# Is Nuclear Energy a Dead End?



## Drachir (Dec 6, 2009)

Proponents of nuclear energy may be surprised to find that their solution to the world's energy problems may not be possible; not because nuclear power does not work, but because technical issues make it impossible to implement on a large enough scale.

Here are two articles dealing with the issue; one that is quite detailed and technical and a second that is a bit more to the point, but lacks the technical detail.  

Why Nuclear Power is not a sustainable source of low carbon energy

http://www.spinwatch.org/component/...event-global-destruction-maybe-not?format=pdf

I hope this posts.  This is my second attempt.


----------



## Sparrow (Dec 6, 2009)

That's a bit scary, as I've always thought of Nuclear Energy as something we've vastly underutilized.

I guess I never stopped to think about uranium and how much of it we can reasonable get at.


----------



## Dave (Dec 6, 2009)

Uranium is a natural resource and like any resource it is finite.

Ever since the power Nuclear Fission was harnessed it has always been the long-term goal to make Nuclear Fusion work for us. While it only took 10 years for civilian applications of fission (in which explosive energy production must be replaced by a controlled production) it has been more than 50 years and still no commercial fusion energy production plant is possible.


----------



## skeptical (Dec 6, 2009)

I have been down this road before in discussions on other forums.   Inevitably, the pessimistic forecasts rely upon one very simple, and utterly fallaceous assumption.   That is, that the technologies used to extract this resource will not change to any appreciable degree.   The history of the last 100 years shows that this assumption is simply wrong.   Technologies change dramatically every few decades.

For example, the Japanese Atomic Energy Research Insitute have been working on recovery of Uranium from sea water.
Uranium recovery from Seawater
This technology is still a long way from being translated into commercial extraction, but the potential is clear.

In fact, only a small part of the Uranium we extract can be used.  That is, the U235 isotope.  Only about 1% at most of total Uranium from any source is U235.   However, in the oceans of the world, there is about 50 million tonnes of U235, and 100 times that of total Uranium.  If and when we learn to extract that, there will be sufficient reserve to keep the world in energy for centuries, even if no other energy source was used.

The current United States consumption of over 20,000 tonnes total Uranium per year, if supplied from the oceans, would last 250,000 years!

Now, we may not end up extracting Uranium from the oceans, but there are other ways.   Currently the minimum commercially viable Uranium ore has to have no less than 80 parts per million total Uranium.   However, just a couple of decades ago that was an order of magnitude greater.

Imagine if we can get the minimum down to 2 ppm.   That is what is found in common granite, of which there are many trillions of tonnes available.

Given current reserves last another 20 years or so, we can expect new extraction technologies able to deal with lower strength ores, which will extend the limit more than a few decades, and then technology grows again.

How do I know all this?   Because of history.   Predictions of disaster from resource depletion have been made many, many times.   Yet it does not seem to happen.  Why not?  Because of improving technologies.  Gold reserves, for example, are vastly greater today than they were 300 years ago.  A lot of that increase comes from a greater ability to extract it.


----------



## Sparrow (Dec 6, 2009)

> Dave ~Uranium is a natural resource and like any resource it is finite.




Yes, but what if we instead use Geranium.  A potentially limitless resourse that is far less dangerous, and smells good.

Flower Power.


----------



## skeptical (Dec 6, 2009)

Just a comment on nuclear fusion. Although this technology is frustratingly slow to come to fruition, there are still dedicated scientists working on it. Funding is poorer than it used to be, but the next Tokamak reactor is set to be commissioned in 2018. This one is calculated to release more energy than is put in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak

Assuming it works as well as calculated, this will be just the first, of a series of increasingly efficient reactors obtaining energy from nuclear fusion.

Sure, it is possible it may not work that well. However, it is well to remember that there is no theoretical reason to doubt the potential, and that this reactor, according to theory, and according to 50 years research, should work.


