The Validity of Nuclear Energy

The Validity of Nuclear EnergyHere’s an article that will make my pro-nuclear group happy: an interview with Rachel Slaybaugh, giving an interview in preface to her talk at the SXSW Eco conference next week.  There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of what she says here is true:

• Anti-nuke sentiment is largely based on falsehoods

• Decommissioning active, safely operating nukes mean more greenhouse gas emissions

• Advanced nuclear is extremely safe, and potentially quite cost-effective

I have a very low opinion of environmentalists who aren’t willing to look at facts; closed-mindedness is actually antithetical to the basic concept of science—something environmentalists should revere.  This is summed up nicely by Neil DeGrasse Tyson (above), one of the world’s best spokespeople for rationality.

Tagged with: , , , , ,
8 comments on “The Validity of Nuclear Energy
  1. Frank R. Eggers says:

    It is disturbing that some environmentalists in California want to close down the nuclear plants in CA. The results would be similar to what happened in Germany when they closed down nuclear planets, i.e., a significant increase in CO2 emissions.

    Although this is not true of all the anti-nuclear crowd, it seems as though many of them want us to live in much the way our great grandparents lived, i.e., on the land in an agricultural environment. That was the living mode recommended by the magazine “Mother Earth News”. While there is nothing wrong with that for people so inclined who have the necessary knowledge and skills, it just would not be practical for more than a small minority of people to go back to the land, even if they were inclined to do so.

  2. Lawrence Coomber says:

    Craig @

    Craig said: “I have a very low opinion of environmentalists who aren’t willing to look at facts; closed-mindedness is actually antithetical to the basic concept of science—something environmentalists should revere.”

    And this is where Craig and I are fundamentally different thinkers and commentators on this topic.

    I don’t have a “low opinion” of this category of people as does Craig.

    They definitely represent a very broad cross section of the global community in fact, and this critical mass deserve respect not condemnation.

    I admire their collective passion for their crusade. I respect their involvement in what inspires them most, and I encourage them to pursue their aspirations in their own ways.

    I simply don’t share their distilled beliefs and opinions on the subject.

    So like this global group of environmentalists, I will continue to speak out about my personal passion for the same subject, but from a different perspective, and in particular those technological development pathways I believe are necessary to permanently reverse global greenhouse emissions as well as satisfy the future global energy technology imperative of “efficient, clean, safe, abundant and low cost power generation” to power new era energy intensive industries and life styles of all people globally.

    And of course, the future is now.

    Lawrence Coomber

  3. Silent Running says:

    The case for SMR of either Fast Reactor design using waste as fuel or Thorium SMRs is Valid based on need and environmental benefit.

    However the continued development and improvement in various other sources of Renewable Energy is going to close the market window for these much talked about possible technical applications for nuclear power.

    Lots of talk since the 1950’s , lots of proclamations and more R & D etc., etc. Big Nukes like coal are mostly passe. Only around 22 World Wide are being built etc so despite so much talk and the appeal of nuclear power the market place is not responding in kind! It just has not responded and there are many reasons. No protestors can be blamed though thats a Red Herring Strawman position.

    If these technologies are valid and can perform they have a place and will benefit us all. So its up to the developers and underwriters of SMR technology to get into Gear and deliver a market solution.

    There is no one stopping them only their technology always seems to be not quite ready? The market place will continue to evolve and cost competitiveness is going to be the defining determination.

    Legacy Cost Threats
    Presently in the US we have 6 or 7 middle aged nukes that are mostly depreciated by the owners. These plants are having unusually high maintenance costs that were not projected correctly way back in the design feasibility stage. So now their operating costs makes them UN Competitive with Wind and GAS units The owners are losing money on these and two others which have already closed BEFORE their designed end of life stage. They need another 5 to 6 cents per kwhr than the wholesale price to operate !

    To keep the 3 middle aged plants operating is going to cost close to $ 2 billion a year in rate payer subsidy just in NY. I think the time frame for the subsidy is for 15 years or so. So do the math.

