Mark Bittman on food and all things related.
There is a new discussion about nuclear energy, prompted by well-founded concerns about carbon emissions and fueled by a pro-nuclear documentary called “Pandora’s Promise.” Add a statement by James E. Hansen — who famously sounded the alarm on climate change — and, of course, industry propaganda, and presto: We Love Nukes.
Before we all become pro-nuclear greens, however, you’ve got to ask three questions: Is nuclear power safe and clean? Is it economical? And are there better alternatives?
No, no and yes. So let’s not swap the pending environmental disaster of climate change for another that may be equally risky.
Despite all-out efforts and international cooperation, Fukushima, which scared Germany right out of the nuclear power business, still isn’t under control. Proponents of nuclear power promise new and safer technology, but these discussions are filled with “coulds”; no such plants exist. Nor would they reduce the risks of proliferation. (Oh, that little thing.)
Nor would they do much to mitigate the all-too-infrequently discussed dangers of uranium mining, which uses vast amounts of water in the West — an area that can ill afford it — and is barely regulated or even studied. Thousands of uranium mines have been abandoned, and no one seems to know how many remain to be cleaned up. The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Then there’s disposal of spent fuel, which is not contained at the same safety level as active fuel, itself a scary thought. Decades into the nuclear age there remains, incredibly, no real plan for this; a patchwork scheme by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which appears to be even more industry-friendly than most federal agencies, was rejected by an appeals court last year, and the Obama administration is standing by its campaign promise (shocking, I know) to abandon the nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
The economic viability of nuclear power is no more encouraging. Plants continue to close and generation rates continue to drop. Operators may indeed continue to make money on reactors, but that’s only because federal subsidies are enormous. Insurance costs are limited. Loans are guaranteed (the Solyndra loan guarantee was half a billion dollars; in contrast, loan guarantees for new nuclear plants may run $8 billion); cost recovery and return on investment are also assured for decades, and some operators are able to collect costs from ratepayers (and pay dividends to shareholders) years before plants come online — even if they never come online.
Fears of climate change are no reason to revive a doomed energy source.
So they’re economical as long as you’re the owner, because historically, subsidies for nuclear power have been more than double the expense of power generation itself. While estimates of the costs of power generation vary wildly — allowing both proponents and detractors of any given power technology to make their cases — few of them take externalities (costs to the environment or to public health, for example) into account. And nuclear power’s externalities could exceed those for any other form of power generation except coal.
That’s why we’re reducing coal usage — if we had a strong climate policy it would be gone in a couple of deades, and nuclear should be right behind it. It’s likely that no new nuclear plants will be built before true renewables are able to take the place of scary, highly damaging energy sources.
Which brings us full circle: the new proponents of nuclear power say that since nuclear power is arguably preferable to coal, maybe we should subsidize the building of new plants.
If those were the only options, maybe that argument would be a sound one. But they’re not. Energy efficiency (remember that?), natural gas (imperfect, yes, but improvable) and wind are all cheaper. Even solar is already less expensive than nuclear power in good locations.
Some studies show that renewables can generate 80 percent of our electricity in 2050, using current technologies, while reducing carbon emissions from the electric sector by 80 percent. Climate change fears should be driving not old and disproven technologies but renewable ones, which are more practical. These technologies remain relatively small — non-hydro renewables were around 5 percent of the total last year — but they’re growing so fast (wind and solar use have quadrupled in the last five years) that just this week the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission predicted that solar power could soon begin to double every two years.
Utilities are afraid that solar power will be to the electrical grid what PCs were to mainframes, or e-mail to the Postal Service: a technology that will simply kill its predecessors. Coal and nuclear power are both doomed, and the profit-making power grid with it. That’s all to our benefit.
575 Comments
Click here to read the best Times comments from the past week.
Jessica Lovering
Oakland, CA September 5, 2013I wrote a rebuttal to this column: http://goo.gl/nJHEs2
We also have a Nuclear FAQs which address many of the questions raised in these comments: http://goo.gl/jUzbQw
Jessica Lovering
Policy Analyst | The Breakthrough Institute
Energy and Climate Program
http://thebreakthrough.org/
Twitter: @J_Lovering
Allen Braun
Upstate NY August 31, 2013A key problem with wind and solar is that it's not there when needed and provides too much power when not needed. It's irregular. There are means to store the energy (pump water into reservoirs, thermal and more), but it is capital intensive and not especially efficient.
