France is generated by nuclear power plants. Also, France is the biggest exporter of electricity in the world, with net 3 billion dollars worth of exports. Obviously, the total cost of produced electric energy by France is smaller than the costs of other countries, otherwise France wouldn’t be the biggest exporter of energy in the world.
Let’s take a look at the numbers:
France's nuclear power program cost some FF 400 billion in 1993 currency*, excluding interest during construction. Half of this was self-financed by EdF, 8% (FF 32 billion) was invested by the state but discounted in 1981, and 42% (FF 168 billion) was financed by commercial loans. In 1988 medium and long-term debt amounted to FF 233 billion, or 1.8 times EdF's sales revenue. However, by the end of 1998 EdF had reduced this to FF 122 billion, about two thirds of sales revenue (FF 185 billion) and less than three times annual cash flow. Net interest charges had dropped to FF 7.7 billion (4.16% of sales) by 1998.
* 6.56 FF = EUR 1 (Jan 1999)
In 2006 EdF sales revenue was EUR 58.9 billion and debt had fallen to EUR 14.9 billion - 25% of this. EdF early in 2009 estimated that its reactors provided power at EUR 4.6 cents/kWh and the energy regulator CRE put the figure at 4.1 c/kWh. The weighted average of regulated tariffs is EUR 4.3 c/kWh. In 2011 a report commissioned by the prime minister put costs at 4.6 c/kWh, and this was confirmed following review by the national court of auditors, with the comment that it could increase by 0.3c to account for higher back-end costs. Power from the new EPR units is expected to cost about EUR 5.5 to 6.0 c/kWh.
Those are actual, not projected, costs. Now, those costs have been confirmed by official audits, and they corroborate my claim, which is that the costs are within the same order of magnitude as those for oil, natural gas and coal (which also differ among themselves).
With that it seems that we’ve gone over the question of costs.
This is good and I fully support that conclusion. However, part of arguing your position is dedicated and critical analysis of the options available and the plan you support—I do expect you to present arguments for both sides if you expect to be taken seriously, or at least to countenance them instead of trying hard to dismiss them out of hand.
I think you should read the thread from the beginning. There was an article. I expressed my opinion, nothing more, nothing less. An opposing opinion was expressed, backed by certain claims. I addressed those claims in as brief manner as possible. While I would like to present the whole debate, doing so even from a general standpoint (disregarding country and project specifics) would take writing pages of text I have no time to write and that maybe two people would read anyway.
As other posters have mentioned, the risk I was trying to point to was of waste handling and disposal after the enrichment process and for fuel no longer fit for use.
OK, it wasn’t clear initially. Let’s not forget, fuel rods can be recycled (17% of electricity generated in France comes from recycled nuclear fuel). However, highly active waste is a serious concern. Temporary solution, which obviously works, is storage inside the plant (inside the secondary containment) itself. This approach works, but permanent solutions are necessary, which is the biggest long term concern with nuclear power.
Really? Thorium is an unlimited renewable resource? Also, can you just stick thorium in an existing reactor or do you have to build a new one from scratch? If the former, please tell me about this miraculous breakthrough.
It is three times as abundant as Uranium, which means that it is a good mid term solution (as I stated originally). Since they are using slow neutrons like U-235 reactors, slow breeder reactors can be based on the existing reactor technology (all types with intrinsically high conversion factor: PWR, HWR, HTGR, MSR, where modifications are made to increase the conversion factor further, with similar costs involved, with primary difference in the fuel cycle. Yes, you need new reactors, which, at least (haven’t examined the issue thoroughly) according to some experts (Kulisic, Knapp: New Energy Sources) you can build with no more costs than existing U-235 based reactors.
The biggest problem with Thorium based slow breeder reactors is the initial fissile material need (Th-232 is not fissible itself).
Your unjustifiable faith in those security measures aside, it creates additional national security risks in the increased centralisation of a country's power grid. Oh, and you know the thing about high security plants? They cost more money. It's one of those things that doesn't always get factored into "nuclear power is practically free!" cost estimates.
No, it does not, past the inherent centralisation of the EES itself (meaning that operating standards must be observed at all times to achieve production = consumption, i.e. stable voltage and frequency all over the EES). Security measures can be enforced privately, as long as they conform to the necessary (high) standards. Also, costs of keeping a small team of highly trained security personnel are just a drop in the ocean of the total operating costs, which have been quantified previously.
Way to be specific about the opposing positions—this is the awful argumentation I was talking about in my initial post—no matter how I might agree with you, that is just an indefensibly terrible way of talking about something important.
Leaving aside Fukushima sized fuck-ups, I'm talking again about disposal of waste radioactive products.
You weren't clear about that. It is wrong to assume that the waste is currently left somewhere where it can reach the environment unattended. It is being stored in spent fuel pools and dry storage facilities inside the reactor building. So, under normal operation it doesn't affect the environment. Long term disposal is, as I've acknowledged, an unresolved issue.
Your chart shows that nuclear energy is worse than hydro, slightly better than wind, and a even better than solar. That would be impressive if solar and wind were as old as nuclear and hydro.
It would also be impressive if it included radioactive waste.
Solar and wind are out of the question by their intermittent nature – read my earlier post (I'll elaborate about the operation of EES if it is necessary – I hope it isn't). Hydro has been utilized almost to capacity, there is no much space for growth. Realistically, we are choosing between natural gas, oil, coal and nuclear for significant future growth. So concentrate on those when reading the charts. Effects of the radioactive waste, which is stored inside the plants as it is currently, is incorporated.
