Apart from the obvious and still legitimate concerns for plant accidents...
Uranium mining (on the whole) is not that expensive and not that dirty (especially when compared to some of the other things which we pull out of the ground).
Obviously the up-front costs of plant construction are huge...
Comparing the incentives is a bit like comparing apples and oranges; nuclear is a mature industry and (as such) doesn't require the type of incentives which renewables do in order to offer a compelling case as a power source on a cost per kilowatt hour basis.
With current technology, nuclear plant...
Take a look at what the German government just did with their plants; there's no technical obstacle to keeping many of the plants in service and (as such) clean, cheap (i.e. <$.05 kW/hr.) electricity from nuclear sources is as much a matter of political will as it is anything else.
The US hasn't built a new nuclear plant since 1978...
Fuel storage is something my dad's company has been working on for more than ten years. Although you are correct in stating that NIMBY is a problem (it always has been) dry storage does offer a means for utilities to bridge the gap between fuel pools which are full and have outlived their originally intended duration and more centralized (i.e. Yucca Mountain) storage. Approval for new plants is also a matter of will and (given the state of the economy and energy security challenges commodity price changes pose) you may see the pendulum of will swing back to where it came from (i.e. accepting nuclear power as something less than ideal but nevertheless necessary).
All things considered, the DOE estimates that ...
I disagree with your numbers (Diablo Canyon has been producing energy since the mid-80's at <$.05kW/hr.) and your assessment of "net energy" (you've probably misinterpreted the numbers as it would seem highly unlikely that a single nuclear power plant would be built if 100KW would need to be spent to create 30KW).
Then there's the old hope that technology will save us...
The advancements are significant but can't be referenced easily (or casually, as it were) since most of the advancements haven't been implemented in practice... The fact remains that (in France) fuel is simply re-run through the reactor again and again and again (thus solving both a fuel and a waste problem). The degree of attractiveness of nuclear energy is very much in the eye of the beholder; how attractive did nuclear energy look in 2007 when OPEC had the U.S. by the balls (yet again) and the NIMBY crowd from the 1970s was shouting "drill baby drill!"? I've recommended it to you before but if you're serious about understanding energy you should read Huber & Mills' The Bottomless Well since the authors (although espousing a ridiculous supply-side rhetoric which is much more fitting for rock stars than economists) do a fairly decent job of breaking down the energy pie (i.e. what we produce, what we consume) as well as the changes to the same over time.
Humans will always tinker with clever ways to generate energy...
I agree that engineering decisions are all about optimization under constraint... but I think you're presenting a false dichotomy when you suggest that our choice is nuclear or renewables: do you honestly not see that your argument would be the one which an oil giant would make (i.e. one of "divide and conquer")?
-------------
Well, you don't really source any of your claims, and nuclear power has gone out of favor in northern CA for some years now so we don't have much local access to the industry. Maybe my points also come from a biased source (a text on environmental science and sustainability: http://www.amazon.com/Environmental-Science-Principles-Connections-Solutions/dp/0495383376), but the author's claims are backed by DOE studies.
How do you know that U-mining is "not that dirty"? Tell that to the low-wage Navajo miners the gov't exploited during the Cold War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_Exposure_Compensation_Act.
Large scale mining is always dirty with a lot of waste-rock generated, which is radioactive in uranium's case and pollutes groundwater: http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/problems-of-uranium-mining-762482.html. I don't know if the U-industry is worse than coal or copper, but mining never has a small eco-footprint.