    The consumer and regulator know they can buy a lot of other Solutions for the cost of the 15 year subsidy. That is the cost Challenge you Face so accept it and work over it.

    These hidden costs for big Nukes scares the hell out of Utility Executives, Regulators and the RATE Payers. Already in NY there is great Blow back to the deal that was cut by a Democratic Gov with a decent energy Vision. both Re and Nukes , etc.

    They sold the legislators but now the Blow back has begun and the subsidy issue is rising to the service when more consumers learn they are subsidizing these nukes for so much money.

    Fall out from Wall St and other Corporate Bailouts of the Rich! Lots of blow back out there. Technologists that fail to address social or cultural concerns set themselves for Failure no matter How big and Shiny their technology maybe! Let alone ignore cost issues.

    So to those of you who are in the Nuclear Genie camp I cede my respect to you for your Faith and desire for a complete environmental solution. From that perspective I accept your position.

    However I caution you once again the Legacy of nuclear power track record is not good and the cost issue is the Elephant in the room. or under the Tent ! Cost perception is a lingering Issue and Perception can become Reality!

    If nuclear is going to have a future they better get some ordered before the legacy nukes from our aging fleet retires and the BIG BIlls for DECOMMISSIONING start showing up in the newspapers and ratepayers bills. We are talking BILLIONS folks.

    So your market window could close due to Blowback!

    The 3 nukes in Iowa and Illinois are now scheduled to close in a year or two as the legislature of Illinois does not want to subsidize the nukes to keep them operating. Again higher than projected maintenance costs are making them money Losers for the utility co.

    These are not my R E opinions they are Market facts!

    Further more P G & E is a sophisticated utility with plenty of smart girls and boys who do their system engineering and resource planning. They have calculated the various least cost paths going forward and the numbers say Close Diablo Canyon. Once again cost legacy issues from the recently closed San Onofre plant by SD G and Elec. and So Cal Edison where there is a $ 5 Billion loss and charges to rate payers of $ 5 Billion for a nuke plant that is closed.

    Not a stellar track record to write home about !?!?!?

    The large nukes under construction in GA and S Carolina are over budget and delayed and the rate payers are paying CWIP construction work in Progress before th eplant is built. So the cost issue again.

    In Virginia the large utility there is asking for $ 300 million in advance to perform basic engineering feasibility exploratory studies . The Regulators are struggling with the Social EQuity of asking Rate payers to fund studies for something that will not be built for 10 years.
    What happened to Used and Useful in rate making? So again the cost issue leaves a negative sobering taste in respect to nukes.

    All this creates blowback and Under mines the arguments or case for Nuclear Power.

    Sad to be a Rain Maker on your parade but these market conditions create resistance to nuclear power that is COST BASED more than it is Safety based.

    P G & E says the ERA of big Base load plants is over as I have said repeatedly in this blog site.

    Conclusion: stop cheer leading, get the developers into higher gear and get some Demo units out there and get them placed before 2025.

    Other competing technologies are lowering their cost, improving their performance and gaining great acceptance by the public as the RISK factor is so small. In a few years wind will have non battery storage for 2 days. Game changer. There are 89,000 megawatts of East Coast Wind potential that is technically and economically recoverable at a market competitive price per megawatt-hr and that is where the Load centers are.

    Go to Washington and get the NRC to say yes to the Idaho Nat Lab trial demonstration for Nu Scale SMR nukes. Write your congressman.

    It will take more than the Genie’s Pixie Dust to make Progress. This technology just can’t be Wished upon a Star Forever!

    There are many reasons Germany cut back on their nukes they have a plan and we might not understand it all so don’t try to judge the Energyweide from the outside looking in. Its complicated .
    CHP and storage going in and Energy use per Sq Ft usage going down in Germany their lights are not going out anytime soon.