The grid needs a stabilizer in the form of base load and nuclear is by far the best.
But the grid also needs following and peaking sources. Hydro does that very well but is not available across the country. Gas turbines do that very well too - but are expensive to run even with today's low natural gas prices. Coal and gas boilers are much too slow to react to short term demand changes.
The new nuclear designs are better in all ways. They are simpler meaning less expensive to operate and more importantly more reliable. They are designed to be fail passive as well.
To integrate US solar and wind a major undertaking is needed: a HVDC 'ring' that loops around the country to collect and distribute power generated by wind and solar to bring to markets where it is needed. All sorts of power sources would continuously maintain the ring with inputs to match demand wherever it is occurring around the ring while making wind and solar "first in" to the ring. In this way the practice of curtailment (refusing wind power due to lack of transmission capacity) can be eliminated and the return on wind and solar investment increased (while reducing fossil fuel use).
Michael S.
Oak Park, IL August 31, 2013I can only imagine how our sustainable energy system would be, if only half what was spent on the last two wars was applied to a green transition..
Our corporatist state works against the interests of the average American citizen and the rest of the world.
James R Fromm
Las Cruces August 30, 2013Mr. Bittman, my wife and I enjoy your culinary exploits and suggestions a great deal. We have tried a great many of your ideas and have adapted them to our own kitchen creations. Do me a favor, though, don't try to remake yourself as an anti-nuclear spokesperson without before acquiring a technical expertise equivalent to that you have in the kitchen.
I understand your fear but I favor critical engagement and questioning over reactionary parroting of emotion laden talking points.
To say the nuclear power industrial-complex (and here I am thinking of the entire fuel cycle, from yellow-cake to waste) is unsafe, requires some serious factual analysis. For instance, what are the OSHA statistics for the nuclear industry relative to the petro-chemical industrial-complex, or the coal industrial-complex? I suspect that, were you to look closely, you would find that nuclear is MUCH safer.
And, that safety record is the direct result of the very regulatory agency you accuse of being "more industry-friendly" than other federal agencies. I have spent 30+ years working with the NRC (note that I say 'with' and not 'at' or 'for') at a number of nuclear facilities across the US. The NRC is NOT industry-friendly and certainly not in ways that say the FAA has been complicit in aviation issues.
Get your facts straight, please, in much the same way you establish 'mise en place' before starting work on a wonderful meal . . . about which, by the way, we look forward to hearing more.
John Miller
Cleveland OH September 10, 2013Second reply to James Fromm:
You are absolutely wrong about BWR containments being strong. The NRC has admitted on a few occasions that they would not hold up during a meltdown.
As a result, all GE BWR Mark I and Mark II reactors worldwide should be shut down immediately.
Dr. John Miller
@NuclearReporter
Charles Elliott
Los Angeles August 29, 2013Nukes have already bankrupted some rural electric cooperatives and there is no viable plan to dispose of the spent fuel for the necessary 10,000 years. As major utilities take them offline, the nuclear power plant operators are trying to stick the electric customer with the 10,000-year decommissioning costs. Surely the investors should be made to take this hit instead. The expense of this, long-term, has the potential to drive up rates to the point that customers will avidly seek power sources not on the grids, and thence grids will become uneconomic. We are therefor on the verge of full collapse of the system that brought electricity to everyone in the 20th century. In California, Southern California Edison already sees the handwriting on the wall and is asking for $20 per month per customer location, even if that location is no longer connected to the grid.
Allen Braun
Upstate NY September 1, 2013There is an entirely viable plan but NIMBY wins out even in NV where it's nobody's backyard.
Thierry
Paris, France August 29, 2013The arguments here against nuclear do not make any sense. In fact:
- Climate change resulting from CO2 and other gases is a global problem, affecting all nations and all of humanity. The increase is happening ALL THE TIME and is the NORMAL consequences of burning coal and using most renewables (lack of previsibility), compared to local (if catastrophic) consequences for accidents such as Fukushima and Tchernobyl.
- Since Germany has reduced nuclear and has increased their use of renewals, it has increased its production of CO2. The more renewables it uses, the more CO2 it produces. Because of lack of predictibility of renewables, it needs as much coal-consuming factories as it needs renewables. The end result is that every German is producing twice as much CO2 as every Frenchman, and this ratio is increasing. Not even writing about US citizens...
