7 ms·

Part of the problem is that there's a certain group of people who are more interested in pushing their pet solutions than they are in pushing effective solution

Part of the problem is that there's a certain group of people who are more interested in pushing their pet solutions than they are in pushing effective solutions. Most of the analyses I've read say that stuff like nuclear and geothermal aren't going to be major components of the fight against climate change. For nuclear specifically, a mass roll out of nuclear plants is simply too difficult - cost, production bottlenecks, public opposition, production time and delays, etc. Almost no new plants are being built in the U.S. currently - you can't easily go from that to replacing a large percentage of the power system with nuclear plants. I'm not sure how any reasonable person could see nuclear as being one of the more viable or effective solutions (particularly when compared to low-hanging fruit like increased energy efficiency).

merpnderp 10y ago
"For nuclear specifically, a mass roll out of nuclear plants is simply too difficult - cost, production bottlenecks, public opposition, production time and delays, etc." And yet many Asian countries are doing just this.
- Chathamization 10y ago
  Which countries? China is usually the one that gets mentioned the most for really pushing nuclear (which they've been doing for years now), but they're currently at about 3% and are hoping to reach 4% by 2020. And even at this pace, they're facing serious problems[1][2]. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-01-11/china-should-control-pace-of-reactor-construction-outlook-says http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-01-11/china-shou... [2]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/aug/25/wikileaks-fears-china-nuclear-safety https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/aug/25/wikileak...
  - throwanem 10y ago
    "Serious problems" is pretty disingenuous. They're facing increased risk as a result of using updated 2nd-generation technology, rather than licensing the Westinghouse AP-1000 design at enormous cost. They're aware of the chance they're taking, but they also seem to consider that less of a risk than being beholden to a US firm. Whether that's an accurate assessment in the long run or not, it's their choice to make, and not one the US would be likely to emulate - after all, we've got Westinghouse and the AP-1000 design right here. We've also got a much more thoroughly developed uranium production pipeline and a similar extent of available reserves, which means we won't face the same structural problems China does in ramping up fuel production - they're essentially having to build that process from scratch, and there's only so far it's worth letting your plant production outpace your ability to fuel the reactors you're building.
    - Chathamization 10y ago
      Different people have different opinions, but I would personally consider these serious issues: > The country should set a 2020 ceiling on reactors in operation at 70,000 megawatts to avoid a shortfall of fuel, equipment and qualified plant workers > "By bypassing the passive safety technology of the AP1000, which, according to Westinghouse, is 100 times safer than the CPR-1000, China is vastly increasing the aggregate risk of its nuclear power fleet. " And this is just trying to increase nuclear from ~3% to ~4%. Maybe the U.S. would do things much better, but we should keep in mind that we just had the first new reactor come online in 20 years. And in that case, it was mostly built in the 80's (construction was halted), it's sister reactor was already running at the plant (since '96), and it still took 9 years to complete (and it's still being tested, it's not commercial yet). The argument that a main component - some people even seem to argue the main component - of the fight against climate is a large scale switch over to nuclear seems completely divorced from reality.
      - throwanem 10y ago
        Thank you for making my point for me. Here in the US, we're not constrained by fuel shortages, and we don't have to make ourselves beholden to a potentially hostile foreign state in order to take advantage of the AP-1000 design. We also have the world's broadest and deepest reservoir of institutional knowledge on the subject of nuclear power - a technology invented in the United States, and which we have arguably developed to the greatest extent of any nation on Earth, even if we have thus far chosen not to reap the full benefits of our efforts. You're right that we aren't building out modern nuclear technology as well as we could be. But we aren't facing the same structural limitations China is, and we therefore do not face a similar choice between unpalatable options. The deficit we face is merely one of will - that is, we're not building out new nuclear because we can't, but rather because the very same people who inveigh most strongly against ignoring AGW have an ideological and frankly emotional objection to modern nuclear infrastructure, an objection which arises entirely from industrial accidents which occurred with technology now half a century old, and from which the industry has learned. To be quite clear, I have significant concerns of my own with how new nuclear is likely to be implemented. Specifically, as I've stated in this forum and others, the existence of a profit motive around the operation and safety management of nuclear reactors is in my opinion a substantial risk. That risk is, however, susceptible of mitigation or elimination by quite realistic measures, and even if left completely as is, collapses into negligibility alongside the risks posed by either continuing to ignore AGW, or building a response that relies entirely on ill-tested, seasonally variable, and enormously inefficient power generation methods to supply life-critical baseload power.

merpnderp 10y ago

"For nuclear specifically, a mass roll out of nuclear plants is simply too difficult - cost, production bottlenecks, public opposition, production time and delays, etc." And yet many Asian countries are doing just this.

