Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power

Will Changing Opinions Boost America's Nuclear Power Industry? (cnbc.com) 331

Posted by EditorDavid from the getting-a-reaction dept.
"The future of the nuclear power industry is being pushed on both by climate change and security fears stoked by Russia invading Ukraine and targeting the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant," reports CNBC, with the world's nations "coming to realize they can't meet their climate goals with renewables, like wind and solar, alone." Kenneth Luongo, founder of the security/energy nonprofit Partnership for Global Security, even tells CNBC there was a "sea change" in sentiment toward nuclear power at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference. There are about 440 nuclear power reactors operating in more than 30 countries that supply about 10% of the world's electricity, according to the World Nuclear Association. Currently, 55 new reactors are being constructed in 19 countries, and 19 of those are in China. The U.S. only has two underway.... Currently, three new nuclear reactors are being built in Russia. But Russia is also the world's top nuclear technology exporter....

As Russia and China have risen to prominence, the United States has lost "the muscle memory" to build conventional nuclear reactors, Luongo said. Nuclear power got a poor reputation in the United States after the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 in Pennsylvania, and more globally after the accidents at Chornobyl in the Ukrainian Soviet Union in 1986 and Fukushima in Japan in 2011. But the tide is starting to turn. The Biden administration's solution was included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which was signed into law November, and was effectively a big subsidy. The law includes a $6 billion program intended to preserve the existing U.S. fleet of nuclear power reactors.... At the same time, the Russia-Ukraine war gives the United States leverage to pry open more of a footprint in the global market. While the war is tragic, "it's going to result in more opportunity for U.S. nuclear firms as Russia really disqualifies itself," said John Kotek of the Nuclear Energy Institute [a U.S. nuclear industry trade association]. Russia's dangerous attack at Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine and China's decision to not vote in favor of the IAEA's resolution to prevent the kind of attack "will blowback on both countries' nuclear export reputation," Luongo told CNBC....

Nuclear plants are expensive to build and have, in many places, become more expensive than other baseload energy alternatives like natural gas. However, the U.S. is pushing hard into what could become the next generation of nuclear. "The United States has made a decision that they don't want to allow Russia and China to dominate that next phase of the nuclear market. And so the U.S. is pouring billions of dollars — shockingly — billions of dollars into the development of what are called small modular reactors," Luongo said. Specifically, the government is using the Idaho National Lab as a testing ground for these reactors.
Without specifically mentioning nuclear energy, former Gawker editor Alex Pareene recently argued a program of "mass electrification and renewable energy" could diminish the power of "oligarchic petrostates."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will Changing Opinions Boost America's Nuclear Power Industry? More

Will Changing Opinions Boost America's Nuclear Power Industry?

Comments Filter:

  • Small step in the right direction (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NFN_NLN ( 633283 ) on Sunday March 06, 2022 @06:02PM (#62331777)

    > the world's nations "coming to realize they can't meet their climate goals with renewables, like wind and solar, alone."

    Now, if only we could convince your average slashdotter.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

      Now, if only we could convince your average slashdotter.

      Renewables are cheaper than nuclear, the math doesn't lie. Unless you actually enjoy having a huge power bill, the nuclear subsidies would've been better spent giving average Americans PV panels for their roofs. And I'm saying that as someone who wouldn't even directly benefit from such a program, as I don't own a site-built house.

      • And which renewable is going to keep the heat on when we have an 8 day run of heavy clouds and no wind?

        Not a made up condition, happened in January. And the house was pulling 60 kw-hr a day through that.

        The solar panel on the community water tank was operating at 7% of name plate in that heavy overcast, you can look up the hours of available daylight at 47 north in January yourself, but remember to subtract off an hour at each end for near-horizon slop.

        As you said, the math does not lie.

