

Search      SUPPORT OUR WORK

Home Research Special Reports Gallery Videos States of Change News Archive What We Do

FEATURED CONTENT
Is Nuclear Power Our Energy Future, Or in a Death Spiral?

Published: March 6th, 2016

By Dave Levitan, Ensia

Nuclear power is dead. Long live nuclear power. Nuclear power is the only way forward. Nuclear power is a red
herring. Nuclear power is too dangerous. Nuclear power is the safest power source around. Nuclear is nothing. U.S. Faces a Rise in M osquito
Nuclear is everything. ‘Disease Danger Days’

As Seas Rise, Americans Use

Nature to Fight Worsening
Erosion

PDFmyURL lets you convert a complete website to PDF automatically!

 West Nile Crippling El
Pasoans, Rising
Temperatures Play Role

Activ e co o ling to w ers o f the Byro n Nuclear Generating Statio n o uts ide o f Chicago .
Credit: Michael Kappel/flick r

It is now generally agreed that the world must rapidly reduce carbon emissions in order to fight off dangerous climate
change, but the “how” of that process remains up for debate. And within that debate, nothing seems to produce such
starkly opposing viewpoints as nuclear energy. Some experts and advocates argue that carbon-free nuclear power
represents the only real hope of keeping the planet’s temperature in check. Others claim that nuclear is risky,
unnecessary and far too expensive to make a dent.

T he same basic data set — nuclear plants currently in existence, those under construction, the status of new
technologies, the history of costs and delays, and a few striking accidents — produces those totally contradictory
opinions and predictions. Nuclear power is a Rorschach test: Y ou see what you want to see — a rosy nuclear future or

PDFmyURL lets you convert a complete website to PDF automatically!

 an old-world dinosaur in a slow death spiral — reflecting your own views on the energy present and future. In all
likelihood, no one will be proven right or wrong for decades.

Today and Tomorrow

Nuclear power today accounts for around 10 percent of the total electricity generation around the world. T his varies
sharply by country — in the U.S. the rate is about 20 percent, in Russia and Germany it is a bit lower than that, while
some other European countries get 40 and 50 percent from nuclear reactors. France has long led the way
proportionally, at more than 75 percent (it has the second most total reactors, behind the U.S.). China, though
building rapidly, drew less than 3 percent of its power from nuclear in 2014.

T here are 442 reactors currently in operation globally, and the International Atomic Energy Agency says 66 are
currently under construction. T wenty-four of those are in China; no other country is currently building more than
eight.

T hat’s the nuclear landscape now. T he question is, how will it change in the coming years? And equally important,
how should it change? T he answers to both of these depend on whom you ask.

T he International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2014, which includes a close analysis of nuclear power,
projects a 60 percent leap in global installed capacity by 2040, with almost half of that growth coming from China.

PDFmyURL lets you convert a complete website to PDF automatically!

 Nuclear co o ling to w ers in China.
​Credit: Adam Co hn/flick r

“I think we definitely need it in the battle against climate change. T his is broadly recognized,” says Jacopo
Buongiorno, a professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of T echnology. “Because
now there is such an overwhelming concern about climate change, it’s like a tide that lifts all boats. Anything that is
perceived as clean is going up. I think it is absolutely necessary.”

T hat type of take on nuclear isn’t particularly hard to find, but neither is this one: “I don’t think nuclear power is a
necessary component at all,” says M. V. Ramana, a research scholar at Princeton’s Nuclear Futures Lab. “Nuclear
power as a share of electricity generation is only likely to decline in the foreseeable future. If we hold that up as a
means of emission reductions, then we will not be successful with meeting any of the ambitious climate goals set” in
PDFmyURL lets you convert a complete website to PDF automatically!
 the recent Paris agreement, in which 195 countries agreed to reduce emissions sharply.

In the run-up to that agreement, a group of the most prominent nuclear proponents — climate scientist James
Hansen, Stanford’s Ken Caldeira and others — wrote in the Guardian that “nuclear will make the difference between
the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them.”

T his was met with particularly harsh disdain from Naomi Oreskes, Harvard science historian and co-author of
Merchants of Doubt, who wrote a response at the Guardian branding this “a new, strange form of denial.”