----------



## Wiglaf (Dec 7, 2009)

Looking at the first page I noticed that nuclear was subject to the Hubbert curve the same as oil.  Therefore, it is not subject to the Hubbert curve.  The Hubbert curve is BS.  Besides you have FBR, plutonium, radioactive waste...  The waste products have more readily accessible energy than the inputs.  Besides, nuclear is only used for the base load.  I will try to look up the studies and give you all the information but, it might have to wait till after finals week.  If this thread is defunct by then, perhaps I will start a new one.


----------



## Nik (Dec 7, 2009)

Another possibility is the 'Polywell' fusion approach will break-even much sooner than the ITER tokamak. Cheaper, cleaner, simpler, and eats Boron for breakfast instead of neutron-spitting D/T mix...

( IMHO, Polywell {fusion} and Skylon {runway -to- orbit -to- runway} would open the solar system ;-)

I read recently that plans for a dozen new fission reactors are on hold because of the introduction of Airbus A380. The decade-old original design for each reactor's protective concrete dome could have shrugged off a Jumbo Jet. The aerial threat must now be reconsidered...

And, yes, there are worries about 'dirty bombs'...


----------



## Drachir (Dec 7, 2009)

Here is an article that looks at some of the fuel sources suggested.
A nuclear power primer | openDemocracy

However, there are a few more aspects to this issue than just the fuel problem.  

One is that nuclear plants seem to take a great deal longer to build than is predicted and rarely seem to come in on budget.  

You might also note that low grade uranium creates more greenhouse gas emissions than it saves.  

Another is that many of the key components required for building nuclear plants are highly complex and take to so long to manufacture that the simultaneous construction of a large number of nuclear plants may be impossible.   

And of course there is the as yet unsolved problem of waste disposal.


----------



## skeptical (Dec 7, 2009)

Nuclear waste disposal is almost purely a political problem, in that every solution offered is stopped by hordes of protestors.

My favourite solution is to dig a bloody great hole in the Simpson Desert (Australia) and bury it all.
Simpson Desert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This area is geologically stable, almost totally unpopulated (apart from the odd insane tourist) and further from any populated centre than any other terrestrial place on Earth except Antarctica.  It is so arid that many parts are essentially close to lifeless.   Ideal as a repository for nuclear waste!  The only problem is that, as soon as you suggested it, a million Australians would take to the streets and march against the idea.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Dec 7, 2009)

Nuclear power gave my aunt neck and throat cancer. She has one lung now also. 

So while I don't actually care for her as a person, all I have to say is that everyone is all about everyone else giving up this or doing this to make the environment better. But when its your money, or your family, we all pretty much make the same selfish choices.

Uranium mining is dangerous. Depleted uranium is dangerous. 

Uranium is the most deadly metal. It doesn't even have to touch you to kill you. 

BC Medical Association ~ Health Dangers of Uranium Mining

So while everyone might think that the only problem is finding more uranium, in truth the real problem is protecting human life.


----------



## Sparrow (Dec 7, 2009)

dustinzgirl, do you have any idea how many people die every year due to emissions from burning oil and coal?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21370.html


I don't know what the stats are on people dying from radiation poisoning due to contact with uranium, but it must be miniscule compared to conventional pollution.


----------



## skeptical (Dec 7, 2009)

Also DG
I would like to know what empirical evidence you have that your Aunt died of nuclear power. On that point I am most skeptical. 

My father in law died of emphysema due to a lifetime of smoking and absolutely refused to accept that blame. He said it was occupational emphysema, in spite of a total lack of evidence. My father, who was a dairy farmer, died of lung cancer due to a lifetime of smoking. He also, absolutely refused to accept that as cause. He claimed it was agricultural sprays.

People like to blame things for their illnesses, other than something self inflicted. I suspect that if your Aunt died of neck and throat cancer, it was smoking or something similar, self inflicted. 