Even if you don't accept that history, my basic point was that uranium extraction requires energy (which nuclear advocates want us to forget), just like hydrocarbons or renewables. You need to spend energy to make energy. Some may argue that the nuclear cycle is overall "efficient", but please provide calculations then. Some may say that the nuclear cycle is much less carbon-intensive, so I'd like to see proof (ideally from neutral sources). Yes energy and pollution are associated with wind and solar farms also, but after scale-up, fair subsidies, and other improvements, those energy solutions can probably become environmentally and economically sustainable if we change our electricity consumption habits. The sun always has and always will be (by humanity's time scale) Earth's best and cheapest energy source, so why not exploit that rather than the dangerous, expensive, and complex nuclear cycle? Hydrocarbons and nuclear will NEVER be environmentally sustainable, and may not be economically viable as the easy-access reserves are depleted, and if you subtract gov't subsidies. Bottom line, no energy project in the world's history is more expensive than a MW-scale nuclear plant. This is partly because we have to build in so many safeguards in order to avoid accidents, which could be worse than the BP spill. Since the consequences are so dire, that cost will always be associated with nuclear. One can never engineer zero risk.
I don't know why you mention the German example, since they've had 3 major accidents in the 1980's, and partly because of that their government has decided to gradually phase out all their 17 plants by 2020: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#Accidents. Though Merkel's government is trying to reverse the decision amid protests: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/germanypoliticsenergynuclear.
Dumb humans build wildly inefficient and net-negative projects all the time. Look at the 3 Gorges Dam in China or the Joint Strike Fighter. We love our Rube Goldberg devices. It may be hard to believe that nuclear is so inefficient, but that shows you how effective industry PR and lobbying has been over the years. I didn't misrepresent data, but I admit that I did selectively present it. Converting electricity to heat is also an efficiency-losing step, so nuclear power that creates electricity for heat is a net energy loss, and looks bad considering other heating methods (passive solar, natural gas). So yeah, I was using the most extreme example, or the worst possible application of nuclear power. If you're using nuclear to power your blender or computer, the energy ratios are better, but still not enough to justify the costs IMO.
I never said that the choice was exclusively nuclear or renewables, but really there aren't many other choices out there. Large nations' energy portfolios should be diverse. But most of us generally understand the pros and cons of hydrocarbon-based electricity, so nuclear and renewables are the only other major alternatives. The suitability of each is case-dependent, but overall you haven't really made any arguments why renewables are inferior to nuclear if the playing field was level. How would you envision our nation's energy economy today if during the OPEC embargo, the government devoted all the resources earmarked for nuclear to renewables? Do you really think we'd be worse off?
-------------
My comments are inline...
Well, you don't really source any of your claims...
As I said my dad is a nuclear engineer and I've maintained an interest in nuclear power over the years so I'm simply sharing what I know; I have an engineering degree as well and most of these things are common sense (for an engineer, at least)...
How do you know that U-mining is "not that dirty"?...
Agreed (mining is a dirty business)... but your point was that uranium mining is somehow especially dirty (which I refute); on the whole it's not necessarily any dirtier than other forms of mining (we probably aren't missing any mountaintops in West Virginia due to uranium mining).
Even if you don't accept that history...
Huber and Mills do a pretty good job of making this point in detail. Also, for the purposes of this discussion let's say I am a nuclear advocate; I've never asked anyone to forget anything (like, ever).
Some may argue that the nuclear cycle is overall "efficient", but please provide calculations then.
You should be a little more precise when talking about efficiency (like the difference between thermodynamic or Rankine-cycle efficiency, which has a theoretical upper-bound which applies to all steam-based energy generation, say ~40%) and solar-cell efficiency (which is limited to less than 20% with even the newest PV cells). The numbers you cited with respect to "net energy" aren't really apples-to-apples (which, in most conversations you'll ever hear in the media, boils down to cost per kilowatt-hour as a measure of efficiency).
Some may say that the nuclear cycle is much less carbon-intensive, so I'd like to see proof (ideally from neutral sources).
The daily operation from a nuclear plant doesn't create any carbon output.
Yes energy and pollution are associated with wind and solar farms also...
Actually, they can become sustainable independent of changes to consumption habits.
The sun always has and always will be (by humanity's time scale) Earth's best and cheapest energy source, so why not exploit that rather than the dangerous, expensive, and complex nuclear cycle?