T he heart of Hansen’s and Oreskes’ disagreement regards the necessity for nuclear and the technical feasibility of
scaling up renewables: Are other energy sources sufficient to wean us from fossil fuels? Or is the reliable, large-scale
(a single new reactor can reach 1,600 megawatts capacity, three times the size of the world’s largest solar plants)
baseload power that nuclear provides a necessary component of the low-carbon future?

T he anti-nuclear side of the argument focuses on several studies that have illustrated a renewables-only way to the
goal, which could be cheaper and free of the risks associated with nuclear. Mark Jacobson, director of the
Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford University, has published state-specific plans showing how 100-percent
renewables penetration would be achievable. T he National Renewable Energy Laboratory, part of the U.S.
Department of Energy, published its “Renewable Electricity Futures Study” in 2012 and explained a clear path to 80
percent penetration in the U.S. Others have shown similar routes forward.

When it comes to any energy source, it is cost that sits at the root of the discussion. Nuclear proponents argue that
there are impediments to having a grid entirely run on renewables. Buongiorno, for example, says that the
intermittency of solar and wind can realistically only be addressed by adding large amounts of electricity storage (in
the form of large batteries or other newer tech such as compressed air) to the grid, and that would change the ongoing
“renewable prices are plummeting” narrative.

“When I hear people say ‘Oh, the costs are coming down,’ the costs for generation may be coming down, but if
installing that capacity forces me to have energy storage, you have to add those costs,” he says. T hink of it like buying
a car: T he baseline price sounds okay, but it’s all the options and add-ons that’ll get you. Buongiorno says he expects
the costs of nuclear construction will come down, and that when storage costs for renewables are factored in, nuclear
— with its reliable, 24/7 output — starts to look much more attractive as an alternative.

Billions and Billions

PDFmyURL lets you convert a complete website to PDF automatically!
 When it comes to any energy source, it is cost that sits at the root of the discussion. Adding more nuclear to the grid
could reduce some of the burden on renewables and storage, but the economics of nuclear itself could prove an
insurmountable roadblock.

The Kalinin Nuclear Po w er Plant in Mo s co w , Rus s ia.

​Credit: IAEA Im agebank /flick r

In general, the more experience accumulated with a given technology, the less it costs to build. T his has been
dramatically illustrated with the falling costs of wind and solar power. Nuclear, however has bucked the trend, instead
demonstrating a sort of “negative learning curve” over time.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the actual costs of 75 of the first nuclear reactors built in the U.S.

PDFmyURL lets you convert a complete website to PDF automatically!

 ran over initial estimates by more than 200 percent. More recently, costs have continued to balloon. Again according
to UCS, the price tag for a new nuclear power plant jumped from between US$2 billion and US$4 billion in 2002 all
the way US$9 billion in 2008. Put another way, the price shot from below US$2,000 per kilowatt in the early 2000s
up to as high as US$8,000 per kilowatt by 2008.

Steve Clemmer, the director of energy research and analysis at UCS, doesn’t see this trend changing. “I’m not seeing
much evidence that we’ll see the types of cost reductions [proponents are] talking about. I’m very skeptical about it —
great if it happens, but I’m not seeing it,” he says.

Some projects in the U.S. seem to face delays and overruns at every turn. In September 2015, a South Carolina effort
to build two new reactors at an existing plant was delayed for three years. In Georgia, a January 2015 filing by plant
owner Southern Co. said that its additional two reactors would jump by US$700 million in cost and take an extra 18
months to build. T hese problems have a number of root causes, from licensing delays to simple construction errors,
and no simple solution to the issue is likely to be found.

In Europe the situation is similar, with a couple of particularly egregious examples casting a pall over the industry.
Construction began for a new reactor at the Finnish Olkiluoto 3 plant in 2005 but won’t finish until 2018, nine years
late and more than US$5 billion over budget. A reactor in France, where nuclear is the primary source of power, is six
years behind schedule and more than twice as expensive as projected.

“T he history of 60 years or more of reactor building offers no evidence that costs will come down,” Ramana says. “As
nuclear technology has matured costs have increased, and all the present indications are that this trend will
continue.”