Paul
SF August 29, 2013The West can change 100% to "clean" energy and it still wouldn't stop the rise in CO2 - because China, India, Indonesia are using vast amounts of coal - and will continue to do so because the cost of "green" energy is significantly higher. So suggesting we substitute cheap natgas for outrageously expensive dirty nuclear because it is a low CO2 emitter is laughably ridiculous. But that doesn't stop Nuke supporters from making such silly arguments like yours time and again.
John Miller
Cleveland OH September 10, 2013To Thierry:
Nuclear is not the only energy source that doesn't produce CO2. For the same amount of money and time, one can purchase much more renewable generation than nuclear power. It makes no sense to build more nuclear power, since the plutonium it automatically creates must be isolated from humans for 240,000 years.
It's not true that Germany's renewables create CO2, unless they're using biofuels, which are terrible because we burn them. Wind power and solar power are much better developed in Germany than in the US. That's why they can shut down their nuclear plants.
Dr. John Miller
@NuclearReporter
MarkH
New Jersey August 29, 2013@Bob:
I wrote, "...with reactors and containments like those at TMI." Plants like TMI have enormously strong containment buildings (typically, welded steel about one centimeter thick enclosed in a four-foot thick blanket of steel-reinforced concrete) that are designed to function as pressure vessels in the event of an accident. They are strong enough to withstand the explosion that could result if all of the reactor's zirconium reacted with water to create hydrogen and that amount of hydrogen then detonated.
Boiling water reactors (like those at Fukushima) don't have such strong containment buildings -- this is why hydrogen explosions blew off their roofs.
The Chernobyl reactor building was an ordinary industrial building, not designed to contain ANY PRESSURE WHATSOEVER. Its reactors were much less stable than those used for power generation outside the Soviet Union. Reactors with such characteristics could never have been certified for power generation in the United States.
At TMI, a reactor was destroyed by gross operator mishandling (they cut the flow of cooling water when more water was needed), but the temperature excursions were MUCH SMALLER and MUCH SLOWER than those at Chernobyl. The melted core stayed inside the reactor vessel. The by-products from core melting that came out of the reactor vessel were very well contained by the containment building. When the released hydrogen exploded, the containment was stressed to less than half its design limit.
James R Fromm
Las Cruces August 30, 2013@Mark H, you have made a very misleading statement about Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) containment vessels. You should know better.
BWRs have strong containment structures similar to those used at Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR) because they are designed to the same standards specified in the Code of Federal Regulations, 10CFR50, Appendix A. BWRs have two containment structures: the primary containment, which is the equivalent of the PWR containment, and a secondary containment built around the primary containment, which serves as a release mitigation system in the event the primary containment has to be vented. PWR containments have a similar release mitigation system for venting (which was done at TMI) but it is a subsystem of their containment structure.
The hydrogen burns and detonation which occurred at Fukushima were the result of hydrogen accumulation in combustible concentrations within the secondary containment as a result of both controlled and uncontrolled venting.
John Miller
Cleveland OH September 10, 2013To MarkH:
There was no gross operator mishandling at TMI. The flow through a demineralizer stopped, and primary coolant temperature went up so much the main relief valve lifted and partially emptied the reactor core.
Dr. John Miller
@NuclearReporter
Thinking-Right
Moorestown, NJ August 29, 2013I'm dismayed at the author's ignorance on the subject. Being an expert in Food, not makes you an expert on energy, or green. To answer the question "Are there alternatives?" with a 'yes' ...sure:
Working for the Government, I learned long time ago, to value all opinions. Cost is only one out of a total of five considerations for final answer.
So let's go with a combined approach. Use all methods to mass-produce energy. Also keep in mind what is best for USA (not Germany, for example). Also what happened in Russia, and now in Japan, is not how we do things here in the USA.
So here are the alternatives, and how to select'em:
- Baseload/ steady power to be generated by conventional methods - nuclear, gas, coal. Put plants next to where fuel is mined/ manufactured
- Put all power-generators on the common national grid - add capacity as required for the grid
- Install Solar, and Wind Plants only in the 1 gW (and up) range - do not consider solar power like a building component, or an appliance for that matter - was not meant to be that way. Solar is for mission-critical applications, not household. Again, put plants where Solar is the hottest, and wind is the fastest
- Use Solar/ wind as and when available; switch to conventional, all other times to meet demand
- This means more jobs for now, and access to green power, without putting coal out of business (not easy to kill a big business ongoing) - just make it more clean, even if costly
Thanks,
Thinking-Right
Moorestown, NJ
Michael
Austin August 29, 2013"Also what happened in Russia, and now in Japan, is not how we do things here in the USA."
