Nuclear Energy. History, Ecology, Economy.

[wumpus]

There is no foreseeable future where solar or wind will be the base load. Thus this business will be open for quite some time to come. Pricing electricity is not just "give me 1KWh, I give you $0.10"; instead, the price varies extremely throughout the day and the year (it goes as far as there even being negative prices for short times). So your nuclear power plant will probably not bring much money during a sunny day of summer, but you can be quite sure that it will pay off during a cloudy day in winter.

The catch is that there isn't a good argument for building for a "base load" in the US right now (I'm less sure about other areas). You have solar power for the highest load times. You have wind when it comes. You have natural gas that can be turned on and off quickly when these aren't sufficient. The huge coal/nuclear plants of yore just aren't necessarily needed in this situation. And if you are paying for 40 years worth of electricity up front, that power had better be *necessary*.

It's the uncertainty that kills it. Most of it comes from superstitious dread of evil spirits released inside of atoms (which I remain convinced was partly funded by power execs full of FUD from "to cheap to meter"), but now you will have the money guys uncertain about a profit. No idea how you build something as expensive as a nuke plant when the money guys are uncertain about a profit.

[goncaloeaguiar]

. If you want to get rid of CO2 emissions, it's nuclear power or global warming. Pick one.

You can go full nuclear on the electricity generation side of the equation, but you won't save a drop of oil! Most of CO2 emissions come from cattle production and transportation, not electricity generation.

You need electrical vehicles, planes and ships if you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and for that you need electrical energy storage technologies that you don't have.

Choosing between nuclear or bust is a falacy.

[Firwen]

Firwen: *facepalm*

I'm sorry if I was a bit offending but I'm particularly annoyed by people that try to sell nuclear power as "safe" as "inherently safe".

It is not "safe", there is a risk, but fortunately, this risk is minimised to almost null by a good engineering and by competent people.

In my opinion this kind of "propaganda" used by the nuclear industry since ever contributes to make the general public so suspicious about nuclear energy. People do not trust nuclear industry anymore, nor they believe in nuclear energy due to 60 years of extremely bad communication and lies on the topic.

[ment18]

I'm sorry if I was a bit offending but I'm particularly annoyed by people that try to sell nuclear power as "safe" as "inherently safe".

It is not "safe", there is a risk, but fortunately, this risk is minimised to almost null by a good engineering and by competent people.

In my opinion this kind of "propaganda" used by the nuclear industry since ever contributes to make the general public so suspicious about nuclear energy. People do not trust nuclear industry anymore, nor they believe in nuclear energy due to 60 years of extremely bad communication and lies on the topic.

Nuclear Power is safer than anything else.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

I think that the media is more to blame for showing everyone everything and blowing it out of proportion than the nuclear industry doing pro nuclear propaganda. Anyway, general public tends to believe propaganda almost as much as the believe media.

[wumpus]

Actually, the main issue with using energy sources that are not constant (wind, solar) is the storage of electricity. Our battery technology is still woefully inadequate for the kind of storage that would be required to use these for the grid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage

I'd have a hard time believing that rooftop solar is any less constant across the grid than any issues with a non-constant grid. You certainly would need to spin up other generators to meet the changing load, but that will happen on any grid. My point was that natural gas is presently ideal for meeting just about any power need not effectively "paid for" via infrastructure. No batteries needed (until serious overbuilding occurs).

As far as wind power, I've heard suggestions of running chemical plants when excess power was available, but it doesn't seem so likely (see costs of chemical plants). I think there was a PR attempt at such (it was hydrogen, which screams "greenwashing") in Germany. Germany has both a serious chemical engineering background an a recent (5 years ago?) issue with overbuilt wind power, but didn't seem to take this idea seriously. You would think aluminum [nicknamed "frozen electricity"] production would be ideal for excess electricity.

[Hcube]

My point was that natural gas is presently ideal for meeting just about any power need not effectively "paid for" via infrastructure

Power need, yes, but we are also talking about ecology here. I don't think that going full gas qualifies... That's where nuclear power takes the upper hand IMO

[NuclearNut]

Power need, yes, but we are also talking about ecology here. I don't think that going full gas qualifies... That's where nuclear power takes the upper hand IMO

Yeah, and unless you support hydraulic fracturing, oil drilling, and running of of natural gas more than 50% of the time, wind and solar+no storage+natural gas is not terribly effective.

[Hcube]

Anyway, i'd like to see fusion working before i die. That would be a revolution. I can't understand why there isn't more funding to it. It regroups power, reliability, safety and ecology...

[NuclearNut]

Anyway, i'd like to see fusion working before i die. That would be a revolution. I can't understand why there isn't more funding to it. It regroups power, reliability, safety and ecology...

Me too, human contolled fusion is really superior to fission in every way from what I can see. It would not require a containment or massive safety systems due to the fact that the biggest disaster you could have would not be felt outside the plant, dramatically reducing costs, the fuel would be incredibly abundant, the waste would be He-3 (good for neutron detectors) along with irradiated RV components that could be recycled within 60 years, and people would support it, unlike fission.

Dont get me wrong, fission is absolutely awesome for it's low waste production, portability, high capacity factors, and so on, but fusion is like fission, just even more unimaginably awesome.

[lajoswinkler]

I suggest removing "ecology" from the title because that is a science that has nothing to do with this or in fact environmentalism. Its name has been horribly twisted in the minds of general public.

Ecology is a science, just like chemistry, geology, etc. It does not deal with protecting the environment.

Also, if the author wishes to discuss nuclear fission, then fission needs to be included. Nuclear energy encompasses all forms and I bet this is the place where fission is to be discussed, right?

[GeneralVeers]

Ok, I give up. If you really want to keep iterating the same triviality, then do so. But it still won't carry any weight or meaning. You could as well state that the sky is blue, therefore nuclear power is best.

That tone is not going to convince anybody. Want proof? I'm the proof. Been there, heard that. Was not impressed.

And I don't believe your first three words, either. You'll be back, on some other thread or some other web site. Next time you type those words....think of me.

[ZetaX]

That tone is not going to convince anybody. Want proof? I'm the proof. Been there, heard that. Was not impressed.

And I don't believe your first three words, either. You'll be back, on some other thread or some other web site. Next time you type those words....think of me.

I was clearly talking about this specific instance of an "argument". Which by the way had nothing to do with you, so what are you even talking about...