    Yes we can do some SMR nukes but the question cant be answered until they DO It Perform before the Resistance is too strong

    Best wishes

  4. Lawrence Coomber says:

    Silent Running gives clean; safe; energy dense generation technologies a “maybe only” possibility in the near future (within about 20 years)!

    He is most certainly wrong on this point.

    Why? simply because the worlds future live-ability demands that he “has” to be wrong.

    Those players who hold the technological wherewith-all in this sector are well aware that greenhouse gasses can only be permanently reversed to insignificance by entirely eliminating fossil fuel power generation dependency globally.

    So in a single sentence – that is their technical challenge.

    Those corporate and scientific business models and commercial opportunities are well defined and recognised, and of course they will not stand by and allow this issue to go on forever and a day, unanswered. As modern day people we are simply not wired like that!

    Future historians will look back at this period and reflect that collectively we probably mobilised and responded to the greenhouse gasses challenge appropriately, and at about the right time in history (+ or – about 10 – 20 years) I estimate.

    I don’t have any inside knowledge on this subject of course, but if trends account for anything (and regarding technology, they account for just about everything) I predict that there is a lot of innovative new stuff unfolding in labs globally which are close to fruition and commercialisation over the next several years.

    So lets move on and start the conversation about “new age” energy intensive technologies and industries that the world must have to move us all forward. I refer to them as “global equalising technologies”.

    Lawrence Coomber

  5. Silent Running says:

    Nice words Lawrence and you paint a accurate picture of much activity going on in the direction of advancing carbon less power.

    How ever I said by 2025 that is 9 years away not 10 to 20 S YOU ACCUSED ME OF SAYING.

    I encouraged the purveyors of the nuclear technology to pick up the pace as the market window is in the mid 2025’s. Due to the convergence of many external forces and other technologies and cost concerns with closing out the existing Fleet. These are all Real forces that need to be addressed.

    The SMR folks have had the time and they need to start deploying as I clearly stated Kind Sir!
    I POINTED OUT NUMEROUS MARKET CHALLENGES THAT are Clearly known by the players that are not blinded by the genie’s promises.

    As a business person who has had to overcome both internal and external market forces to make markets and make revenues I pointed many out as well. So don’t be dismissive of Reality.

    That is one of the reasons the nuclear club has spun its wheels since the 1950’s . Over Fascination with the Sizzle of the power , much like many within the solar community and related sometimes get carried away with exuberant expectations that are beyond the capabilites of current energy formats.

    Go to Idaho Nat Labs and get them moving …or some other Labs or since you are in Australia get your Government to put some money and market power into deployment. Be interesting to see how you do. Respect your position but respect the entire playing field Lawrence.

    Yes your China Man friends are building some big Westinghouse units and their own design too but they should ramp things up wonder why the delay??? Speak to these specifics so we gain more market clarity .

    The nuclear Genie can’t afford the time and resources to over come more Pot holes that could have been avoided! with some practical approaches.

    Till then I remain in the cautionary Dont’ want to be Fooled Again Club and will stick to my knitting and all the while realizing the limits of what we are doing but at least we are doing and deploying and making some progress.

    Save the cheer leading for the Banksters who under write these types of investments they are the ones you need to convince and win over the Funders !

    Good luck in your endeavors over there take care Peace

  6. Lawrence Coomber says:

    Silent Running your contributions in any debate that I have seen are always passionate and well considered. You are an important commentator across the board in my view.

    Importantly you show a willingness to adjust your position on issues as you learn more through your own research.

    I am not quite at that same point yet. It might have something to do with age. I am guessing that I am a little bit older than your good self.

    Keep up the good work Silent Running you have a well refined “sniff meter” guiding you.

    Lawrence Coomber

    • Frank R. Eggers says:

      Geriatrification need not result in cerebral rigidity. I’d like to think that it hasn’t for me.

  7. Lawrence Coomber says:

    Frank I am sure that we all whole-heartedly realise through your consistent high standard of analysis, that you are the quintessential exception to life’s general rules.

    And will continue to be so I expect. Keep up the good work mate.

    Lawrence Coomber