Nuclear reactors are expensive
What does this mean? First of all, let's define the problem: energy consumption is ever increasing, so we need to build something in order to up the production.
We need "dense" and constant sources of energy, due to EES characteristics, so that automatically excludes energy sources like wind or solar (which are also more expensive than nuclear). Hidroelectric potential has mostly been used in the majority of developing countries.
It is important to compare the total costs of energy production over lifetime with other energy sources and it is obvious that the price of power produced in a nuclear power plant is competitive (if it wasn't, Westinghouse would have been out of business a long time ago - there are no subsidies for the nuclear power). Also, it is important to note that I am arguing diversification of energy production rather than reliance on the single source.
It is known to everybody that the initial investment, which can range between 3000 $ and 6000 $ per installed kW, is the highest cost associated with the electricity production in the nuclear power plant, contributing about 60% to the total cost. Operating costs make around 25%, while the costs of fuel contribute about 15%.
Compare it with other conventional sources of energy, like oil, coal and natural gas where the price of fuel contributes in excess of 50% to the total price of energy. Since huge disturbances are ever present in the fuel source markets, it is reasonable to base a significant part of energy production on the source which is economically competitive (i.e. does not need subsidies to be competitive) yet is relatively inert to the change in fuel prices.
With estimated availibility of 90% and total operating time of 40 years total costs of energy production (using projected fuel prices) can be easily calculated, unlike the alternative sources, which are very fuel dependent, however even in the worst case nuclear is in the same order of magnitude of total cost as coal, oil, or natural gas.
the technology to properly contain the radiation they produce isn't here yet,
This is incorrect, as pointed earlier. In normal operation of the power plant, radiation is practically completely contained (0.01% increase in background radiation is negligible). In case of an accident, even 2nd generation PWRs are well equipped to contain the radiation and additional safety measures (including autonomous passive cooling systems) are being made in 3rd generation reactors to make this unlikely event even more unlikely.
they represent reliance on another limited and diminishing natural resource,
Turnover of uranium is very low, reprocessing of used fuel rods is possible as well as further enrichment of uranium ore that has lower percentage of U-235. Those processes do not significantly alter the costs of produced energy (given relative energy price / fuel price independence).
Additionally, thorium based slow breeder reactors resolve this problem completely.
they're a potential national security concern for countries like the US,
This is a real question. 3rd generation plants are equipped to survive a direct jumbo jet impact and the rest can be resolved by the on-site security.
they're bad for the drinking water
WTF? There is absolutely no influence of normally operating nuclear power plant on drinking water. What do you think, that primary or secondary systems come into direct contact with environment? Actually, it is the alternatives that affect the environment negatively.
Check this out (from life cycle assessment article, Paul Scherrer institute):
And the alternatives make property values soar? Living beside TE or NE, which is better and why?
they're a disaster of the "low probability, but devastating consequence" variety
So what? So is the dam rupture in an accumulation HE (except for the low probability part). Risk management still applies. The possibility has been analysed through risk management techniques and I've already stated and linked the results in this topic. Look up Paul Scherrer institute.
increasing the extraction of uranium and the breadth of its supply chain increases the risks that some will fall into the wrong hands,
It is a long way from the low enriched uranium fuel to the weapons grade uranium. And if you mean the danger of dirty bomb, then radioactive cobalt and other isotopes used e.g. in radiology represent much higher risks (taking hospital security into account).
the expanding extraction would mostly favour politically unstable and corrupt nations
Could you back this up with some facts? Which nations? USA is quite rich in uranium.
the wider expertise in nuclear power spreads, the greater the potential for technicians and their research to be misappropriated,
The expertise has already been widespread (for decades) and does not directly translate into nuclear weaponization.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be built, but you guys are being silly, arguing against imagined leftards with arguments you made up for the purpose of defeating. Critique the arguments that people are actually making. Anything else is just masturbatory.
Arguments that people have been making in this topic have been addressed. You cannot expect me to provide arguments for both sides. I'd rather play chess against myself.
Of course, there are arguments for nuclear power that haven't been addressed by the opposition and some have already been stated:
- energy source diversification (as in all aspects of human life, placing all your bets on one horse is never wise)
- relative price stability (resistant to the uranium price fluctuations)
- normal operation doesn't impact environment with respect to alternatives
- most concentrated source of energy with respect to spatial requirements, as well as transport requirements
- the lowest number of deaths per produced kWh of energy