Some experts, however, dispute the idea that the “negative learning curve” is intrinsic to the nuclear industry. In a
recent paper T ed Nordhaus of the energy think tank T he Breakthrough Institute pointed out that the history of
nuclear plant construction costs varies dramatically by country. South Korea, for example, has demonstrated a fairly
consistent drop in costs over time; it imported its first designs from foreign companies with more experience before
homegrown designs took hold, and all the country’s plants are built and owned by a single utility. Nordhaus wrote,
“with the right policies and institutions, nuclear plants can be built quickly, safely, and cheaply.”

Still, most countries have seen costs increase. As it stands, only China’s non-free market may allow for a truly rapid
build-out of nuclear plants; the country’s current domination of the nuclear construction world reflects this idea, and
the 2016 Five-Y ear Plan includes provisions to approve and build six to eight new plants each year.

PDFmyURL lets you convert a complete website to PDF automatically!

 Along with price hikes, the specter of major accidents hovers over every discussion of a nuclear scale-up. T he
industry, for its part, argues that the benefits of nuclear are worth the price tag. T he Nuclear Energy Institute, which
represents plant owners, builders, designers, suppliers and related companies, notes that in the U.S. nuclear power
generates as much as $50 billion each year from electricity sales and revenue, and provides around 100,000 jobs.
T he lack of carbon emissions, of course, only adds to the benefits.

The Fukushima Shadow

Along with price hikes, the specter of major accidents hovers over every discussion of a nuclear scale-up. By most
measures nuclear power is among the safest forms of energy ever devised. But when it does go wrong, it goes wrong in
spectacular and terrifying fashion.

T he accident at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan in 2011 led to a shutdown of all the plants in that country (with very
limited reactor restarts coming only last year), and it has convinced Germany and Belgium to phase out the energy
source entirely. T hough those phase-outs will account for only a handful of total reactors, they put a damper on the
idea of a revolutionary nuclear scale-up.

PDFmyURL lets you convert a complete website to PDF automatically!

 Pres ent day Fuk us him a, the s ite o f a nuclear energy accident initiated prim arily by the ts unam i that w as triggered by the Tō ho k u
earthquak e o n March 11, 2011.
​Credit: m lo uis /flick r

Many argue the fearful reactions and phase-outs are not entirely logical in the context of climate change. Fukushima
clearly did result in a drop in global support for nuclear energy, but public opinion continues to vary sharply by
country. In the U.S., a Gallup poll on nuclear favorability has shown a decline since Fukushima, but not a dramatic
one. In 2015 public support for the use of nuclear energy hovered at 51 percent, down from a peak of 62 percent in
2010. T he same poll, though, found that only 35 percent think the government should place “more emphasis” on
nuclear; for comparison, 79 percent want more focus on solar power.

Cousins to the fear of a massive meltdown are both the worry over nuclear weapons proliferation and concerns over

PDFmyURL lets you convert a complete website to PDF automatically!

 waste disposal. Spent nuclear fuel is currently stored on the site of nuclear plants in pools of water or sealed in dry
cask storage, and decades-old arguments over geologic repositories are unlikely to be resolved any time soon. With
regard to weapons, nuclear plants produce plutonium during the course of their reactions, which can be made into
bombs if enough is accumulated; terrorism and theft are thus constant worries. Both of these issues work to extend
the shadow of risk stretching out behind nuclear power, and both lack immediate solutions.

Technological Breakthroughs?
Supporters of nuclear power hold out hope that new technologies will improve the economics and reduce the fear
factor. T here are ongoing efforts to develop small modular reactors, which produce about a third or less of a full-size
reactor’s output and can theoretically be built faster and cheaper. Allison Macfarlane, director of George Washington
University’s Center for International Science and T echnology Policy and the former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, notes that of the various companies working on these only one (NuScale Power) is currently
expected to actually submit application materials to regulators in 2016 — a step that is still years removed from
actual functioning reactors.

Other technological unicorns, though in many cases on the drawing board for decades, still remain off in the distance:
different fuel sources such as thorium, molten salt-cooled reactors, even building plants on floating platforms like
those used for oil drilling (a project that Buongiorno at MIT is heavily involved in) are all on the table. T hese have
varying potential advantages: A floating plant could use seawater as a cheap and easy way to cool the reactor and
would alleviate some of the safety fears by keeping the plant away from people and near a coolant should an accident
occur; thorium could reduce waste and produce power more efficiently, though a U.K. government report in 2013
called the benefits “overstated” and experts have warned it could increase proliferation risks; and molten salts can
operate at lower pressures than standard water-cooled reactors, offering some safety benefit.