If you look at the official statistics on cancer rates and death rates among those who work in nuclear power stations, there is absolutely no evidence of higher rates.
An Introduction to Radiation Hormesis

I quote :
*[FONT=Times New Roman,Times][SIZE=+1]2.3. Nuclear Power Plant studies[/SIZE][/FONT]*

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]1-In a Canadian survey the mortality caused by cancer at nuclear power plants was 58% lower than the national average (Abbat et al. 1983).[/FONT] 
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]2-In U.K also it was indicated that cancer frequency among nuclear powerplant workers was lower than the national average (Kendal et al. 1992).[/FONT]


----------



## dustinzgirl (Dec 7, 2009)

I'm glad you know more about my family than I do. I see no reason to justify myself to you, and I don't like your approach. I've also explained it in other places on this forum and I don't really like being called a liar, even in a round about way. Nor do I find your response to be accurate, as about 2% of all neck and throat cancer patients have never smoked or been around smoke ever in their lives. Not smoking just dramatically lowers the risk, it does not mean that you will not get cancer. As a matter of fact, google depleted uranium family cancer. 

Also my aunt is not dead. Nor did she ever smoke. 

So what I'm gathering here is that we should go by the numbers, rather than individual lives? 

And yeah, its all well and good to look at things from the whole of the planet, but let me know how it impacts you when its your kid and your parent?

What about water and windmill power? What about Solar power? All things that do not kill anyone at all and are perfectly viable energy resources. 

Just because I'm not vehemently for nuclear power does not mean that I am for oil and coal power, so I don't really see where anyone made that correlation and accusation.


----------



## Ursa major (Dec 7, 2009)

FYI, skeptical, here are Dusty's previous words on the incident:


> ...my aunt actually has cancer because she worked in the nuclear power plant in Wa. and there was a leak that pointed right at her neck, so she has had parts of her throat removed.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Dec 7, 2009)

Well that and she just had one of her lungs removed. 

I do apologize for being snippety to skep.


----------



## skeptical (Dec 7, 2009)

OK.  If the cancer was directly the result of a specific accident, then that satisfies my need for empirical evidence.   I was not suggesting DG was a liar, and I apologise if I gave that impression.

However, there are so many people in this world who make unsupported statements that I demand empirical evidence whenever there is a chance.   I believe I am being reasonable to do so, and such a request is not suggesting anyone is a liar.

The statistics show that nuclear power stations do not increase the risk of cancer, and if anything, reduce the risk via the process of hormesis.  However, accidents can happen anywhere.  The risk of such is just as high in other electricity generating plants.


----------



## Drachir (Dec 8, 2009)

skeptical said:


> Nuclear waste disposal is almost purely a political problem, in that every solution offered is stopped by hordes of protestors.
> 
> My favourite solution is to dig a bloody great hole in the Simpson Desert (Australia) and bury it all.
> Simpson Desert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> This area is geologically stable, almost totally unpopulated (apart from the odd insane tourist) and further from any populated centre than any other terrestrial place on Earth except Antarctica.  It is so arid that many parts are essentially close to lifeless.   Ideal as a repository for nuclear waste!  The only problem is that, as soon as you suggested it, a million Australians would take to the streets and march against the idea.




Why not dump the waste in in New Zealand instead?  After all the country is thousands of kilometers away from any large land mass or population centre.  The country only has about four million people so there really would be no great loss if they all got radiation sickness.  And the Kiwis could charge a fee for each ton on nuclear waste that they store, thus giving the country a much-needed economic boost.


----------



## skeptical (Dec 8, 2009)

Drachir
Are you Aussi?   That would explain your post.
New Zealand would not be a suitable place for nuclear waste for three reasons.
1.   It is geologically unstable.   In the 10,000 years needed for the waste to decay, an earthquake or volcano could raise and spread the waste where it is not supposed to be.
2.  It is not desert.   Too much rain.   Water seeping through the deposit site would corrode containers and transport waste into groundwater.
3.  There is nowhere in NZ that is far from significant population areas.

The Simpson desert in Australia is ideal.   It is geologically stable.  No earthquakes, volcanoes or similar likely in less than millions of years.
It is not just arid, but intensely so.   It is so far from any population centre that there is no chance whatever of any person being affected by the waste.