        • Re:Small step in the right direction (Score:4, Insightful)

          by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Sunday March 06, 2022 @08:50PM (#62332113)
          "Keeping the heat on" is a matter of insulation, not a matter of renewables. The EU realized this and enacted a series of directives to make sure that any future buildings past 2020 will need a tiny fraction of energy to "keep the heat on". "Which pump is better to keep my sinking boat afloat" is such a weird question to ask when your major concern should be plugging the hole in the hull.

          • I purchased a house with no insulation (1925 and the previous owner deferred all maintenance over several decades) and it really sucks. Keeping it warm is an exercise in spending money continuously.

            Insulation is going in, just as soon as we get get a kitchen, toilets and electricity. The new roof, driveway, water line and sewer are done.

            When it's done, it'll be lovely and within walking distance of at least two coffee shops, only one of which is a Starbucks.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rossdee ( 243626 )

              >And which renewable is going to keep the heat on when we have an 8 day run of heavy clouds and no wind?

          If its cloudy then it won/t get so cold, and if theres no wind then theres no wind chill

      • How expensive is a kWh of solar at 8 pm? How expensive is a kWh of wind when there is no wind?

        It turns out the cost is a hell lot higher than nuclear.

        Just for the record Germany failed to decarbonize after spending 500 billion euros. If they spent the same amount on nuclear they would be 100% clean. Their electricity is the most expensive in Europe while being significantly dirtier than French nuclear.

        You are right. The math does not lie. Nuclear for the win

        • Germany was one of the first countries to even attempt such a transition. They paid the outrageous early costs, hence the vast investments in the past. But this is a sunk cost fallacy on your part. And since historical trend has been one of nuclear costs rising moderately and renewable costs shrinking rapidly, you're making even less sense when you're arguing for a nuclear future for Germany based on historical numbers. If you want to make such an argument, use future price projections instead.

          • You are trying to rewrite history in order to justify failing. Germany failed to decarbonize. FAILED.

            For the record costs dropped primarily due to Chinese slave labor not German self-sacrifice.

            If Germany spent the money on nuclear they would have decarbonized, and they would reduce the cost of new nuclear.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Klaxton ( 609696 )

          Germany is on track to decarbonize, and wholesale electricity there is in line with the rest of Europe.

          Meanwhile the price of wind and solar plus storage is way less than nuclear, and you can build it in a couple of years instead of 15 years.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by e3m4n ( 947977 )
        part of the reason for this is because every damn reactor is a 1-off unique prototype. If there were smaller more distributed ones of a cookie cutter design there is a decent chance the costs would be lower. They really dont need a massive multi gigawatt reactor that takes 14yrs to build. Keep it at critical 24x7 but then limit steam demand to the peak power times where fossil fuels were likely to be consumed the most.

      • Re:Small step in the right direction (Score:4)

        by jwhyche ( 6192 ) on Sunday March 06, 2022 @08:42PM (#62332093) Homepage

        Renewables are cheaper than nuclear, the math doesn't lie.

        Then I guess you failed math. Nuclear might be more expensive on the lay out, but that is because of all the regulations that you hippies have forced on nuclear. Making it virtually impossible to deploy a new reactor that wasn't based on 1960s designs. This was because you hippies made sure to make research on nuclear virtually impossible for half a century.

        Thankfully, this is coming to an end as more and more people, countries, and companies are starting to ignore the foolish hippies and have begun research on safe, cheap, modern reactors. What has been realized is there is no scenario where the growing energy needs of a modern world can be fulfilled entirely by renewables reliably, economically , and environmentally. There will always be a need for some kind of supplemental system. That system can be fossil fuels, fission, or hopefully one day fusion. .

        • that is because of all the regulations that you hippies have forced on nuclear

          MIT disagrees: [mit.edu]

          The authors also found that while changes in safety regulations could account for some of the excess costs, that was only one of numerous factors contributing to the overages.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by jwhyche ( 6192 )

            MIT is wrong. Lots of people disagree with me, doesn't make me wrong. Just them.