I agree that in a perfect world, nuclear might be the solution, but not in the real world. But in the US, it's often an individual's bonus or short term profit that is more important than long term safety.
Remember Three-Mile Island. I was living in the Pacific Northwest when it was found that contractors of the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant saved money by leaving out rebar in the concrete. And when it was discovered that the plant was build on a fault line. Not to mention oil spills, fertilizer plant explosions, tainted meat plant.
From Wikipedia:
The Trojan steam generators were designed to last the life of the plant, but it was only four years before premature cracking of the steam tubes was observed.
In 1978, the plant was closed for nine months while modifications were made to improve its resistance to earthquakes. This followed the discovery of both major building construction errors and the close proximity of a previously unknown faultline. The operators sued the builders, and an undisclosed out-of-court settlement was eventually reached.
jerryob
ri August 29, 2013So we must be experts to make a case? As Johnson said, "You may abuse a tragedy, though you cannot write one. You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not your trade to make tables."
Thinking-Right
Moorestown, NJ August 29, 2013I'm dismayed at the author's ignorance on the subject. Being an expert in Food, not makes you an expert on energy, or green. To answer the question "Are there alternatives?" with a 'yes' ...sure:
Working for the Government, I learned long time ago, to value all opinions. Cost is only one out of a total of five considerations for final answer.
So let's go with a combined approach. Use all methods to mass-produce energy. Also keep in mind what is best for USA (not Germany, for example). Also what happened in Russia, and now in Japan, is not how we do things here in the USA.
So here are the alternatives, and how to select'em:
- Baseload/ steady power to be generated by conventional methods - nuclear, gas, coal. Put plants next to where fuel is mined/ manufactured
- Put all power-generators on the common national grid - add capacity as required for the grid
- Install Solar, and Wind Plants only in the 1 gW (and up) range - do not consider solar power like a building component, or an appliance for that matter - was not meant to be that way. Solar is for mission-critical applications, not household. Again, put plants where Solar is the hottest, and wind is the fastest
- Use Solar/ wind as and when available; switch to conventional, all other times to meet demand
- This means more jobs for now, and access to green power, without putting coal out of business (not easy to kill a big business ongoing) - just make it more clean, even if costly
JohnChase
Palm Harbor, FL August 29, 2013I am dismayed at the anti-uranium bias in this article. To answer the question "Are there alternatives?" with a 'yes' requires either a belief in miracles to store energy for when the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow, or a belief that thorium can be developed and deployed in time to make a difference. But he doesn't mention either one.
Paul
SF August 29, 2013Er, it's called clean (and cheap) natural gas, of which the US has vast reserves - and why coal burning power plants are being put out of business - and almost single handedly the reason why US CO2 emissions have dropped the last few years (yet gets almost no publicity), ironically the only major economy to have significantly cut CO2 emissions.
95rcm
scottsdale August 28, 2013No mention of thorium nuclear reactors. The writer needs to do his research.
Mae H.
Wayzata, MN August 28, 2013Perhaps nuclear power seems more dangerous because the effects of any kind of malfunction (due to fire, wind, land or sea) are so very immediate. People die right away, instead of after years of inhaling coal dust, or drinking water contaminated by the chemicals used to obtain most other forms of energy.
I am and have always been a proponent of solar energy. There isn't much potential for catastrophe from the sun as long as it shines, except a bad case of sunburn. If a tenth of the money currently wasted on trying to "clean" coal, or "frack" natural gas, or play around with nuclear power, which, since we cannot predict the future, will always be fraught with potential catastrophe, were spent on developing solar power, better batteries with which to store it, and technology to link it to the power grid, so that the southwest's abundance of sun could be shared in the darker areas of the country, we'd finally be in a position of energy independence ... without the risks.
G.R.L. Cowan
Cobourg, Ontario, Canada August 29, 2013Mae H. says, "Perhaps nuclear power seems more dangerous because the effects of any kind of malfunction (due to fire, wind, land or sea) are so very immediate. People die right away ..."