And yes, Australians could make billions of dollars from waste disposal fees.   The Simpson Desert as disposal site could harm no-one, and would do no measurable environmental damage.  As I said before, apart from the political problems, an ideal solution.


----------



## Drachir (Dec 8, 2009)

skeptical said:


> Drachir
> Are you Aussi?   That would explain your post.
> New Zealand would not be a suitable place for nuclear waste for three reasons.
> 1.   It is geologically unstable.   In the 10,000 years needed for the waste to decay, an earthquake or volcano could raise and spread the waste where it is not supposed to be.
> ...



Sorry - I had no idea you would take my post seriously.  Next time I will put a smiley face.  BTW the word "Canada" after the word *Location* means "Canada."  

I did live in Australia for four years and have a number of Aussie friends.  I suspect I know how they might react to your suggestion as the Canadian Shield area of Canada has been proposed as a nuclear waste garbage dump for the same reasons you suggested the Simpson Desert.  No, Canadian Shield dwellers (all 100 of them) do not like the idea.


----------



## skeptical (Dec 8, 2009)

Would Canadian Shield dwellers like the idea better if they were each paid $10 million as compensation?


----------



## Drachir (Dec 9, 2009)

skeptical said:


> Would Canadian Shield dwellers like the idea better if they were each paid $10 million as compensation?




Actually I am afraid I was a bit low in my estimate.  The Canadian Shield accounts for about 50% of Canada's area and probably has a population of at least a million.  I am afraid your 10 million dollar compensation package would make nuclear power prohibitively expensive.  

Not to worry though.  I suspect you are going to see very few nuclear power plants built anywhere, simply due to the problems I have listed so there won't be that much waste to deal with.


----------



## skeptical (Dec 9, 2009)

Drachir

The ideal solution is the Simpson Desert, so Canadians should really miss out on this incredible financial bonanza.   However, even if there are a million living on the Canadian Shield, that area is so vast that, even if we paid off those who lived within 20 kms of the prospective nuclear waste dump, it would not be very many.


----------



## ktabic (Dec 9, 2009)

Drachir said:


> One is that nuclear plants seem to take a great deal longer to build than is predicted and rarely seem to come in on budget.



The whole 'takes longer and is never on budget' is simply because the people budgeting for the reactors get the figures wrong. This not not a problem limited to nuclear reactors, but to almost anything done by the bureaucracy.



Drachir said:


> You might also note that low grade uranium creates more greenhouse gas emissions than it saves.



Uranium does not create greenhouses gases. Uranium mining might (probably almost certainly does), but that can be dealt with by technical measures. And I reckon still less than the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels and probably even the manufacturing of wind turbines and solar panels. None of them are emission free.



Drachir said:


> Another is that many of the key components required for building nuclear plants are highly complex and take to so long to manufacture that the simultaneous construction of a large number of nuclear plants may be impossible.



Many of the parts for cars or computers are highly complex. But they get built by the tens of thousands.It's not a limiting factor. If a large number of nuclear reactors are needed, the infrastructure to build a large number will appear, just like it did with cars or computers. Some of the proposed plans for mini-reactors result in an almost assembly line process. Lack of infrastructure now is not an excuse for not building them.


----------



## Drachir (Dec 10, 2009)

ktabic said:


> The whole 'takes longer and is never on budget' is simply because the people budgeting for the reactors get the figures wrong. This not not a problem limited to nuclear reactors, but to almost anything done by the bureaucracy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The idea of using nuclear energy as a possible solution to global warming is predicated on the idea that nuclear power plants would be built in the hundreds or even thousands.  There is a considerable difference between building a nuclear power plant and a computer or other household item.  I am guessing that the building of a single nuclear power plant would use up the same amount of resources as building several million computers.  Try building several hundred of these giant plants at the same time and you may find there are simply not enough of the key components available.  This is a far cry from other technologies like wind and solar which can easily be built in large numbers.  As a matter of fact wind is probably the easiest technology to expand as wind generators can simply be daisy-chained into an existing system.     