It's a great idea... but the technology has only increased by a few percentage points in terms of efficiency since the late 1970's. I suspect the reasons are the same as the answer to the question "Why don't more homes have passive water heaters?"
Hydrocarbons and nuclear will NEVER be environmentally sustainable, and may not be economically viable as the easy-access reserves are depleted, and if you subtract gov't subsidies.
The deadline for exhaustion of hydrocarbons has come and gone more than once and nuclear is not strictly (by definition) "renewable" (i.e. you would run out of uranium and/or waste fuel) at some point... but for all intensive purposes such distinctions are academic. Also, if your metric for environmental sustainability is acceptance by The Sierra Club then you should probably double-check your assertion.
Bottom line, no energy project in the world's history is more expensive than a MW-scale nuclear plant.
No, this is basically not true; the operating cost for a plant (after it's built) is (as in the case of PG&E's Diablo Canyon) something like $.03/kWh (some plants are known to run at an even lower cost hence my very loose off-the-cuff metric of <$.05); although the plants are capitally intensive you would have a very difficult time demonstrating that the initial capital outlay is somehow more flawed than building some massive piece of pork like a sports stadium (and definitely an impossible time when you consider how long a given reactor can run given the political will v/s how quickly a team can move given the... well... lack of will). Also, I might argue that developing an operating system is more expensive than a nuclear power plant since the metric you are using (implicitly) does not account for engineering man-hours.
This is partly because we have to build in so many safeguards in order to avoid accidents...
Yes, but you can engineer next to zero risk, which is what a nuclear power plant embodies. Also, most modern reactors don't afford disaster on the scale of Chernobyl (let alone Macondo or Prudoe Bay).
I don't know why you mention the German example...
I mention it because there was recent news that the "sunset" for the plants has been extended; the extension came by way of executive fiat (and not as a result of any change to the daily operations of the plants in question or to any of the fundamental aspects of the technology). Also, one can understand why such a decision would be made: if your car is in good repair and it's been paid why would you seek to replace it with another vehicle which is only arguably more compelling (especially when you needs for transportation services are increasing faster than you provide them for yourself)?
Dumb humans build wildly inefficient and net-negative projects all the time. Look at the 3 Gorges Dam in China or the Joint Strike Fighter. We love our Rube Goldberg devices.
Some kinds of toys for certain kinds of boys; I can't recall how the expression goes.
It may be hard to believe that nuclear is so inefficient...
I believe I stated as much in identifying the problematic comparison... but you should keep in mind who you are trying to convince. Unless you happen to be living in "gasland" the natural gas (which affords a cheap, clean means of heating your home) also takes energy to extract, refine, and distribute; solar films require rare earth elements and even solar panels require semiconductor fabrication facilities. There's no free lunch (liquid or otherwise).
I never said that the choice was exclusively nuclear or renewables...
I suppose I fail to understand what you mean by "if the playing field was level"; there's no question that The Obama Administration is doing everything within its power to advance an agenda of energy diversity (and security) by way of renewables. Without the incentives being offered renewables would not even be conceivable barring the most extreme circumstances (i.e. $150/barrel oil, supply disruptions, a capacity for America to transcend its political cycles and learn from its previous missteps) and/or government mandate. Besides, the onus is not on me to prove that renewables are somehow inferior (I'm actually quite keen about them); rather, the onus is on you to somehow show nuclear is inferior and/or not a valid piece of the energy diversity and security puzzle since that is how you started the discussion)!
How would you envision our nation's energy economy today if during the OPEC embargo, the government devoted all the resources earmarked for nuclear to renewables? Do you really think we'd be worse off?
Like, would we have avoided the post-apocalyptic nightmare brought on by that peanut-farming nuke-tender Jimmy Carter and his hair-brained policies of moderate consumption? Um... no.