Nuclear research and development, though, moves at a snail’s pace, largely for safety reasons. If the goal is rapid
emissions reduction, it is unclear if any of this new tech can play a role.

“I think we need to do some work on it, see if we can develop some new technologies, but they are not going to be a
solution in the near term at all,” Macfarlane says about the small modular reactors. “Some of these other things that
just exist on paper right now? I think they’re much further out.”

Clemmer, of UCS, agrees that the next 15 years or so are unlikely to feature much of a nuclear revolution. He says the
2030 to 2050 period, though, will be a crucial time for nuclear, with many existing plants in the U.S. and elsewhere
due to retire — the IEA projects almost 200 reactor retirements by 2040. In that time frame, perhaps some of the
PDFmyURL lets you convert a complete website to PDF automatically!
 new technology could make it to market.

Abando ned Sats o p Nuclear Po w er Plant in Was hingto n s tate.

Credit: Greg Dunlap/flick r

Changing Perspectives
In the coming years, it may come down to just how dramatic the effects of climate change become to force the
Rorschach muddle to resolve into a clear image.

PDFmyURL lets you convert a complete website to PDF automatically!

 “As time goes on, and the impacts of climate change become more and more real — droughts and heat waves and sea-
level rise and storm surge, coastal flooding issues, more powerful hurricanes and devastating storms and things like
that are also a wake-up call to people,” says Clemmer. “Hopefully at some point it will be enough of a wake-up call that
we’ll be demanding action to address climate change and reduce emissions. In that world, maybe there’s more of a
positive light that would be shed on nuclear.”

Macfarlane also suggests that the changing perspectives on energy requirements could shift nuclear fortunes. “We go
through these different transitions as a society,” she says. In the past, these transitions have replaced wood with coal
to help cities grow, and added oil to feed a boom in transportation.

“Nuclear never fulfilled one of those kinds of needs,” she says. “We’re going through another transition where we
need to decarbonize our energy sources, and maybe it will fill more of a natural need now. We’ll see.”

Reprinted with permission from Ensia.

Posted in Responses, Energy, Nuclear, Solutions, Global, International, United States

Comments
By Fred Bentler (Was hington State)
on March 6th, 2016
T h a n k y ou for w r it in g a bou t n u clea r a s a clim a t e solu t ion . I t h in k t h e a n sw er t o y ou r h ea dlin e qu est ion is y es a n d y es.

T h e ex ist in g desig n of n u clea r is in deed in a dea t h spir a l. Lig h t w a t er r ea ct or s fa iled sev er a l t im es a n d t h e pu blic
r ig h t ly does n ot t r u st t oda y ’s n u clea r t o oper a t e sa fely . Neit h er does t h e pu blic t r u st t h e n u clea r in du st r y t o be
object iv e, a n d t h eir st a t ist ica l a r g u m en t s a r e u n per su a siv e t o a pu blic con cer n ed a bou t a n in v isible da n g er t h a t , w h en
let loose, w ill la st t h ou sa n ds of y ea r s.

Bu t I a lso t h in k n u clea r pow er is in ou r en er g y fu t u r e—ju st t h e n ew m olt en sa lt desig n s t h a t u se u p w a st e a n d ca n be

pow er ed by plen t ifu l fu el lik e t h or iu m . Desig n s t h a t u se t h e fu el efficien t ly a n d pr odu ces m u ch sa fer w a st e w it h a m u ch
sh or t er lifet im e. I su ppor t t h is a s a w a y m a n a g e t h e ex ist in g w a st e, a n d t o h elp solv e t h e g r een h ou se pollu t ion pr oblem ,
w h ich I see a s ex t r em ely da n g er ou s, w it h cer t a in t y , if n ot solv ed. I t h in k in n ov a t ion in n u clea r sh ou ld be a n a t ion a l
pr oject , k n ow in g w h a t w e n ow k n ow a bou t g loba l w a r m in g r isk s. It m a y t a k e a lon g t im e, bu t su r ely n ot so lon g if w e
m a k e it pr ior it y .

