4 ms·

How the Dream of America's Nuclear Renaissance Fizzled

15 points by _delirium 9y ago

klondike_ 9y ago
This is a shame. Nuclear is our only realistic option for zero-carbon electricity. The planet can't afford to wait for breakthroughs in renewable energy and grid storage.
lawrenceyan 9y ago
Good thing to be honest. Leapfrogging to renewables is far more sustainable in the long run.
DrScump 9y ago
Even if fission is deemed to have no future, let's see where fusion technologies go (stellarators and tokamak's).
davemp 9y ago
I've been doing some work for Areva's (large nuclear services company) North American branch this summer and have had a chance to talk frankly with upper management / executives about the current state of the industry. Areva's parent company in France had a problem similar to Westinghouse with their first gen 3 reactor build. The designs weren't given enough time to mature, the designs were overly complex, and the contract was negotiated for a fixed price. He pointed to S. Korea's recent success in building new plants [1] to show that it can be done. Although the person I was speaking with seemed much more hopeful for gen 4 reactors than gen 3--at least in the NA market. An argument that I thought was convincing was that making an energy plan is gambling on future breakthroughs and fuel costs. Natural gas is mostly fuel cost (~80%), so it's a much more volatile of an investment than nuclear which is mostly the cost of construction and maintenance. [2] It just turns out that the cost of natural gas is insanely low right now so utilities are not so interested in nuclear. So keeping energy plans diverse by investing in nuclear will help to hedge against risk with alternatives. Another point that's been brought up to me while working at Areva is how poorly the nuclear industry managed their public image. The actual stake holders (Westinghouse, Areva, B&W, etc), thought that utilities would manage the public image of nuclear. Unfortunately for the nuclear industry, utilities only actually care about generating electricity as cheaply as possible so nuclear's PR was neglected and steamrolled by coal/wind/solar interests. Personally, I find it unfortunate that wind/solar proponents decided to throw nuclear to the wayside. The most realistic clean energy future that I see is nuclear providing a modest base-load, and solar/wind/misc filling in while their technology matures. Overall these points didn't seem like pure corporate propaganda to me, but keep their sources in mind. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea#Reactor_overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea#R... [2]: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html
davidreiss 9y ago
It fizzled because nuclear doesn't have the PR and lobbying clout of the fossil and renewable energy industries. People mistakenly think that climate change/renewable energy group took money/power from the fossil fuel industry. They didn't. Fossil fuel is just as strong as ever. The climate change/renewable energy group beat nuclear industry. You'll see the renewable energy group take credit for the decline of coal. Wind/solar did nothing to hurt coal. It was fracking and the natural gas boom that hurt coal. What renewable has done is lead to the decline of nuclear industry in europe/germany and in the US. There is only a limited amount of funding and mind-space. The rise of renewable energy industry crowded out nuclear. Of course the fukushima accident didn't help and the media/PR/lobbying war waged by renewable and fossil fuel industries.

15 points by _delirium 9y ago

This is a shame. Nuclear is our only realistic option for zero-carbon electricity. The planet can't afford to wait for breakthroughs in renewable energy and grid storage.

lawrenceyan 9y ago

Good thing to be honest. Leapfrogging to renewables is far more sustainable in the long run.

DrScump 9y ago

Even if fission is deemed to have no future, let's see where fusion technologies go (stellarators and tokamak's).

davemp 9y ago

I've been doing some work for Areva's (large nuclear services company) North American branch this summer and have had a chance to talk frankly with upper management / executives about the current state of the industry. Areva's parent company in France had a problem similar to Westinghouse with their first gen 3 reactor build. The designs weren't given enough time to mature, the designs were overly complex, and the contract was negotiated for a fixed price. He pointed to S. Korea's recent success in building new plants [1] to show that it can be done. Although the person I was speaking with seemed much more hopeful for gen 4 reactors than gen 3--at least in the NA market. An argument that I thought was convincing was that making an energy plan is gambling on future breakthroughs and fuel costs. Natural gas is mostly fuel cost (~80%), so it's a much more volatile of an investment than nuclear which is mostly the cost of construction and maintenance. [2] It just turns out that the cost of natural gas is insanely low right now so utilities are not so interested in nuclear. So keeping energy plans diverse by investing in nuclear will help to hedge against risk with alternatives. Another point that's been brought up to me while working at Areva is how poorly the nuclear industry managed their public image. The actual stake holders (Westinghouse, Areva, B&W, etc), thought that utilities would manage the public image of nuclear. Unfortunately for the nuclear industry, utilities only actually care about generating electricity as cheaply as possible so nuclear's PR was neglected and steamrolled by coal/wind/solar interests. Personally, I find it unfortunate that wind/solar proponents decided to throw nuclear to the wayside. The most realistic clean energy future that I see is nuclear providing a modest base-load, and solar/wind/misc filling in while their technology matures. Overall these points didn't seem like pure corporate propaganda to me, but keep their sources in mind. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea#Reactor_overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea#R... [2]: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html

davidreiss 9y ago

It fizzled because nuclear doesn't have the PR and lobbying clout of the fossil and renewable energy industries. People mistakenly think that climate change/renewable energy group took money/power from the fossil fuel industry. They didn't. Fossil fuel is just as strong as ever. The climate change/renewable energy group beat nuclear industry. You'll see the renewable energy group take credit for the decline of coal. Wind/solar did nothing to hurt coal. It was fracking and the natural gas boom that hurt coal. What renewable has done is lead to the decline of nuclear industry in europe/germany and in the US. There is only a limited amount of funding and mind-space. The rise of renewable energy industry crowded out nuclear. Of course the fukushima accident didn't help and the media/PR/lobbying war waged by renewable and fossil fuel industries.