I didn't realise that volcanoes were hot property. I didn't realise that the middle of the ocean and in the middle of sparsely populated prairies and desert were prime vacation destinations.
Are we talking real alternatives or science fiction (geo, wind, solar, tides) now?
Meanwhile, scenic lakes, rivers, that sort of thing—those are nice real estate.
Now, this isn't a 'they make property prices fall, therefore we shouldn't build them!' argument. It's pointing out that nobody wants to have one in their backyard—people tend to value the real estate that nuclear power plants need, which can make it exceptionally difficult to get the permission and the buy the land necessary to construct them.
The same argument can be applied to coal power plants or oil power plants. Additionally, nuclear power plant needs the smallest real estate space out of all energy sources.
Lol, the point is that the US has geared is security policy for decades to defend precisely against low probability, high consequence events, like nuclear war. Policy making according to that paradigm is what's normal.
Hello, mr. Strawman. Comparing nuclear war with nuclear power plants? Defend? Don't you mean deter, there is no defense against nuclear war?
'So what?' the businesses who operate plants don't follow security logic, they follow business logic, which says "build the cheapest piece of junk you can get away with" (see Fukushima—or the recent financial crisis, lol). This can be controlled by greater government oversight and regulations, but, again, you're running into something that runs counter to US cultural norms.
You mean imposing standards of airline safety and security is OK with US cultural norms, but imposing standards on nuclear power plant safety is against them? How about waterworks safety and security?
So it's not ignorance that's generated opposition in the US—a 'not worth the risk' attitude that inflates the risk of problems. It's a 'not worth the consequences' and a 'free market' attitude combined to make nuclear power unattractive. Nuclear power isn't well suited to American cultural values.
Unfortunately, ignorance perpetrated by the media feeding on fear of the unknown is a large factor.
Obviously there is at least some interest in building nuclear power plants in the US (as one is actually being built). Government shouldn't impede the process, but impose realistic safety and security standards and let the market decide for itself. French example shows that a lot of money can be made.
You're right, it's not like any country has ever developed enrichment capabilities. The point is the much increased risk of break-out, if more countries have enrichment capability and are able to get large supplies of uranium from legitimate or less legitimate channels.
Not to mention other military applications of nuclear reactors outside of bombs, which, guess what? The US is generally happier keeping as exclusive as possible.
That genie has been out of the bottle a long time. If a country wants to get uranium, it will get uranium, regardless of US efforts on making more efficient fuel cycle. Also, enrichment to weapons grade lasts long enough to be identified and prevented if deemed necessary.
Obviously, Australia stand head and shoulders above the pack right now. Part of the reason I talk about the risks of expansion is this: the developed countries with fuel reserves 1) have high extraction costs (higher wages, taxes, they care about you fucking up their forests and rivers, etc.) and 2) have most of their uranium resources explored and claimed. Incentive is high to explore places that 1) haven't been explored much before, 2) have low operating and extraction costs, and 3) have proven reserves. Most of those places, as you can see are in African countries dealing with corruption and civil governance issues (CAR, Congo, Niger, SA) and undemocratic Eastern European countries (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan). Trading reliance on oil for uranium isn't a great winning strategy—we'll be trading our Saudi Arabias for Central African Republics.
I've already addressed how much (i.e. little) extraction and enrichment costs of uranium affect the price of nuclear energy. In comparison oil, „reliance“ on Uranium is negligible. Is there actually an abundant and viable energy source that would completely eliminate the US reliance on imported fuel?
That's retarded and you know it. It's been widespread—for decades—and we have twice as many countries with nuclear weapons and twice again as many who have had nuclear weapons programs. It's the widespread expertise and large technical community that enabled AQ Khan to assemble the knowledge and resources necessary to develop nuclear weapons in Pakistan.
So, in order for the „bad guys“ not to develop their nuclear weapons (which they already have the expertise for), let's stop
our research and development on the uranium fuel cycle and nuclear technology, right?
Lol, your own source contradicts you on that point.
No. Comparison to the viable alternatives is what interests me. See above and below.
hydro, solar, wind and thermal.
In short, because I've said it a few times already.
Hydro: utilise it fully (with regards to environment). There is not much space for large plants left though, so the potential for future production is low.
Solar, wind: intermittent, hence needs conventional backup, hence not viable.
Geothermal: too sparse and /or definitely too expensive at the time: may have local use, like in Island.
So the real question to answer is how much of the new built energy production potential should be nuclear, how much should be oil based, how much should be coal based and how much should be natural gas based.
This is already a huge amount of text, so I'll just respond quickly to the concern about environmental impact of uranium mining: it, along with the whole fuel cycle, has been included in the graph I linked. Of course, extraction of coal and extraction of oil have environmental impact (included in the graph) of their own.
Lol, source? Does cancer count? Do people who work in fuel production and operation count or not? How many people have been killed by solar panels? Can you even quantify that when making comparisons to sources that are brand-spanking new and ones that have been around for thousands of years?
Yes. Delayed fatalities included. Era 1970-2001. Workers and civilians accounted separately. I've already (my 2nd post in the thread, I think) linked a PDF with the charts and even mentioned the page, but here's another one, more direct source:
http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/szkola/materials/S3/psi_materials/ENSAD98.pdf
Argentinian United States patriots on the rise.