            • "I'm the only one with the right insight, everyone else is wrong" -- jwhyche, 2022

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Klaxton ( 609696 )

          Totally bogus, there has been a huge amount of government-supplemented research on nuclear including at least $150 million on SMR recently. Meanwhile who is going to pay the $9 billion for the failure of the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station?

          “It’s insane for a project that’s done nothing, and never will. And is just a giant hole in the ground”
          https://theintercept.com/2019/... [theintercept.com]

        • Safety did. Nuclear is dangerous when mishandled. There's also the question of waste which can't be solved without the creation of weapons grade waste.

          Regulations are written in blood. They exist because of failures we have already seen witnessed

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by jwhyche ( 6192 )

            Lots of useless regulations you mean, on research.

            I'm sorry, but you have been so wrong on anything you have said about nuclear that I really can't take you seriously. So, I'm just going to move on and ignore anything else you have to say on the subject. Saves us both time you know.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by slazzy ( 864185 )
        They should also pass a federal law banning HOAs from stopping solar installations, this is a big stumbling block for new PV installations. Climate and energy security is more important than someone being upset by the appearance of their neighbours roof.

        • >They should also pass a federal law banning HOAs from stopping solar installations, this is a big stumbling block for new PV installations. Climate and energy security is more important than someone being upset by the appearance of their neighbours roof.

          You had me at "They should also pass a federal law banning HOAs"

        • They should pass a Federal law that makes forming an HOA a hanging offense.

    • Some like to argue that because nuclear plants made 40+ years ago were designed poorly that we should just throw away and ignore nuclear technology altogether.

      Imagine applying the same logic to cars, refusing to drive a Tesla because cars in the 1960's didn't require seatbelts or airbags.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Sure, lets stop renewables and spend the next few decades getting better nuclear tech ready. Any more utterly stupid ideas? Nuclear will be too late. It will be massively more expensive. Eventually, it may be an option again, but it cannot be in the time we have left to do something.

      • Nobody has managed to actually build a better plant. There have been several efforts and all went nowhere or failed pathetically.

        • Nobody has managed to actually build a better plant. There have been several efforts and all went nowhere or failed pathetically.

          Stuck at the regulatory hurdles, or actual production problems? IAEA's surely no walk in the park.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by jwhyche ( 6192 )

          Nobody has managed to actually build a better plant. There have been several efforts and all went nowhere or failed pathetically.

          Wrong.

      • Funnily enough, you have other people here [slashdot.org] arguing that we should have never mandated seatbelts or airbags, to use your car analogy.

        • Funnily enough, you have other people here [slashdot.org] arguing that we should have never mandated seatbelts or airbags, to use your car analogy.

          People can kill themselves with drugs or food or just random stupidity. If they want to drive without seatbelts or skydive without parachutes, I salute their impending carbon footprint reduction.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Why would I believe an obvious, direct and ridiculous lie? Nuclear will do far less for the same money and it will do it far later. Either we can do it with renewables or we cannot do it at all.

    • Now, if only we could convince your average slashdotter.

      It's not that nuclear isn't good... it's that nuclear isn't practical: the NIMBYs will fight it, causing delays and increasing costs.

      You can fight massive PR and legal battles to maybe bring something nuclear online eventually... or you can just build wind/solar/etc right now. The costs of trying to build a nuclear plant are high and any returns are far in the future, the wind/solar/etc can start making money immediately.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MrKaos ( 858439 )

      Now, if only we could convince your average slashdotter.

      Unfortunately nuclear advocates are unable to present a cohesive argument that stands up to scrutiny. There are plenty of people here able to deliver that scrutiny to others that simply rely on social proof, instead of critical thinking, to form an opinion.

      The fact remains that issues such as spent fuel storage, neutron embrittlement of reactor vessels and a long list of other issues remain unsolved with no hint from nuclear advocates how to solve these problems.

    • Nuclear dead as a Dodo.
      Building new nuclear plants is economic suicide, because it costs 4-6x more for each kWh produced.
      Even running the old plants is now uneconomic, and they're way cheaper than new ones because the biggest investment is already paid off.
      Todsy, in 2022, Nuclear Electricity Is Economically Obsolete.

