Nuclear Power 2.0
from the can-you-say-nu-cle-ar? dept
For a long time I held a fairly unpopular view: I thought that the United States had made a big mistake by tabling its nuclear power industry in the 1970s. Surely, I thought, researchers and operators would have found ways to make nuclear plants clean and safe by now, had the industry continued its growth. Building new nuclear power plants was never made illegal, but it became unpalatable. A new nuclear plant has not been developed in the U.S. in more than 30 years. While interest in building additional nuclear power capacity has recently reemerged, I have found myself with a complete change of opinion: not only has the 30-year hiatus not dampened hopes that nuclear power might yield a safe and secure energy source, but the effective prohibition has actually provided incentives for innovation in the industry. A number of other nations have continued their nuclear power programs and, while there hasn't been a major nuclear accident in more than 20 years, nuclear plants built in recent years share the same basic design as the last plants built in the U.S. Now, to win over nuclear skeptics, a number of companies from upstarts to multi-nationals are developing the next generation of nuclear power technology. These new technologies are intended to address concerns over plant safety, nuclear waste, and security through innovative new designs and materials. Thus, it appears the hiatus actually drove more innovation in the space as innovators had to design around the worries from people. These firms are hoping not only to compete not against wind, solar, geothermal, etc. for a share of alternative energy investment capital, but also to go head to head once again against coal and natural gas power plants as a primary source of new energy. With the opposition to nuclear power forcing companies to explore innovative new designs and materials, they stand a good chance against a legacy energy industry that has had very little incentive to innovate over the past three decades.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: nuclear power, safety
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
read it
http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/910
likely to be the first modern one built. just south of my hometown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No innovation in solving that problem, and that is the biggest problem. The cost of storage and disposal is not ever included in the cost benefit issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: waste-disposal
Even if fusion is 50 years away, which my nuclear engineer father-in-law believes it to be, we should have space.
This avoids the transportation risk, massive single-point-of-failure storage risk, etc.
The waste is not as ghastly as we've been taught. It's not gaseous, it's embedded in stainless steel containers tough enough to take an 80MPH hit by a semi truck, and most of it is stored as a vitreous form which itself is resistant to spalling and corrosion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't what they can do about the waste but as far a the location I think they should put them on military bases whenever possible. Gives you built in security and the feds can tell the local gov't and State gov't to stick it where the sun shines least. Should save a lot of lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CANDU
developed over the past thirty years.
Unfortunetly not in the US. In Canada they
have the CANDU, which I like very much. It's
melt down proof and the waste isn't as nasty
to deal with, an added benefit.
I'd rather live next to a nuclear plant than
a coal-fired plant. Which also produces some
rather hot radioactive waste from the collection
of trace elements in the coal at the burner pit.
Renewable energy resources are great too. But
they will never fill the need alone, even with
very agressive conservation unless we make changes
in our life styles that frankly, I'm not willing
to make. (Hospitals? I'm sorry they're just
sucking up too much energy... now die quietly.)
The only impediment to the wide spread use of
safe nuclear power- is will power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pebble Bed reactors
I like what I've seen about these. I hope SE does get one up and running, so we can actually check to see how it works in Real Life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nuclear Power
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mirroring Slashdot again?
This tech would be great at one thing: making sure power generation stays local. Instead of purchasing power from the Enrons of the world, we should be doing it locally. You'd have to overcome resistance from the people who think nuclear power is the devil, regardless. After dealing with Greenpeace, the local electricity broker would be a piece of cake.
Seriously, I don't see this tech taking off quickly, except in Japan and France. They already have pretty decent nuclear power infrastructures, and their populations aren't totally paranoid about the possibility of a meltdown. I know, these new reactors aren't supposed to do that. OK, but we have enough fear in the U.S. that people here think nuclear power == atomic bomb (gee, I wonder what would give them that idea?).
This tech will only serve to help the EU and Japan reduce their dependence on oil, and consequently, the U.S. If the U.S. doesn't follow suit, we'll need to develop either a million windmills and solar power systems, or stay in the Middle East until all of the oil is gone.