The point is that if a certain technology is going to replace another is should meet certain criteria.  One is that is should be obviously superior or at the very least able to match the existing technology.  Lacking that it should have other benefits that more than compensate for any shortcomings.  Another is that it should not have a huge number of problems of its own attached to it.  

It seems to me that nuclear power meets neither of these criteria.  

And yes, I am aware that uranium does not create any greenhouse gases, but since its refined form cannot possibly be created without producing greenhouse gases that is a very moot point, and you should note that I was replying to a post advocating the use of low grades *ores* so my point should have been obvious.


----------



## skeptical (Dec 10, 2009)

Wind power suffers from the problem that each wind turbine produces relatively little power.   Nuclear, on the other hand can produce many Gigawatts per plant.

As a result, to get the results you would from 100 nuclear power stations, you would have to build hundreds of thousands of wind turbines.  So the problem you posted is much worse with wind turbines than with nuclear.

In addition, wind is not available all the time.   If the power in the wind is either too much (storm) or too little (calm), then the wind turbine is useless.   Even in between, the energy available varies enormously, making wind an undependable basis for an energy plan.

On top of this, wind generated electricity is more expensive than nuclear.

And on top of all that, wind power is aesthetic disaster.  You have to put wind farms in exposed places, which means they are terribly visible, such as on skylines.  I think they are incredibly ugly.   A nuclear power plant can be tucked away out of sight.  

In addition, wind towers kill birds and bats, by the thousands, threatening endangered species.

As well, they are noisy, meaning they have to be sited well away from proximity to homes and workplaces.

I do still think they have a place.  But it will never be the dominant generating method so beloved by green idiots such as Greenpeace.


----------



## Wiglaf (Dec 10, 2009)

Drachir said:


> The idea of using nuclear energy as a possible solution to global warming is predicated on the idea that nuclear power plants would be built in the *hundreds or even thousands.*  There is a considerable difference between building a nuclear power plant and a computer or other household item.  I am guessing that the building of a single nuclear power plant would use up the same amount of resources as building several million computers.  Try building several hundred of these giant plants at the same time and you may find there are simply not enough of the key components available.  This is a far cry from other technologies like wind and solar which can easily be built in large numbers.  As a matter of fact wind is probably the easiest technology to expand as wind generators can simply be daisy-chained into an existing system.
> 
> The point is that if a certain technology is going to replace another is should meet certain criteria.  One is that is should be obviously superior or at the very least able to match the existing technology.  Lacking that it should have other benefits that more than compensate for any shortcomings.  Another is that it should not have a huge number of problems of its own attached to it.
> 
> ...



The US has 104 plants that produce 19.6% of our electricity.  Hydro produces 5.74%.  Base load is typically 35-40% of peak demand.  Therefore, rounding off, hydro and nuke currently supplies 26% of capacity.  We would need to increase this to about 35% or about *50 nuclear plants in the US.*  Canada has more hydro as a percentage of capacity; less nukes for them.  For reserve demand you are left with coal or natural gas.
Now if government taxes carbon, expands natural gas pipelines, uses carbon tax revenue to reduce anti-business taxes (note: tax carbon, lower other taxes not tax-n-trade), and allows peak load pricing; then solar might be feasible for a portion of day-time demand where demand>baseload+solar capacity at all times.  In other words, you would always utilize 100% of solar capacity as it is generated (no storage).  Of course, solar costs may still have to drop some but not nearly as much.  Then you could expand natural gas generation relative to coal.  The key is that carbon costs money making cleaner energy relatively less expensive, you are using each generation type in a way that maximizes its strengths, and you are maximizing the substitution effects of the carbon tax while minimizing the drop in real income.
I prefer solar to wind as solar's capacity is greatest when demand peaks and it could be placed on commercial roof tops and used to offset A/C derived demand.  ​


----------



## ManTimeForgot (Dec 11, 2009)

No nuclear energy is not a dead end.  The data on oil websites about the sustainability and usability of nuclear power is a farce.  The amount of uranium required is based on the antiquated technology we use in our current reactors many of which have not been altered significantly in 30 years.  The fact is we have the technology and techniques to be able to use up roughly 100% of the slug with the combination of breeding and rebreeding.  So no vast rate of fuel consumption and no Yucca mountain necessary.