  • So my opinion isn't going to change (Score:3)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Sunday March 06, 2022 @06:06PM (#62331781)
    Until someone can explain to me how nuclear plants can be safe if they're run by corrupt and incompetent businessmen who don't live within 300 miles of a potential disaster site.

    Go look up what happened to the CEOs who caused Fukushima by cutting corners on the pumps and generators needed to prevent a disaster. The answer is nothing. Nothing happened to them. They didn't even have to run out the clock by keeping the case tied up in court they were found not liable.

    America has a long history of privatizing things that should not be privatized. I don't know of any reactor design that is safe to run if you're skipping maintenance or cutting corners let alone if you're keeping the factory running past it's life cycle in order to squeeze out profits.

    I don't know if a solution to that problem. Everyone here on /. Is a tech nerd and we tend to want to solve all the world's problems with technology. We look at nuclear and say "the technology is there to solve all these problems let's use it" while ignoring the social problems that go with that. I know it comes with the territory of being a nerd and she tend to discount or ignore the social side of things but the risk is too high to do that.

    Oh, and all this before we talk about the cost overruns from the last several nuclear plants. One of which caused a project to be abandoned as I recall...

    So we either need a reactor that's safe to run when it's being run unsafely (and if that exists then don't just point me to the technical documents find some science communicators that explain how to level that somebody who isn't a nuclear physicist can understand and find more than one) or solve the social problems so that we can live in a country that doesn't privatize things that aren't safe or reasonable to privatize. Although given that we haven't been able to unprivatize our health insurance industry good luck with that last one
    • First is that more people died from fossil fuels. I don't care. The disasters are not remotely comparable and an explosion at a gas powered electrical plant doesn't affect me unless I'm so poor that I live near a gas powered electrical client. If I'm that poor I don't have any say in public policy so you shouldn't be trying to get those people to jump on the nuclear bandwagon since they're not going to help your cause.

      I also don't want to hear that argument because a disaster and a nuke plant isn't remo

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by e3m4n ( 947977 )
        so your objection is not with nuclear power, its penny-pinching corporations that cut corners and create unnecessary risks? IMO the biggest mistake has been with building enormous reactors. I suppose its because of all the nightmare hoops they have to go through, the protests, etc, that they build a huge one vs going through all that multiple times. But a smaller plant is easier to maintain and the payroll would be significantly less. There are so many former navy nuclear power operators working in everyth

      • If the Russia/Ukraine nothing to see here incident has taught us nothing else, there's at least another component to be considered regarding the expansion of nuclear electrical generation facilities.

        No it's not that, at our best, we're technologically capable of building them. It's that, at our worst, we're capable of weaponizing them.

    • explain to me how nuclear plants can be safe if they're run by corrupt and incompetent businessmen who don't live within 300 miles of a potential disaster site.

      Just use a reactor design where meltdowns are physically impossible. Fukushima was built in the 70's, long before such designs were made practical.

      • What I have seen is several where a meltdown is impossible for a few days. Where the safety systems can keep things safe for that period of time and that's all well and good but it doesn't take into account the fact that that businessman is probably going to try to hide the fact that he's got to meltdown potentially happening and try to jury rate the system back into functionality. It also doesn't take into account what happens when those systems break down and aren't being maintained.

        I want to reactor

    • The Navy does build them on time and on budget (excepting the first one of a new design) and they run them with a crew of high school graduates and one college graduate who is not necessarily educated in anything relevant to engineering.

      But they do not skimp on maintenance, so you have a point there.