The latter option is not sustainable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As to your statement that "there is enough solar and wind powere for every need on Earth", that MAY be true...assuming you can find the empty barren land that you can cover with solar panels. Many people who tout exclusive reliance on solar power believe, erroniously, that the majority of the existing solar radiation is "being wasted". It is NOT! Remember, the solar energy that is falling on these lots of barren land is not being wasted now. It is being used by plants and animals. The solar heat is maintaining the proper local climate, weather patterns etc.. Are you willing to accept responsibility for the drastic changes to the ecosystem if you insist on sucking up so much solar energy from large portions of the Earth's surface?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amen--Time for New Nukes
Our current circle-the-airport strategy for dealing with waste, which is to store it in situ, could be extended possibly until we get fusion. The waste is admittedly the Big Bad Problem...but arguably much less than pouring CO2 and heavy metals into the atmosphere from Nasty Old Man Coal.
I love the recent adds for coal...kind of remind me of the old cigarette ads with a doctor endorsing a particular brand as "less harsh on the throat". "Hey kids! Coal is OK, lookey here at these pretty people frolicking in a clean pasture under blue skies! It's less harsh on the environment!"
CO2 sequestration...meh, still a risk and probably puts it on a par cost-wise with nuclear.
Now FUSION--THERE'S what we need. For god's sake, stop funding idiotic "entitlements" and put some money where it will really make a difference--RESEARCH.
But I don't expect a bunch of lawyers on capital hill to think that deeply. Then again, I don't remember voting to "entitle" anyone to my money, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conventional Wisdom
The chief reason that nuclear power has not been pursued for the last 30 years in the U.S. is the high capital cost of nuclear power plants. They are profitable over the long term, but the payback time is many years longer than other types of power plants. Power company executives plan by the financials - with a given investment outlay they will opt for the quickest payback, especially given uncertainties in projecting future electricity demand. This means coal, or (until recently) gas if they can't get coal plants approved. To really see new nuclear power plants become a factor something has to make coal more expensive (like carbon taxes or caps), or nuclear power plants cheaper (innovation), or guarantee a profit (e.g. legislated guaranteed power buy rates).
Actually one factor that is making nuclear power more attractive now (in addition to its record of continuously improving profits, see below), is the fact that utilities are held responsible for taking into account foreseeable changes in the marketplace. Obviously bad investment decisions leave them with stranded costs that regulators will not let them recoup. The likelihood of carbon taxes in some form in the near future make nuclear power plants more attractive now, even though those taxes have yet to be enacted.
Nuclear power plants are not operating with 30 year old equipment, safety or otherwise. The systems of these plants have been frequently improved over the years, given them much higher availability, increased power levels, lower operating costs, better safety, and greater profits. For this reason 'old' nuclear power plants have become increasingly valuable over the last 20 years.
The question of 'solving' the nuclear waste problem is a political problem, not a technical one, and there will always be a vocal faction that does not agree that it has been solved (until magic pixie dust is discovered that can simply make it disappear). The default interim approach for dealing with nuclear waste which is actually being followed today - cooling pond storage for several years, followed by transfer to dry casks, all kept on the grounds of the power plant - actually addresses this issue quite effectively. The dry casks can be left in place for centuries (until the vast majority of the radioactivity has decayed) with only modest annual monitoring and security costs paid for by a annuity bought by the power company. Or, they could be relocated to a central above ground location - at least one Indian tribe have already offered their reservation as a storage site and may have the legal power to resist state attempts to block it. This solution is unpopular with locals, and the proposed central site states, but it is technically and economically practical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IMHO an open discussion about the issues associated with traditional energy production models that are deeply embedded in the economical-, political- and power structure of most countries is the only way to really look at all alternatives and make choices that are in the best interest of all parties and not only the energy giants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, Sir, cheaper, always right!
(*) 10 percent competition, but still bigger than the remaining 90. Right! Always right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They really should do some research instead of just taking a stand. Then they would know there is enough wind and solar to do away with fossil and nuclear. Without impacting our lives with energy saving unpleasantness. However they take their "information" from the energy monopolies of the world who will always push energy solutions they can monopolize.
My advice? Don't drink the punch. Do your own research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good point. In History - Nuclear Reactors have killed FAR less people than bickering over Oil in the Mid-East - there's simply no comparison at all.
I think I'd rather have a Nuclear Reactor in my backyard than to deal with the Mid-East for another year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]