Chathamization 10y ago
Which countries? China is usually the one that gets mentioned the most for really pushing nuclear (which they've been doing for years now), but they're currently at about 3% and are hoping to reach 4% by 2020. And even at this pace, they're facing serious problems[1][2]. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-01-11/china-should-control-pace-of-reactor-construction-outlook-says http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-01-11/china-shou... [2]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/aug/25/wikileaks-fears-china-nuclear-safety https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/aug/25/wikileak...
- throwanem 10y ago
  "Serious problems" is pretty disingenuous. They're facing increased risk as a result of using updated 2nd-generation technology, rather than licensing the Westinghouse AP-1000 design at enormous cost. They're aware of the chance they're taking, but they also seem to consider that less of a risk than being beholden to a US firm. Whether that's an accurate assessment in the long run or not, it's their choice to make, and not one the US would be likely to emulate - after all, we've got Westinghouse and the AP-1000 design right here. We've also got a much more thoroughly developed uranium production pipeline and a similar extent of available reserves, which means we won't face the same structural problems China does in ramping up fuel production - they're essentially having to build that process from scratch, and there's only so far it's worth letting your plant production outpace your ability to fuel the reactors you're building.
  - Chathamization 10y ago
    Different people have different opinions, but I would personally consider these serious issues: > The country should set a 2020 ceiling on reactors in operation at 70,000 megawatts to avoid a shortfall of fuel, equipment and qualified plant workers > "By bypassing the passive safety technology of the AP1000, which, according to Westinghouse, is 100 times safer than the CPR-1000, China is vastly increasing the aggregate risk of its nuclear power fleet. " And this is just trying to increase nuclear from ~3% to ~4%. Maybe the U.S. would do things much better, but we should keep in mind that we just had the first new reactor come online in 20 years. And in that case, it was mostly built in the 80's (construction was halted), it's sister reactor was already running at the plant (since '96), and it still took 9 years to complete (and it's still being tested, it's not commercial yet). The argument that a main component - some people even seem to argue the main component - of the fight against climate is a large scale switch over to nuclear seems completely divorced from reality.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      Thank you for making my point for me. Here in the US, we're not constrained by fuel shortages, and we don't have to make ourselves beholden to a potentially hostile foreign state in order to take advantage of the AP-1000 design. We also have the world's broadest and deepest reservoir of institutional knowledge on the subject of nuclear power - a technology invented in the United States, and which we have arguably developed to the greatest extent of any nation on Earth, even if we have thus far chosen not to reap the full benefits of our efforts. You're right that we aren't building out modern nuclear technology as well as we could be. But we aren't facing the same structural limitations China is, and we therefore do not face a similar choice between unpalatable options. The deficit we face is merely one of will - that is, we're not building out new nuclear because we can't, but rather because the very same people who inveigh most strongly against ignoring AGW have an ideological and frankly emotional objection to modern nuclear infrastructure, an objection which arises entirely from industrial accidents which occurred with technology now half a century old, and from which the industry has learned. To be quite clear, I have significant concerns of my own with how new nuclear is likely to be implemented. Specifically, as I've stated in this forum and others, the existence of a profit motive around the operation and safety management of nuclear reactors is in my opinion a substantial risk. That risk is, however, susceptible of mitigation or elimination by quite realistic measures, and even if left completely as is, collapses into negligibility alongside the risks posed by either continuing to ignore AGW, or building a response that relies entirely on ill-tested, seasonally variable, and enormously inefficient power generation methods to supply life-critical baseload power.