      • You need to address the points in my post. The Navy is a government organization of course they can run things safely. Nobody is talking about privatizing the Navy and nobody is ever going to. Once again you're dodging my point because you don't have an I'll say it again, How do we keep reactors safe in the face of corrupt businessmen and a public who is more than happy to privatize things that are not safe or reasonable to privatize? If your answer is technology you need to point me to somewhere that prove

        • I didn't dodge your point, I agreed with it. Maintenance can not be skipped. I can and do say that about oil refineries and poly silicon refineries too. I was stationed on a nuclear submarine and was in the engineering department. I retired from working at a plant that makes the silicon needed for solar panels.

          The point I do disagree with is that no one can build a reactor on time or on budget. That happens all the time once you have a design that works and the industry gets some experience with it. My two

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by adrn01 ( 103810 )
      Maybe someone with first-hand knowledge will correct me, but I'd guess that the nuclear reactors on US aircraft carriers are pretty resistant to meltdown, given that there is at least a design assumption that the ship will get attacked and damaged someday. One assumes so, anyway.
      • For the nuclear reactors on an aircraft carrier. My entire point is that cost is the problem here. Taxpayers will want tax cuts and they want cuts to their power bills. This is necessary because wages are never keeping up with inflation and our lives are always getting harder so it's an easy sell to voters to privatize things that should not be privatized. In the real world you can't save money through some magic free market. Competition doesn't save money it forces companies to take less profit. Advancemen

    • You have raised some good points, but ignore the new ideas.

      The solution to the problem of corrupt managers is to treat the nuclear power plants the same way we treat the NASA nuke power plants - make smaller modules that do not require any human oversight. Right now, those types of power plants are not profitable (except when human oversight is impossible). We are already working on a lesser version of this, called a Small Modular Reactor (SMR).

      If we develop a plant that can be made and sold with zero

  • Very expensive from past experience (Score:3)

    by RitchCraft ( 6454710 ) on Sunday March 06, 2022 @06:17PM (#62331825)
    Nuclear power has always been associated with *much* higher cost in my area. I live close to the Davis Besse nuclear power plant in Ohio. North of my town is serviced by Toledo Edison which operates the nuclear plant. Years back I entered a one year lease that was serviced by Toledo Edison. I was SHOCKED when I received my first electric bill. It was 4 times higher than the power company I had before just a few miles down the road. Needless to say when that lease was up I moved right away. Everyone I spoke to stuck with Toledo Edison blamed the nuke plant for the high cost. From my experience I believe the cost of building and delivering nuclear energy will be a hard pill to swallow for those needing electricity provided by it. Other alternatives need to be explored.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      That is pretty much the reason why no commercial outfit in Europe wants to build any new nuclear. Most do not even want extensions to the runtimes of existing plants. No, EDF is not a commercial outfit. They are a front for the state and hugely basically bankrupt several times over.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      In the US nuclear has proved unfeasible and unnecessary. Yes, all costs are passed to the consumer, which means all new power is expensive, but nuclear has provided expense with no power. Plant get build, charged to the rate payer, but never finished. On the other hand, wind gets built, and provides some of the cheapest power around.

      Also, the promise of the article is wrong. What the invasion has reminded us of is that half the worlds uranium comes from the area around Ukraine. Only about a quarter comes

      • In the case of Davis Besse it always seemed like it was down for what ever reason more than it was producing power. It was rare to look into the distance and see the cooling towers producing clouds. There were constant newspaper and news reports on why it was powered down for a variety of reasons. It just wasn't consistent. I believe it developed a crack a few years back and don't think it's been operating since. On the bright side when perch fishing out on Lake Erie it was always easy to find your back to

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by e3m4n ( 947977 )
      IMO the best use for nuclear power is not running a grid by itself. Its better to use them to augment peak demand so we dont need to burn fossil fuels. So instead of some gigantic power plant with 5,000 employees, have a 500MW reactor feeding a local grid covering peak demand, and night demand if the wind turbines were not putting out enough due to low winds. Do you know that in the engine room of a single plant on a navy ship there only 20 employees (including the Engineering Officer of the Watch [EOW])?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by evanh ( 627108 )

      Yep, the only argument that stacks up in favour of fission power is for funding the supply of bomb making materials.