-------------
I never said U-mining was especially dirty vs. other forms of mining. If you reference my first email, I actually said it was merely energy-intensive, but so is most mining. The more I read about radon contamination and groundwater risk, I'm starting to think that it is a lot dirtier. And for the record, I believe mountaintop removal is now prohibited in the US, partly because of eco-protests, but mostly because all the superficial coal is exploited, thereby necessitating costlier and more dangerous subterranean mining. That increases the chance of an Upper Big Branch-like accident, even if mining firms follow regulations, but that is the price we are apparently willing to pay in the West for our lifestyle. Of course the Chinese coal industry is much worse with 100's of miners dying annually.
Your tangent on thermodynamic efficiency misses the point. Of course all energy systems are inefficient from a purely input-output standpoint. Even the living cell, which is one of the most efficient machines ever, loses at least 10% of ATP chemical bond energy to heat waste, but that is the 2nd law in action. The net energy I discussed is how much energy output you get out of a modality vs. the energy it took to produce and implement it. Yes a KW wind turbine is inefficient, but if for argument's sake they only cost $1 to make and install, then their inherent energy conversion inefficiency can be overcome by volume. If a perfectly Carnot efficient GW-scale device costs $1T to make, 20 years to build, and has a 40 year service life, then it's probably not worth it. Thermo efficiency is an especially ludicrous argument for you to make for renewables, since by definition their energy sources are nearly infinite from humanity's viewpoint (i.e. we're not going to run out of sun or wind or wave power). If we can just harness a bit of it economically, we're already better off than nuclear.
Don't be naive - of course the daily ops of a nuclear plant produces carbon (workers' commute, transporting uranium and other materials, maintenance and repair work, etc.). Surely a nuclear plant's carbon footprint is lower than that of a coal plant, but it's not zero. And as I said before, the nuclear plant is but one aspect of the nuclear cycle, which spews carbon every step of the way.
Of course nuclear isn't renewable, that's my whole point from the get-go. I don't think the renewable distinction is academic. Forget climate change and other pollution for a moment, because as you said we've probably seen peak oil pass us by, and at some point it will cost more energy to extract oil than the useful energy we derive from it. Humans want to develop scaled-up renewable energy partly because it avoids that limitation (most modalities at least, since in the case of biofuels, it's not renewable if we consume it faster than the plant feedstock can grow). Also remember that primitive human societies started with renewable power because that is what was most available (obviously), such as the water wheel, windmill, and burning wood for heat. Over half of humans today still rely on those sources, and it mostly works because they live fairly green lifestyles. We both seem to agree that renewables can also work for industrialized societies with the proper conditions in place. Therefore I don't understand your pejorative comment about the Sierra Club's definition of "sustainable". There's nothing wrong with their definition, which is probably the universal definition anyway. An energy source is sustainable if it's use doesn't cause irreversible environmental degradation (in the human time scale at least), and if we won't run out of it under current and projected consumption rates. Almost every human activity causes some environmental damage. We have to decide how much harm we are willing to commit, and how much abuse we think the planet can take before there are major consequences, that in turn put our societies in danger (like deforestation and irresponsible agriculture causing soil degradation and eventually food shortage).
I said no energy project in history is more expensive than a nuclear plant, which is absolutely true and I challenge you to find an industrial exception (not including pork-barrel research projects like the Hadron Collider or Livermore Lab fusion laser). I am referring to the COST of its construction and maintenance, not the cost of the energy coming out once it is built, which is cheating. I also challenge you to support your 5 cents/kWh claim with an independent reference that also takes the entire fuel cycle costs into account. You can't ignore the up-front costs, nor the building time, nor the effective service life (all sources I've consulted state that Cold War plants have an absolute maximum life of 60 years, and that is with top maintenance and public support, so after that you need to decommission them and build a new one - both very costly). I have no idea why you are comparing all this to a sports stadium, which is neither an energy project, nor as expensive to build and run.