In the most severe mishaps involving Teller-compliant reactors*, people don't seem to die at all. Fossil fuel promoters then say of nuclear accident 'X', "Don't let anyone tell you 'X' is over, 'cause it ain't."
Fossil fuel accidents routinely have numerous prompt fatalities -- for instance the San Bruno gas pipeline disaster, the Kleen Energy gas power plant disaster, the Upper Big Branch mine disaster, etc., etc., and if an accident releases a lot of materials that are likely to be toxic, no-one bothers to say, this ain't over. There's no money in it. It may well not *be* over, but there's no money in saying so.
* "Teller-compliant": complying with the no-Chernobyls rule Teller and the Reactor Safeguard Committee of which he was head put forth in about 1950.
Paul
SF August 30, 2013You don't have a clue what you yammer about. Solar will never make up more than a tiny fraction of total energy supply - it is unreliable and high cost (when the sun don't shine, you need 100% conventional backup generation anyway, so the effective cost of solar is astronomic, yet never mentioned).
Paul S
Rocky Point August 28, 2013Nuclear is dangerous but so is everything else! What Bittman neglects to mention is that nuclear energy is 1000's of times less dangerous than coal or oil. Bittman appears to fall into the trap of "fear without perspective" that plagues so much of our society and leads to such perverse decisions as driving instead of flying even though flying is much much safer. I find his opinion piece very poorly thought out.
Michael S.
Oak Park, IL August 27, 2013Boy, is it tiring to hear the nuclear cabal call those concerned by nuclear accidents "uncaring for the poor". Monsanto implies the same for those concerned by GMO's.
These tactics are totally disingenuous..
Besides, we are discussing our domestic energy policy. With all our bad habits and neocolonial habits (what are those camel-jockeys doing, living on top of our oil?), we are not in the position to lecture India & China. We would be more effective leading by example.
Expanding nuclear while continuing: McMansions, over-sized SUV's, unfettered consummation of cheaply made products (Walmart), and the neglect of urban planning & mass-transit, would cause horrific degradation to our biosphere regardless of the 'perfection' of nuclear power generation.
It would be the sell-out of our time.
Our 'free-market system', roughly 250 years old, has always run on the lowest common denominator and is currently creating a whole new class of indentured throughout the lesser developed countries. Just look what's happening to our own abused democracy where faceless capital is calling the shots and skewing the debate.
Jeff G
Stratham NH August 29, 2013I agree. However, calling the Koch brothers "faceless" does them injustice.
JPWNYC
New York City August 27, 2013Mark
The bottom line: with anything like the anticipated power utilization rate (after aggressive conservation assumptions and reflecting almost certain global population growth and rising standards of living) even with projections of significantly increased energy efficiency for alternative sources, it remains that nuclear generation MUST play a role in the satisfaction of the world's demand for power. You just can't get there from here unless nuclear is part of the solution.
Yes, it would be irresponsible to proceed with expansion of the world's nuclear generating portfolio without attention to critical aspects of the sector, especially site security practices and spent fuel storage, but it will also be irresponsible to assume that we are going to be able to eliminate coal-based power generation and satisfy the demand for electricity from wind, solar, hydro and other non-carbon-based technologies. It just doesn't pencil out.
Mark, the stark reality is that there are more nuclear generating stations being built around the world today than ever. These technology and operational issues need to be dealt with regardless of America's short-sighted approach to addressing the dual issues of power generation and climate change and continues ignoring the need to adopt responsible policies and practices and facilitate the expansion of nuclear generating capacity.
johnwerneken
usa August 27, 2013Profit making is far superior way to make decisions than voting or public opinion, neither of which should have anything to do with these choices. The superiority shows in results, happiness, and freedom. Naval power plants have run safely for 60 years.
The economic viability of investment is an investor's concern, not a voter's.
Poisons and dictatorships abound in the sources of ineffective solar materials. You want solar power, build it in orbit, where it could in fact be productive, although not economical until such point as activity in such places were to become, for whatever reason, somewhat routine.
I think Environmentalists as a group should be tried for Crimes Agasinst Humanity: against progress, against freedom, and against the poor.
Harvey S. Cohen
Middletown, NJ August 29, 2013No country has ever tried profit making as the decision criterion for nuclear. As Bittman observed, no nuclear plant in the U.S. has ever achieved break-even without massive government subsidies.
