Nuclear Power? The way foward?

[Atropos]

I am against nuclear power, waste is a problem.

By "waste" I am assuming that you mean the detritus from the reaction. I would argue that
1. It is much less of a problem than the byproducts of coal and oil use;
2. Hydroelectric power is useful but localized; the same goes for wind power;
3. Solar power may be viable in the future but is horribly inefficient now (and also somewhat localised).

 

[tomsnowman123]

3. Solar power may be viable in the future but is horribly inefficient now (and also somewhat localised).

Which is why a lot more money needs to be put towards this and other renewable energy sources.

100 posts!

 

[Atropos]

Which is why a lot more money needs to be put towards this and other renewable energy sources.

Huh? It's useless, so we should spend more money on it?

100 posts!

Congrats!

 

[tomsnowman123]

Huh? It's useless, so we should spend more money on it?

No, to make it more efficient and cheaper, and to find new ways to utilize it.

Congrats!

Thank you.

 

[Atropos]

No, to make it more efficient and cheaper, and to find new ways to utilize it.

Who, exactly, is spending this money? Because governments are notoriously bad at "picking winners" (just look at French industrial policy) - the "wave of the future" might turn out to be something they haven't considered (e.g. fusion), and in any case they tend to invest in projects that satisfy big lobbying interests (ethanol...) rather than projects which might turn out to be useful.

 

[zjl56]

Right now fission is the future. We have enough fool if managed properly for millions of years. I don't see why our government won't advance upon it.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Right now fission is the future. We have enough fool if managed properly for millions of years. I don't see why our government won't advance upon it.

Sorry, but that was funny, would have been better if it was plural. Anyways...

Who, exactly, is spending this money? Because governments are notoriously bad at "picking winners" (just look at French industrial policy) - the "wave of the future" might turn out to be something they haven't considered (e.g. fusion), and in any case they tend to invest in projects that satisfy big lobbying interests (ethanol...) rather than projects which might turn out to be useful.

What about diverting funds from our nuclear program and/or fossil fuels to renewable energy? At the very least, you will be preventing pollution. Fission is also a good way to go.

 

[cgannon64]

For Christ's sake, yes.

I can't think of a single reason why the nuclear-power dreams of the 1950s shouldn't have happened.

 

[sysyphus]

I can't think of a single reason why the nuclear-power dreams of the 1950s shouldn't have happened.

The USA's nuclear programme was essentially de-railed by Three Mile Island, then nuclear got a bad name around the world thanks to Chernobyl.

Surely Chernobyl was awful, but it was a product of bad implementation of nuclear energy. Properly managed, incidents like Chernobyl reach very low probability.

Now people may say, so what, we've seen that it can still happen. Well, the incident at Bhopal (which killed more people and left a much larger environmental legacy than did Chernobyl) hasn't caused widespread movement to shut down the chemical process industries.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'm all for renawable power, its just that its cost so..much..money that we're unlikely to get anything done on it until we're in dire need of it. Fusion power would be great, but the demanding conditions cannot be replicated as of yet by the best scientists in the world, and solar power is horribly inneficient right now. ALso, it is unnapplicable in the tropics ( monsoon, anyone?). Nuclear power seems the way to go; save our oil, gas, and coal for something else, what i dont really know. What else can you use coal for?

 

[Steph]

France has been using nuclear power for electricity for quite some time now.
Part of electricity production in France:
- Nuclear = 88 %
- Hydro = 9%
- Oil + gaz + coal = 3%

 

[Atropos]

Sorry, but that was funny, would have been better if it was plural.

No, it wouldn't...Fools are a renewable resource, surely?

What about diverting funds from our nuclear program and/or fossil fuels to renewable energy? At the very least, you will be preventing pollution. Fission is also a good way to go.

Regarding the nuclear programme, most of the money now being spent on it is an effort to create a system which can block incoming missiles. With countries like North Korea around, I think that's not a bad idea.

As for fossil fuels...What funds, exactly, are you referring to? If you means abolishing the government petrol subsidies, I'm in favour of that, but 1. it's politically impossible and 2. none of this changes the fact that the government can't know whether solar energy will ever become viable relative to other forms of energy, or, indeed, WHICH TYPE of solar energy will be used if it does become viable.

 

[El_Machinae]

I ask people - if the nuclear option is so viable, why isn't Wall Street backing investment into it? The reason is that it's not as economically viable as people think - it has huge capital costs that are not recovered at any reasonable period.

I think that people purchasing solar power (while inefficient, it does give a rate of return - unlike 80% of our other purchases) will improve the industry. A consumer market drives efficiencies.

