DailyDirt: With Great Fission Power Comes Great Responsibility...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Mon, Nov 16th 2015 5:00pm — Michael Ho

Renewable energy sources like solar and hydroelectric are great, but they generally can't provide enough baseload power. Sure, maybe we need to upgrade our electrical grid to handle more distributed power plants and circumvent traditional baseload power requirements, but in the short term, the only carbon-free power source comes from nuclear reactors. However, after the Fukushima accident, there seems to be growing distaste for nuclear energy -- with Germany closing about half of its nuclear power plants and pledging to close all of them by 2022, and more plants around the world have been closing rather than opening since 2011.

The US will probably maintain about 100 gigawatts of nuclear energy capacity for the next 10 years, despite closing some reactors. A few new reactors should replace the old ones, but the pipeline of operational reactors looks a bit empty in 20 years or so -- unless licenses are renewed quickly and new reactors aren't delayed so much. [url]
After just 19 years and almost 4.5 billion dollars, a "new" nuclear power plant (a first since 1996) in Tennessee could be generating power before the start of 2016. This is a Generation II nuclear plant design, even though there are Gen III plants being built. Gen IV designs are planned to exist in the 2030s, but by then, we'll all have Mr. Fusion reactors in our cars, right? [url]
The US and China are collaborating on developing molten salt nuclear reactors that could be commercially ready by 2030. China currently relies heavily on coal power plants, but in the not too distant future, the country could be producing much cleaner energy with more nuclear reactors. [url]
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission hasn't approved a new nuclear reactor in decades -- and offers a highly bureaucratic process for regulating any new reactor designs. Nuclear energy startups are targeting China to avoid the regulatory barriers in the US, but the current low price of natural gas is also making the economics of nuclear power a bit difficult to justify. [url]

Hold on. If you're still reading this, head over to our Daily Deals to save an additional 10% on any item in our Black Friday collection -- using the code: 'EARLY10' -- just through this Sunday, November 22nd.

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: energy, fission, fukushima, molten salt nuclear reactors, nuclear energy, nuclear reactor, us nuclear regulatory commission

15 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2015 @ 6:05pm

crowdfund the cleanup!
yah.. nuclear power is great until it shuts down and you actually need to find a place to store all of the waste -- instead of just letting it pile up inside the reactor somewhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 16 Nov 2015 @ 8:14pm

“100 gigawatts of nuclear energy capacity”
Physics-geek nitpick: that’s “100 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity”. Power is the rate of transfer or production of energy, and is measured in watts, or joules (energy unit) per second.

Your electricity company probably bills you in kWh. That’s a kilowatt (1000 watts) of power transferred/consumed over a period of 1 hour (3600) seconds. Which is equivalent to 1000 × 3600 = 3.6 million joules, or 3.6MJ.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ehud Gavron (profile), 16 Nov 2015 @ 8:21pm

Techdirt gone amok
Are you high?

This is a story about nuclear energy.

What kind of "we don't edit our own spam" is this "Hold on. If you're still reading this, head over to our Daily Deals to save an additional 10% on any item in our Black Friday collection" stuff?

If you don't think people read your articles,that's your business.

Trying to spam everyone who DID read it with a "save 10% on crap" link is despicable.

Disgusting.
E
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JoeCool (profile), 16 Nov 2015 @ 9:49pm

Why so expensive?
Here's a good description of why nuclear plants have become so expensive to build. Spoiler - it's not safety.

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 5:00am

Re: crowdfund the cleanup!
Crowd fund? - Why not golden parachute fund?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pixelpusher220 (profile), 17 Nov 2015 @ 7:25am

Re: Why so expensive?
is it not safety or is it the over-engineering regulations require for insurance against accident? which would be safety, no?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JoeCool (profile), 17 Nov 2015 @ 10:37am

Re: Re: Why so expensive?
It's neither. You obviously didn't read it. Additional safety measures added perhaps a few percent to the cost. The vast majority of the price increase is due to: 1) labor cost increases - it was found that contractors were labeling EVERYONE who had ANYTHING to do with the work as a professional in order to increase the price by a couple orders of magnitude. Think "sanitation engineer" rather than janitor. 2) Regulatory capture combined with regulatory change. This was basically politicians constantly changing the rules (without regard to whether they were actually needed) for two purposes - to be "seen doing something", and to make money for contractors who were constituents/campaign contributors. 3) Delays due to frequently changing regulations, which added millions per day for periods that often could exceed a year.