  • No (Score:2)

    by khchung ( 462899 )

    The oil industry won't let it happen, it is that simple.

  • Unlikely. (Score:3)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Sunday March 06, 2022 @07:59PM (#62332017)

    One thing that has been constant with nuclear power is there is always a NIMBY and group willing to prop them up in order to delay or kill a nuclear power plant installation.

    Until we get a judicial ruling that says the NRC has the final word on safety then there is nothing keeping NIMBYs from keeping anyone from even bothering to make a nuclear plant.

    • Don't forget the idiots in this very article's replies. Omg it's too teh expensive! Omg we never finish them! Omg muh uranium from Russia!

      Cost is fucking irrelevant compared to the cost of not doing it. We can mine it. It all comes down to will. We have lost our will. This is why China is eating our lunch. Renewables should be a piece but they wont save us.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Klaxton ( 609696 )

        But it is too expensive. And there have been some recent high-profile construction failures that made the risk factor out of sight. Uranium is definitely not a renewable resource.

        Meanwhile China is building out wind and solar way faster than the US.

        • As the only alternative to meet the power needs of civilization without emitting carbon, it is not too expensive.

          China is also building 19 nuclear reactors. Since this seems to be the barometer for production in your mind, we need to be building a lot of reactors to rise to their level.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Klaxton ( 609696 )

            If nuclear is the only alternative, why did China build more offshore wind in 2021 than every other country built in the past 5 years?

      • I lived in nuclear power zone for a year. The electric cost was outrageous. The power plant was down more than it was operational. I look forward to hearing about your first experience with an electric bill from an electric company that services a nuclear power station.

        • OK, cool. Let's make people pay for the externalities of their coal and natural gas power, and pay the unsubsidized costs for solar/wind/hydro. Then we can compare costs. Those non-outrageous rates you think you pay now are fake. They're bullshit, someone else (all of us) is paying the cost.

          You guys are all on the fail boat, the problem is that you've been on it for the last 30 years. All these problems could have been solved a decade ago if the one-two punch of idiocy from both coal/oil people and dumb env

    • Nuclear electricity makes no sense any more, whatever the flavor, the kWh simply costs 4x more than renewables.
      Just let the economically obsolete stuff be history.

  • Until we get the modularity down and can mass produce smaller reactors, going all-in on traditional reactors is a fool's errand. We need solutions that are not as heavily dependent on transmission capacity and can provide power locally. It is better to make them pervasive rather than trying to isolate and centralize them.

  • We need to do whatever it takes to keep growth of our consumption at the highest level possible until everything is all gone.

  • Miss the point (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jamander4 ( 2684679 ) on Sunday March 06, 2022 @09:48PM (#62332241)
    It is not environmentalists that are blocking Nuke plants. The people responsible are MBA's, Accountants and investment bankers. Nuke plants do not show an adequate rate of return on investment. The construction costs are both too high and too uncertain. The cost over runs have been running over 100% making cash flow predictions difficult if not impossible. The only way nuke plants can go forward is to get these cost factors under control. The many delays in construction also add almost impossible conditions for financial viability. The only way forward is to get these issues under control. Whether you like Nukes or hate them does not matter.

  • How is the assault on Ukraine helping nuclear?

    Currently the staff at Zaporizhzhia are being held hostage, abused, overworked, and if they fail, something catastrophic can happen. (Or can be caused intentionally by Russia.)

    It was also shelled before being taken.

    Chernobyl is also currently a concern (again).

    What happens if you shell a wind farm or solar plant? Or take one over in an attack?

    Are the current designs all 'war proof'?

    That's the question on my mind right now. My guess is 'no'.

    I don't understand how

  • I had thought that the argument of nuclear power plants becoming military targets was a purely hypothetical one because nobody with a little bit of rationality left inside his brain would attack a nuclear power plant next to their own country. Until yesterday...

Slashdot Top Deals

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Close