 

[Atropos]

I ask people - if the nuclear option is so viable, why isn't Wall Street backing investment into it? The reason is that it's not as economically viable as people think - it has huge capital costs that are not recovered at any reasonable period.

You do have a point there. Nonetheless, the economic viability is still superior to that of most alternatives to coal and oil.

I think that people purchasing solar power (while inefficient, it does give a rate of return - unlike 80% of our other purchases) will improve the industry. A consumer market drives efficiencies.

How exactly are you defining a rate of return? Value is what you say it is. Essentially, by purchasing solar power instead of regular, you are spending extra money to feel better about yourself. That may be fine for you - it IS fine for you if you're doing it - but it doesn't float everyone's boat. Others may derive the same satisfaction from buying pretzels.

 

[sysyphus]

I ask people - if the nuclear option is so viable, why isn't Wall Street backing investment into it? The reason is that it's not as economically viable as people think - it has huge capital costs that are not recovered at any reasonable period.

That's because business doesn't like long term thinking. Investors want to see their returns quickly, waiting for it makes them nervous.

Just beacuse it doesn't meet short term profit for investors doesn't mean that it's not economically sound for the the entire populace in the long term.

Such short sightedness is why the world is in such an energy crunch right now. Had they invested in it a long time ago we'd be in great shape, but all the dithering has left us with a serious shortage which whill have much tougher economic consequences.

 

[Goa]

Right now solar power isnt viable really. It takes more energy to make the power then what you produce.

As nobody else contradicted it's up to me: This is not true! It was true some 40 years ago, but today it's definitely not true anymore. At the moment it takes typically something between 1 to 5 years (depending on technology used and location) to get the energyinvestment back. Considering a lifetime of about 40 years you get during the whole lifetime something between 8 to 40 times more than you invested in energy.
I really don't understand how this false argument appears again and again in discussions like this .
On the other hand there are big problems with solar cells, especially the unpredictable availabilty and the high costs, but there is still a lot of place for further developpment.

 

[bhsup]

Law suits. Why should a business risk the investment if the government won't protect them from lawsuits filed by every tree-hugging wingding from coast to coast?

 

[friskymike]

Goa and other Solar enthusiasts: Can you please provide some links to articles about the economics/effeciency of solar power? Thanks.

I've just written an article about Nuclear Power at my blog, covering it from a few different viewpoints. Personally I'm in favour as a transitional technology as the alternative of burning coal is environmentally untenable, I don't believe that large scale alternative energy is quite there yet. However I just read today how the Nuclear power lobby in Australia was responsible for lobbying against renewable energy... grrrr. Anyway check it:
http://energyfutura.blogspot.com/

 

[El_Machinae]

That's because business doesn't like long term thinking.

That's not really true, or we wouldn't see businesses building oil rig platforms or power plants. My point is that businesses will still build coal plants, but not nuclear. The reason is that nuclear does not give a rate of return that matches the opportunity cost of the money.

How exactly are you defining a rate of return?

You're right, I'm fudging a bit. But here's what I mean:

- suppose I purchase 100kWh of electricity a month, and this costs me $100.

If I do nothing, I will pay $100 and then rates will raise over time (due to fuel scarcity, or tougher environmental regulation, etc.)

If I spend $1000 on solar, and it saves me $1 per month off of my bill (1 kWh per month), then:
- I'm making $12 per year off of the $1000 (1.2% rate of return) PLUS any time the electricity costs go up (and they likely will) my effective rate of return increases.
- if electricity goes up to $2 per kWh, then I'm effectively saving $2 per month.

Now - I do have to compare this against the rate of return I'd get in a savings account, but it's not a straight comparison, because the value of saved money is higher than it looks, due to taxation reasons (I pay tax on my bank interest, and I pay tax on the money I use to pay my power bill).

In addition, there is the intangible benefit of directly supporting the development of new solar technologies, which have long-term beneficial implications for my society (pushing tech curve)

 

[sysyphus]

That's not really true, or we wouldn't see businesses building oil rig platforms or power plants. My point is that businesses will still build coal plants, but not nuclear. The reason is that nuclear does not give a rate of return that matches the opportunity cost of the money.

The return on nuclear comes much later than for oil rigs and fossil plants. The capital cost of nuclear is very high, way more than either of those other thigns you mention. It catches up with other technologies with the reduced operating costs, but it takes along time, minimum 10 years.

All in all, in terms of economics, nuclear is on par with other technologies. Not better, but it IS competitive and will becoem more so as the price of fossil fuel rises.

Again, businesses only operate to maximise the protfits of their indiviudal interests in the short to medium term. Nuclear falls out of its range, but in the long term for, for the greater economy it is competitive. France is good proof of that.