Apart from that, profit-making gives us decisions such as mountain-top removal that destroy the environment and sicken or kill the population for the enrichment of others. To flatly assert that this is better than voting or public opinion denies that the public is affected, which is just silly.
Anna
Davis, CA August 26, 2013I was totally with you until that last line about the profit-making grid. We'll need a major grid overhaul to get all those renewables to our homes and businesses, and if we can structure it so that the grid itself is profitable, that makes it so much more likely to get done!
John Peterson
Las Vegas August 26, 2013How many have died from Fukushima? Zero. How many from Three Mile Island? Zero. Chernobyl? According to UNSCEAR, "the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008." Every year millions of people die around hte world for the pollution humans put in the air. Over a billion people could die from global warming. If we do not put things in perspective, we will never solve the global warming crisis.
Reese Palley
Philadelphia August 27, 2013Well said!
Alan D
New York August 28, 2013As a side note: Fukushima will cause some deaths (10? 100? hard to tell), but the Tsunami itself definitely caused nearly 20,000 deaths, yet we we don't hear much about efforts in Japan or other places to mitigate these risks. Apparently 20,000 NON-nuclear deaths do not warrant much attention. Interestingly, the calamity at Fukushima was easily preventable. A thirty foot seawall and generators placed on elevated structures would have kept the plant intact. (New plants in vulnerable areas could be entirely elevated.) Protecting nuclear power plants from Tsunamis will be a small problem compared to protecting people.
Dave Houghton
Rocky Mountains August 26, 2013Thank you Mark Bittman. I've enjoyed your food columns, and am glad to see you expand your offerings to other topics. This energy piece is straightforward and cogent, just like your recipes.
HB
NW August 27, 2013so you'll also take medical advice from n auto mechanic...
Paul S
Rocky Point August 28, 2013I find the comments contradicting Bittman far more cogent and reality based than his piece.
The Dog
Toronto August 26, 2013I am seeing solar panels going up all around me here in Canada. They're on the roofs of big box stores, suburban houses and on farms. On a recent trip to Germany I saw an even greater density. The Germans have also mandated a generation of furnaces and water heaters that run at a fraction of the power levels we use. The rejection of the one-way grid is well underway. Give it twenty years. If the grid continues to exist at all, it will be as resource to share power that we all generate. The electric companies will be sending out checks as well as bills.
Harvey S. Cohen
Middletown, NJ August 29, 2013HB said, "an entire rooftop of solar panels might be able to run a toaster and that's about it - do some research and stop reading about technology from a baker". The state-mandated process for home solar here in NJ *limits* the homeowner to the capacity that will cover their usage (on an annual basis). So my home has only enough panels to pay my entire electric bill, even though there's room for more.
Paul
SF August 30, 2013Er, only in massively subsidized areas would anyone EVER put solar in Canada (or in much of Germany for that matter). Solar is hugely expensive - money would be significantly better spent on simply energy saving techniques, but since that has nobody lobbying for it, the green ecowhackjobs would be out looking for a job and the Chinese wouldn't have anywhere to dump their panels.
Eugene Gorrin
Union, NJ August 26, 2013Sixty years ago, splitting the atom sparked hopes for a technology that would power cars and airplanes and create a cheap electricity source.
Even though it now provides about 20% of the US electricity supply, nuclear power hit the proverbial brick wall as fears of accidents, problems over waste disposal and reactors’ persistently high start-up costs stopped the rush to build plants.
A promised “nuclear renaissance” in recent years has largely failed to materialize, with only a handful of new reactors winning permits and delays in securing government-backed loan guarantees stretching the process out by years. Still, advocates anticipate at least 2 new reactor projects to go forward, and countries like China are eagerly expanding their nuclear footprints.
Perhaps even more than the safety image, nuclear power’s biggest obstacle has been economic: Congress’s failure to establish cap and trade removed a key potential advantage for the technology, the boom in natural gas has helped keep electricity prices cheap, and overall electricity demand has fallen.
That’s not even to mention nuclear fusion, the process that forces atoms together — unlike the atom-splitting technology used by fission reactors. Fusion powers hydrogen bombs and the sun, but despite years of research, scientists have not turned the technology into a power source that can be harnessed.