There is absolutely no such thing as zero risk; it's like Carnot efficiency, an asymptote. Humans can get pretty close, but not perfect. I suppose you can argue that such a level is "essentially zero risk". But even for modern plant designs that can run without humans for X years (in the event of a pandemic or neutron bomb or something), after that they will melt down or fall apart and contaminate. And I don't think plants are designed to withstand an 8.0 quake, crashing 747, or warfare. Yes we try to build plants far away from faults and such, but you can't protect them 100%.
Maybe the Obama admin. is trying to do "everything in its power" to advance renewables, but their power is limited and it's late in the game. What I mean by a level playing field should be obvious - due to socioeconomic and political considerations over the years, dirty energy (including nuclear) has gotten much more financial/government support than renewables. So Obama can't make up for that decades-long gap. The GOP essentially killed the Obama energy agenda anyway, at least for his first term. And without a carbon tax and end to nuclear subsidies, renewables will never have a really fair shake because we'd still be externalizing the environmental and health costs of dirty energy. I've already said that scaled-up renewable energy also produces some carbon and pollution, but less than what nuclear or hydrocarbons produce. And of course I agree that energy conservation is better than needing to build more energy capacity, even if it is renewable. I've said that in at least 3 previous emails, so I didn't feel the need to repeat it here.
The onus may be on me, but I think I've sufficiently supported my point. On the other hand, you have made selective and tangential counter points that aren't supported by any data. Why is nuclear inferior? Cost and pollution. You failed to produce any evidence to the contrary (and you've especially avoided the topics of costly plant decommissioning and waste management). All you've basically said is, "Trust me that the electricity coming out of a nuclear plant costs 5 cents/kWh if you ignore the up-front costs." The whole point of nuclear's inferiority is its huge up-front (and back-end) costs.
And one last point - there is no nuclear power without fuel supply. I forgot to add this to my original email but an MIT study estimates that the Earth has enough uranium for 1,000 GW-scale reactors for at least 50 years. Sounds great, but actually our ability to discover, mine, and produce fuel-grade material will not be able to keep up with the industry's hopes for growth. Each GW-size plant requires about 200 metric tons of uranium per year. Multiply that over all plants, and fuel production can't keep up: in 2004 plants needed 68,000 metric tons of fuel, but all mines only produced 39,000, with the remainder coming from Cold War inventories, recycling, and conversions of weapons-grade material. But our stockpiles are due to run out by 2020, possibly leading to a nuclear fuel shortage. I guess you could argue that we'll just make new mines. Do a Google search for the uranium mining industries in Australia, Colorado, and the Dakotas, and see how that is working out.
http://www.oilcrisis.com/nuclear/WhyNuclearNotSustainable.htm
------------
i lived about 15 miles away from TMI in 1979. I can tell you right now, they lied about the emmissions from that leak. Fish kills, dead cows with sores were found downwind in the first couple of days after the leak.
My father was not a nuclear engineer, but he was a good soldier and he watched over a big hole in almagordo testing grounds 5 years after the bomb was tested. My father died from multifoci maligniancies that are indicative of radiation exposure(I did work in environmental cancinogen research and the PI I worked with wrote many papers regarding this type of cancer associated exclusively with ionizing radiation exposure). he was never sick at almagordo and it took 50 years to catch up with him but it killed him nonetheless. I am supposing that most likely I will suffer the same fate from my exposures in 1979.
The benefit to these plants is the money's made and the plant's long gone before the illnesses start. With current trends, most likely they would claim that there is little proof tying the rad. exp. and the cancers together. Is this worth it to you? Is this the risk you want to take? Then the contractors, the plant owners and all who profit from the building of these plants should be bound to live in the shadow of the cooling towers.
Also, TMI is not paid off. Lmerick power plant(35mi. east of TMI) is not paid off. That region has one of the highest electricity rates in the country due to the payments on these plants.