And anyone who claims that chernobyls are bound to happen is so full of duplicity it disturbs me (though not entirely unexpected...).  More people's lives are lost to chemical accidents and coal related deaths _every year_ than have ever been lost to nuclear power (even tangentially).  Chernobyl was the result of the disarray of the Soviet Union and the unwillingness to pay the people staffing the place.  And the safeguards that a modern facility, using current technology, would have in place would prevent the mere possibility of meltdown let alone something as destructive as chernobyl.

And when asked: "How do I know this?"  I know this because my father who works at a government lab LLLNL he brings home papers on this sort of thing and goes to talks on nuclear power production, from actual scientists and engineers who work on this sort of thing, rather than oil sites that tell half truths.

MTF


----------



## Drachir (Dec 11, 2009)

skeptical said:


> Wind power suffers from the problem that each wind turbine produces relatively little power.   Nuclear, on the other hand can produce many Gigawatts per plant.
> 
> As a result, to get the results you would from 100 nuclear power stations, you would have to build hundreds of thousands of wind turbines.  So the problem you posted is much worse with wind turbines than with nuclear.
> 
> ...



Let's look at each of your points.  First, wind power would be part of a multifaceted system.  It would not be the only system.  Second, even if it was, the wind is always blowing somewhere.  It also has the advantage that it can be rapidly expanded; something that cannot be said of nuclear power plants which tend to take a decade or more to build.  

As for cost, nuclear energy has been massively subsidized worldwide.  If wind, solar, and other alternative energy sources were given the same incentives they would be quite competitive.  

Nuclear power plants dump vast quantities of hot water into rivers and lakes resulting in the killing of large amounts of aquatic life.  Also high rise buildings are the largest killers of birds, so I suppose we should get rid of them as well.

As for aesthetics I had forgotten how really attractive nuclear power plants are.  BTW - I quite like the appearance of wind turbines.  

Finally in your last comment you are resorting to name-calling rather than reasoned debate.  Surely you can come up with something better than that.


----------



## Drachir (Dec 11, 2009)

Wiglaf said:


> The US has 104 plants that produce 19.6% of our electricity.  Hydro produces 5.74%.  Base load is typically 35-40% of peak demand.  Therefore, rounding off, hydro and nuke currently supplies 26% of capacity.  We would need to increase this to about 35% or about *50 nuclear plants in the US.*  Canada has more hydro as a percentage of capacity; less nukes for them.  For reserve demand you are left with coal or natural gas.
> Now if government taxes carbon, expands natural gas pipelines, uses carbon tax revenue to reduce anti-business taxes (note: tax carbon, lower other taxes not tax-n-trade), and allows peak load pricing; then solar might be feasible for a portion of day-time demand where demand>baseload+solar capacity at all times.  In other words, you would always utilize 100% of solar capacity as it is generated (no storage).  Of course, solar costs may still have to drop some but not nearly as much.  Then you could expand natural gas generation relative to coal.  The key is that carbon costs money making cleaner energy relatively less expensive, you are using each generation type in a way that maximizes its strengths, and you are maximizing the substitution effects of the carbon tax while minimizing the drop in real income.
> I prefer solar to wind as solar's capacity is greatest when demand peaks and it could be placed on commercial roof tops and used to offset A/C derived demand.
> [/LEFT]



I am happy to note that you advocate energy sources other than nuclear.  However, some of the proponents of nuclear seem to think that more than just a hundred plants are needed worldwide - and I was talking worldwide, not just the USA.  The author of the following article seems to think that something on the order of 5,000 or more would be needed, and he is a supporter of nuclear energy.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles 2005/Nuclear2050.pdf