I t h in k w e’d be foolish t o w a it t h ou g h , a n d t h in k clea n r en ew a bles n eed t o be bu ilt ou t qu ick ly t o displa ce pollu t in g

en er g y r ig h t n ow . W e sh ou ld r e-dev elop ou r elect r ic t r a n sm ission g r id t o m or e efficien t ly disper se pa t ch y g en er a t ion
a cr oss r eg ion s, t o sm oot h ou t su pply a n d im pr ov e ov er a ll r elia bilit y , a n d t o a dd in t ellig en ce t o h elp m a t ch dem a n d t o
su pply . I t h in k ex t en din g g r id lin k s n or t h a n d sou t h fr om Mex ico a n d Ca n a da w ou ld be w ise t oo, if w e a r e a ble t o
cooper a t e for ou r ow n g ood.

PDFmyURL lets you convert a complete website to PDF automatically!

 Reply t o t h is com m en t

By Dave (Bas king Ridge, NJ 07920)

on March 6th, 2016
In t h e US, t h e cu r r en t focu s on a n d fu t u r e of n u clea r pow er is clea r ly w ea k . Cor r ela t in g w it h t h a t , t h e n ew s m edia h er e
h a s a lso lon g pla y ed u p t h e r a dia t ion r isk s a n d a ssocia t ed fea r s w h er e n u clea r r ea ct or s a r e con cer n ed. In deed, fea r a n d
sh ock h a v e lon g been t h e fa v or ed r a t in g s m a in st a y s of US n ew s pr og r a m s. Bu t t oo oft en t h a t em ot iv e bia s dist or t s
opin ion on im por t a n t a n d com plex issu es. I a m con v in ced t h is h a s been a big fa ct or in sh a pin g US policy t ow a r ds
n u clea r en er g y .

W h a t ev er v iew in div idu a ls cu r r en t ly h a v e a bou t n u clea r en er g y t h er e ca n be n o dou bt t h a t in t h e con t ex t of clim a t e

ch a n g e it is a v er y r elev a n t issu e. A s su ch it n eeds t o be ca r efu lly a n d br oa dly discu ssed. T h is dispa ssion a t ely t on ed
a r t icle u n der lin es t h a t fa ct . Un for t u n a t ely t h e st a n da r d US n ew s m edia r a t in g s a ppr oa ch of fea r a n d sh ock h ea dlin es
does n ot pr ov ide a for u m for t h a t .

Reply t o t h is com m en t

By John Weber (longville,MN,56655)

on March 6th, 2016
No m en t ion of ov er sh oot . No m en t ion of cu r bin g elect r ica l u se. Mor e n u clea r is su ppor t of bu sin ess a s u su a l. I
per son a lly don ’t believ e ou r species is m a t u r e en ou g h a s a g r ou p a n d in a g r ou p t o h a n dle n u clea r pow er . T h e h ist or y of
t h e w or ld a n d t h e pr esen t st a t e of t h e w or ld a r e g ood ev iden ce.

Reply t o t h is com m en t

By A rthurWilliams (Princeton, MA 01541)