Things that were not factors more than a few percent: materials, extra safety features, or general inflation. Basically, a modern nuclear plant shouldn't cost more than a few hundred million, but is seen as such a big cash-cow by all concerned that the price is jacked up more than 20 times to make all involved rich at the public's expense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
skye, 17 Nov 2015 @ 11:03am

Nuclear is not clean
This article is Nulear industy propaganda.

Nuclear is NOT clean. The waste which piles up in the open air around the power plants in open tanks is not clean nor is it safe. The waste is highly radioactive and as such a serious poison to the environment and people. Carcinogen. The nuclear power plants do nothing in the USA to clean up their waste. They just keep claiming that their product is "clean" despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

"Plutonium-239, which is in irradiated fuel, has a half-life of 24,400 years. It is dangerous for a quarter million years..."
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/hlwfcst.htm

Hanford
" And despite some progress, the site's most complicated and potentially dangerous waste issue - 56 million gallons (255 million litres) of high-level radioactive waste sitting inside tanks at the centre of the site - is facing more problems. "

San Onofre
Or hey just bury it in an earthquake zone at the beach.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/oct/06/nuclear-waste-permit-approved/

Stop looking for engery solutions in nuclear it is not the way. Especially when alternatives exist. Distributed solar, wind etc.

The problem with distributed solar is the power companies don't make as much money. Sucks that the world gets destroyed and not just the world but always the most beautiful settings get polluted by the nuclear industry. And it sucks that companies and the government keeps prioritizing profit over the health and safety of humanity and the planet.

We need to stop using this technology. Period. No more nuckear anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 11:36am

Re: Re: Why so expensive?
"over-engineering regulations"

You mean like at Fukushima?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael Ho (profile), 17 Nov 2015 @ 5:20pm

Re: Techdirt gone amok
Seriously? A link to a storefront that helps support this site is despicable/disgusting spam... that's a bit harsh, don't you think?

What's so offensive about this gentle nudge towards buying stuff? Have you seen the rest of the internet? This is pretty tame in comparison.

Sorry if you feel like I "tricked you" into reading an extra couple of sentences. I honestly think some of the crap products on StackCommerce is stuff I would buy myself (and I *have* purchased a couple things in the past).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 17 Nov 2015 @ 7:46pm

Re: Nuclear is not clean
If it’s that highly radioactive, then it’s a source of a great deal of power that we are simply not using at the moment. Seems to me that might change in future.

Also, highly radioactive waste doesn’t need to be stored for that long, since its radioactivity dies away quicker. It’s the less radioactive stuff that lasts longer. But conversely, that isn’t such a high risk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sky, 18 Nov 2015 @ 5:11am

whaaaat?
@ lawrence. "highly radioactive waste doesn't need to be stored for that long?"

Are you fking kidding me? Radioactive waste was dumped near a creek in Missouri in 1942 and still people are getting cancer from it.

There are no containers that will hold the waste for as long as it needs to be held. So claiming that it does not need to be is just so much BS. You are just a shill for the nuclear industry.

Cancer study finds higher rates of cancer near nuclear power plants:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-42066/New-study-links-nuclear-sites-cancer.html

NRC cancels study and falsifies results:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/nuclear-power-kills-the-real-reason-the-nrc-cancelled-its-nucle ar-site-cancer-study/5477413
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 18 Nov 2015 @ 10:39am

Re: Radioactive waste was dumped near a creek in Missouri in 1942 and still people are getting cancer from it.
Whatever they’re getting cancer from, it’s not the radioactivity.

Look at Chernobyl. Yes, that Chernobyl. The fallout from the radioactive cloud released from the accident irradiated hundreds of millions across Europe. Where was the predicted massive spike in cancers? There was none, that anybody could notice. Since the people left the area, the wildlife has been thriving. It’s actually now a tourist attraction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
skye, 19 Nov 2015 @ 2:24pm

Nuclear is not clean - radiation causes cancer
Ionizing radiation is a known cause of certain types of leukaemia

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/

"The present study demonstrates a significant association between increasing radiation dose and risk of all solid cancers,"

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/853452
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JoeCool (profile), 19 Nov 2015 @ 10:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Why so expensive?
Engineering had nothing to do with Fukushima. Building below the water line for historically known occurring tidal waves were what went wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]