BTW, no one has responded to my contention that nuclear power plants are not being built quickly enough to serve any real role in reducing global warming, especially given the fact that in recent years the construction of nuclear power plants has almost ground to a standstill.
The article below details the number of nuclear power plants that exist and the number under construction.  It does not seem enough to me to meet the required need.  
Nuclear power plants, world-wide


----------



## Wiglaf (Dec 11, 2009)

Drachir said:


> I am happy to note that you advocate energy sources other than nuclear.  However, some of the proponents of nuclear seem to think that more than just a hundred plants are needed worldwide - and I was talking worldwide, not just the USA.  The author of the following article seems to think that something on the order of 5,000 or more would be needed, and he is a supporter of nuclear energy.
> 
> http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles 2005/Nuclear2050.pdf
> 
> ...


*Nuclear is important for baseload in an area where hydro has been maxed out and still lacks the capacity to provide the complete baseload.*  You need fossil fuels (gas and coal) for reserve or peaking capacity.  Solar or wind is only good for the intermediate demand.
Nuclear only takes so long because it is opposed by environmentalists and many without up-to-date information.  It is one of my biggest problems with environmentalists; they oppose _every_ option.  The other is that most plans hurt the economy without efficiently addressing the environment; they just shunt money to a politically favored group.


----------



## Drachir (Dec 12, 2009)

Wiglaf said:


> *Nuclear is important for baseload in an area where hydro has been maxed out and still lacks the capacity to provide the complete baseload.*  You need fossil fuels (gas and coal) for reserve or peaking capacity.  Solar or wind is only good for the intermediate demand.
> Nuclear only takes so long because it is opposed by environmentalists and many without up-to-date information.  It is one of my biggest problems with environmentalists; they oppose _every_ option.  The other is that most plans hurt the economy without efficiently addressing the environment; they just shunt money to a politically favored group.




I wish I could find the original article that prompted me to start the thread.  Unfortunately, I read it in a magazine while on vacation in Italy.  However, the gist of the article was that nuclear energy is a dead issue, not because of protests from environmentalists (although that was discussed), but because the world simply did not have enough of the complex components that make up a nuclear power plants to build more that a few at one time.  I wish I could back it up with more substantial information, but it seems to me from the last link that I posted that there are not a lot of plants being built worldwide and if I remember correctly there are none under construction in the US. Even using your number of 100 plants it seems that they will not be built quickly enough to have much of an impact.


----------



## skeptical (Dec 12, 2009)

Drachir

In 1940, the United States was fiercely resisting entering WWII.   The economy of the USA was peacetime focused.   Yet by 1943, the USA was in the war and churning out wartime equipment - tanks, ships, aircraft, artillery, at a horrendous rate.

Basically,all it takes is the will.   Once people are committed to doing it, the rest follows.   This applies to building nuclear power stations.  Once the need is seen, and the will is applied, the rest follows.   Just like military equipment in WWII.


----------



## Drachir (Dec 13, 2009)

I am sure that if the US really wanted to it could increase the construction rate of nuclear power plants.  However, could it do so if every other nation decided to do so at the same time?  Your World War II analogy is a good one, but it overlooks one very important fact, and that is modern technology is much more complex and it requires a lot more time to complete a project.  To use just one example, the Allies constructed hundreds of thousands of aircraft during World War II; the same was true for armoured vehicles.  Those numbers would be impossible today unless the same type of machines were being built, but they are not.  A modern fighter like the F 22 uses vast amounts of resources compared to something like a P51 Mustang or even a B29 Superfortress.  And I don't have to remind you that a nuclear power plant is probably the most complex machine in existence.  

This is an interesting discussion, but I am betting that you will see very few nuclear plants being built anywhere in the next few years; certainly not the thousands that advocates of nuclear power seem to want.


----------



## skeptical (Dec 13, 2009)

Drachir

Your argument is valid, but only if you are discussing actual years and months.  I am not suggesting that a concerted effort would result in hundreds of nuclear power plants within two years.  Just that a recognition of urgency, and the diversion of appropriate resources, would bring the time down drastically, from the current 20 year period to something much less.

However, the main point is to get started* now*.


----------