on March 6th, 2016
I’d lik e t o a dd a few poin t s t o t h is con st r u ct iv e a r t icle.
A s Pr ofessor La ssit er of H a r v a r d obser v es, r ich cou n t r ies ca n do w h a t t h ey lik e; dev elopin g cou n t r ies w ill do w h a t t h ey
m u st . T h e US pr esen t ly con t r ibu t es ~2 0 % of CO2 em ission s, a fr a ct ion pr edict ed t o declin e t o ~1 0 % in com in g deca des.
T h u s, ev en a com plet e elim in a t ion of US em ission s is fa r fr om su fficien t . T h e cen t r a l g oa l of clim a t e t h in k in g a n d
policy m u st be t o k eep Ch in ese coa l in t h e g r ou n d.
Dev elopin g cou n t r ies w ill deploy t h e m ost cost -effect iv e pow er sou r ce, a n d cost h a s t w o dist in ct com pon en t s, ca pit a l a n d
oper a t in g . Molt en -sa lt r ea ct or s (MSRs) r edu ce bot h sig n ifica n t ly . Oper a t in g cost s a r e r edu ced by bu r n in g a fa r g r ea t er
fa ct ion of t h e fu el a n d by elim in a t in g t h e pa ck in g of fu el in r ods or pellet s. Fu el is sim ply a dded t o t h e sou p. Ca pit a l
cost s a r e r edu ced by oper a t ion a t a t m osph er ic pr essu r e a n d by t h e in t r in sica lly fa r g r ea t er sa fet y of MSRs. In a n
em er g en cy , t h e m olt en fu el cools t o a fr ozen st a t e w it h ou t h u m a n in v olv em en t , a n d doesn ’t g o a n y w h er e. Sa fet y
dr iv es t h e ca pit a l cost s of con v en t ion a l r ea ct or s. Illu st r a t in g sa fet y , bot h ph en om en a con st it u t in g t h e Fu k u sh im a
disa st er , m elt dow n a n d h y dr og en ex plosion s, sim ply ca n n ot occu r w it h MSRs. T h e fu el is m olt en in n or m a l oper a t ion ,
a n d t h er e is n o w a t er t o pr odu ce h y dr og en . Det a iled est im a t es in dica t e t h a t MSRs w ill pr ov ide bot h ca pit a l a n d
oper a t in g cost s su per ior t o oil, g a s a n d ev en coa l. T h e a bilit y of MSRs t o con su m e ex ist in g n u clea r is a n in depen den t
a n d cost -r edu cin g ben efit .
Fin a lly , r en ew a bles r epr esen t en er g y fa r m in g , r equ ir in g la r g e t r a ct s of la n d. MSR foot pr in t s w ill be a t lea st 1 0 0 0 X

PDFmyURL lets you convert a complete website to PDF automatically!

 sm a ller t h a n r en ew a bles.

Reply t o t h is com m en t

By Burz01
on March 6th, 2016
T h e a r t icle g losses ov er som e im por t a n t det a ils t h a t w eig h a g a in st n u clea r en er g y . For on e, st u dies h a v e pr oject ed t h a t
in t er m it t en t sou r ces ca n a ch iev e m a r k et pen et r a t ion in t h e n eig h bor h ood of 4 0 % befor e la r g e-sca le en er g y st or a g e is
n eeded, a n d t h a t a m a jor it y of en er g y ca n be sou r ced by sola r a n d w in d w it h st or a g e ca pa cit ies r em a in in g in t h e sin g le
dig it s. (I do h ope clim a t ecen t r a l.or g h a s cov er ed t h is v it a l a spect of sm a r t g r id dev elopm en t …)

Fu r t h er m or e, elect r ic v eh icles a r e set t o t a k e ov er t h e t r a n spor t a t ion m a r k et (a n im por t a n t fa ct or in t h e Sa u di’s

pu m pin g pa n ic), a n d sm a r t g r id st or a g e sch em es w ill en a ble v eh icles t o su pply a v er y la r g e ch u n k of t h e st or a g e
ca pa cit y r equ ir ed by a m ost ly -sola r a n d w in d g en er a t ion m a t r ix . W h a t n eed does r em a in ca n be su pplied by “ ice
bea r s” , t h er m a l st or a g e sy st em s, r et r ofit t in g of h y dr opow er for st or a g e, fix ed ba t t er ies (bolst er ed by a su pply of
decom m ission ed ca r ba t t er ies) a n d m or e.

Con v er sely , n u clea r ou t pu t t en ds t o be a t fix ed lev els a g a in st flu ct u a t in g dem a n d—n u clea r h a s m u ch t h e sa m e pr oblem
a s sola r a n d w in d, bu t in r ev er se. A n d w h ile dem a n d cu r v es ca n be pr edict ed, su n a n d w in d in pu t s ca n be pr edict ed a s
w ell (a n d pr oba bly m or e a ccu r a t ely t h a n dem a n d on a da ily a n d h ou r -by -h ou r ba sis).

A lso, n u clea r g en er a t ion is w a t er in t en siv e: Mor e so t h a n n a t u r a l g a s by a fa ct or of *eig h t *. T h is con t r ibu t es t o

sit u a t ion s w h er e n u clea r pla n t s m u st r edu ce t h eir ou t pu t du r in g per iods of g r ea t est dem a n d w h en a ir con dit ion in g /
r efr ig er a t ion sy st em s a r e n eeded m ost , a s t h e a v a ila ble w a t er is n ot cool en ou g h .