Art Williams
Princeton, MA August 26, 2013I think it's critical to distinguish between two arguments: One is that global warming is so urgent that we should accept the risks and costs of contemporary nuclear technology. The other argument is that the safety and cost improvements of next-generation reactors are so attractive that we should convert to them -- independent of warming. The latter is correct; global warming makes the conversion urgent.
Renewables have three disqualifying problems; only one of them is cost. The other two are power density and intermittency. These and related issues are discussed in my essay in Physics Today
http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/points_of_view/nuclear_power_t...
which contains numerous informative links. Among these links, the TED lecture by Bill Gates
http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html
frames the issue especially well.
Art Williams
arty
is a trusted commenter ma August 26, 2013What 'disqualifies' renewables is that they are not part of the business as usual monopolistic grid paradigm.
In your essay, you cite intermittency and land area as problems, and you list transportation as a significant area for CO2 reduction. Well, solar panels on all the rooftops of houses and *especially* businesses and commercial structures allow for shifting a large proportion of the transport sector to distributed electricity with plug-in vehicles like Chevy Volt.
Increasing efficiency, incorporating thermal storage in commercial and residential buildings, and most important, establishing an *actual free market* in the purchase of electricity through smart grids and applications, will take big chunk out of the capacity requirements.
Nuclear power certainly makes sense for industrial process applications, and if businesses wish to invest in the soon-to-be-available (snicker) small, safe, modular reactors to run 24/7 operations, more power to them. As long as they assume liability, which, since the reactors are small and safe, will not be an issue, right?
Reese Palley
Philadelphia August 27, 2013Well said!
RDS
Michigan August 26, 2013I have been rewiring my boat this summer with LED lights in place of halogen and plain old light bulbs. It is eye opening, LED spreaders to light the cockpit use so little electricity they use 1 amp fuses while the halogen they replace used 15 amp. I have many examples. The point is if simple 12 volt dc current LEDs can light up a boat I can just imagine what could be done with a lot of home and business lighting which currently runs on 110-120 volts ac. A solar cell with some batteries could probably keep a house well lit year around in much of the world. Using 18 ga wire has to be a lot cheaper than using 14 ga romex. I have no idea what portion of utility generated power is used by lighting, but it seems like a lot of it could be replaced. I am not a techie or particularly a greenie, but it is clear that there are a lot ways to meet the needs current electical generation meets without mining coal and uranium, etc.
HB
NW August 27, 2013most homes have energy efficient lighting at 9w or less versus 60w 15yrs ago. Office building have had gas-tube lighting for decades. There are few new efficiencies to be had in making improvements. A/C and manufacturing are the biggest energy users and that factor will only change with industrialization. The better the economy, the more energy we need. That's OK though, we want to be able to use lots of energy to make us wealthy. Just ask China.
Samuel Markes
New York August 28, 2013Agreed. I shifted first to CFL's then to LED's (thank you Costco!). Total wattage for lighting dropped from about 2000 to below 300, and that's running every light in the house. Changed the refrigerator bulbs and took a heat source out of the cooler. It is possible to save a boatload of electricity, just by giving up anicent and inefficient technologies.
R Stein
connecticut August 26, 2013Mark,
It doesn't matter what you or I think. The demand for energy is satisfied by whatever means are available, whether war over oil, new technologies for oil and gas extraction, windmills and water turbines, solar PV....or nuclear reactors. The public, and their representatives, are only interested in continued energy supply. That sources can change rapidly is a given: we've gone from near exhaustion of natural gas to entirely new surpluses in around a decade. Fusion, when practicable, could come on line faster than traditional nuclear. We just can't predict the future, even to the extent of the (biased, one thinks!) NREL report you cite.
The bottom line is that we will have a tradition of being willing to kill for energy, and nothing suggests that we're about to retire it.
Ramspace
Canada August 26, 2013John Miller has a doctorate in social psychology. His expertise in nuclear technology and his specific objections to nuclear power have been discussed in detail; please see the links below:
http://atomicinsights.com/was-gundersen-a-licensed-reactor-operator-and-...
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/08/23/...
Rather charmingly, Scott D of Toronto, undeterred by the failure of firms such as Nanosolar, comments on the bright future of thin-film photovoltaic devices. I suspect these will never provide sufficient power to run my 3 hp thickness planer. Solar is fine so long as you plan to tweet rather than build.
575 Comments
Click here to read the best Times comments from the past week.