Fin a lly , t h er e is n u clea r en er g y a s t h e w ea pon s-pr olifer a t ion ‘h ot pot a t o’ w h er ein n u clea r ’s big g est in v est or s a n d
polit ica l cr on ies in t h e W est a r e (besides a lso pu sh in g a n d pr ot ect in g fossil fu el in t er est s) u sin g t h e issu e t o st ok e con flict
w it h dev elopin g n a t ion s. Polit ica l in st a bilit y —a n d sim ply polit ica l n on -a lig n m en t —a r e ev en m or e por t en t ou s t h a n
ea r t h qu a k es for a t ech n olog y t h a t pr ov ides fodder for sen sa t ion a l ‘dir t y bom b’ st or ies in t h e cor por a t e m edia .

T h e a r t icle w on der s if t h e h ole w ill becom e squ a r e for t h e peg , w h ile cla im in g t h a t n u clea r ‘a lr ea dy w or k s!’ in on e
sm a ll, h om og en eou s cou n t r y . I posit t h a t t h e n u clea r in du st r y cou ld it self r em a in sm a ll a n d h om og en eou s a n d so fit
in t o t h e h ole r eg a r dless of it s sh a pe.

Reply t o t h is com m en t

By Clifford Goudey (Newburyport, MA 01950)

on March 7th, 2016
Ren ew a bles su ch a s w in d a n d sola r , w it h n o m a r g in a l cost s for t h eir pow er , h a v e becom e t h e pr efer r ed pow er sou r ce. If
n u clea r w a s u sefu l a s a ba ck -u p t o t h ese v a r ia ble sou r ces, t h en it w ou ld be u sefu l. It ’s n ot , bot h beca u se of t h e
t ech n olog y a n d beca u se a t t h eir h ig h con st r u ct ion cost s it is u n econ om ic t o r u n t h em a t a n y t h in g bu t fu ll pow er . A s a

PDFmyURL lets you convert a complete website to PDF automatically!

 r esu lt , t h ey a r e of lit t le u se in t h e clim a t e ch a n g e ba t t le.

Som eon e n eeds t o t h in k of a w a y of pr ofit a bly r e-pu r posin g coolin g t ow er s.

Reply t o t h is com m en t

By ryan law (2480)

on March 8th, 2016
sa m e dea l a s w h a t i w a n t t o see don e w it h sk y scr a per s fr om 3 r d st or y u p lin e t h em w it h lia m f1 w in d t u r bin es on ce
y ou r t h a t h ig h u p y ou h a v e con t in u a l 4 k m ph w in d in a cit y a n d m ost pow er pla n t s h a v e loca lised w a r m in g fr om
a ll t h e cem en t a n d bit u m en so t h ey sh ou ld a lso h a v e con t in u a l w in d

Reply t o t h is com m en t

By Peter Sipp (A s heville NC 28806)

on March 7th, 2016
A n ice w ell r esea r ch ed a r t icle, t h a n k y ou Mr .Lev it a n . Y es, a Ror sch a ch t est for su r e. I see t h e fu ll pict u r e. T h er e is t h e
im m edia t e u se of elect r icit y , t h en t h e ev er u n lik ely possibilit y of a sev er e a cciden t t h a t r u in s a la r g e sw a t h of ea r t h for
a lon g t im e. A lon g w it h it , m a n y people w h o com e dow n w it h t h y r oid ca n cer s et c. w h o w er e dow n w in d of t h e plu m es.
T h e cr ea t ion of Plu t on iu m a n d t h e n u clea r w a st es t h a t m u st be isola t ed som epla ce, for 1 2 0 ,0 0 0 y ea r s. T h e ir r a dia t ed
ir on t h a t is m a de m u st be k ept sepa r a t ed fr om t h e cu r r en t clea n scr a p ir on st r ea m . A ll t h a t ” pa r a ph er n a lia ” m a k es
split t in g a t om s n ot w or t h t h e effor t .
I see w h er e Ger m a n y a n d Belg iu m a r e ph a sin g ou t t h eir r ea ct or s. Ev en Fr a n ce is r edu cin g t h eir depen den ce on a t om ic
en er g y .
T h e t em pt a t ion for u t ilit ies t o sw eep t h eir n u clea r w a st es u n der t h e r u g ( u n der g r ou n d deep r eposit or ies ) is t em pt in g .
T h ey w a n t for g ov er n m en t s t o pa y for t h ese pla ces. Not u se t h eir $$$. It is fa ct t h a t t h e r a dia t ion in t h e w a st es h a s t h e
in h er en t a bilit y t o dest r oy a n y con t a in er . T h is m ea n s ev er y 2 5 0 y ea r s or so t h e con t a in er s n eed t o be ch a n g ed ou t . So
t h er e w ill be m or e w a st es a t t h e en d t h a n w h a t w e st a r t ed ou t w it h . Ou r t a x $$$ a t w or k for 1 2 0 ,0 0 0 y ea r s.
W e ca n do m u ch bet t er . Sin ce w e h a v e bu t on e pla n et t o liv e on , t r a sh in g it w it h t h e ” pa r a ph er n a lia ” for sh or t t er m
g a in is n ot n ea r ly g ood en ou g h .

Reply t o t h is com m en t

By ryan law (2480)

on March 8th, 2016
n u clea r pow er is m er ely a ex cu se for a r m s m a n u fa ct u r e m ost bu n k er bu st er s con t a in a deplet ed u r a n iu m sh ell if it s a
“ bu r n in g ” bu n k er bu st er it is m a de for m deplet ed u r a n iu m , t a n k sh ells bu llet s a lm ost ev er y piece of or din a n ce in
a m er ica n a r m y depen ds on a st ea dy su pply of deplet ed u r a n iu m .
t h e ca r bon cost s of m a k in g a n u clea r pow er pla n m in in g pr ocessin g t r a n spor t in g a n d bu ildin g st or a g e fa cilit y ’s for
st or in g t h e w a st e m a k e it m or e ca r bon in t en siv e t h en som e coa l
befor e w e h a d m u ch in t h e w a y of a g r een h ou se a t m osph er e r a dio-log ica l m a t er ia l w a s r espon sible for t h e m a jor it y of
t h e h ea t on t h e pla n et , it “ bu r n s” for 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 s of y ea r s cr ea t in g h ea t loca lly r a t h er t h en ju st r a dia n t h ea t fr om t h e
su n . t h e m or e of it w e sit n ea r t h e su r fa ce bu r n in g a w a y g ot a h a v e som e effect on w a r m in g , ca r bon s in er t m ost ly it
PDFmyURL lets you convert a complete website to PDF automatically!
 dosn t con t in u a lly r a dia t e en er g y .
n u clea r is a ll a bou t w ea pon s, ot h er w ise people w ou ldn ’t m in d pla ces lik e n or t h k or ea or ir a n h a v in g a n u clea r pow er
pr og r a m . t h e ir on ic t h in g is t h e sa m e people t h a t com e ou t sa y in g w e h a v e t o be ca r e fu ll of ir a n s n u clea r policy a r e
oft en t h ose sa y in g w e n eed t o em br a ce n u clea r pow er a t h om e a s a en er g y sou r ce lm a o ju st a sig n of ou r t im es t h a t
t h er es people t h a t ca n t pu t 2 a n d 2 t og et h er w h en seein g t h a t

plu s t h er es on ly en ou g h k n ow n r eser v es for a bou t 1 0 y ea r s of g loba l su pply (t a k es 1 5 y r s on a v er a g e ju st t o g et a pla n t

bu ilt a n d on lin e) so it ca n on ly ev er be a t in y n ich e pow er sou r ce.

Reply t o t h is com m en t

Name (required):

Email (required):

City/State/Zip:

Enter the word "climate" in the box below:

[+] V iew ou r com m en t g u idelin es.

Pleas e no te: Co m m ent m o deratio n is enabled. Y o ur co m m ent w ill no t appear until rev iew ed by Clim ate Central s taff. Thank yo u fo r

yo ur patience.

PDFmyURL lets you convert a complete website to PDF automatically!

 Post Your Comment

EMAIL NEWSLETTER

Copyright © 2018 Climate Central. Contact Login Terms Content Licensing Privacy Site Map

PDFmyURL lets you convert a complete website to PDF automatically!