[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by uBeR

It's funny, these rightists who advocate nuclear power. They scream, "More nuclear power!" It's clean and safe! And we can't use wind or solar, because that stuff requires government subsidies. Free market can't support renewable energy, so we should go nuclear. So obvious.

Of course, the rightist forgets that nuclear power is expensive. I've got no qualms with nuclear power (but the folk at Rocky Mountain Institute and elsewhere make compelling arguments against it). But it is sheer hypocrisy to ignore the fact that nuclear energy requires massive government subsidy. Even now, the government offers enormous amount of financial support for nuclear energy, but no one wants to do it. It's too costly, even with massive support from the government. The free marketeers forget that if it was profitable, it would probably already be happening. But it's not. And that's for good reason.

Naturally, that's always been the M.O. of rightists: small government, except for the things that I want (like nuclear energy, keeping immigrants out, propping up banks, or cleaning up spilled oil).

+

Originally Posted by uBeR

As for solar and wind being a viable alternative, it is, which is precisely the reason why it's being implemented across the country. The private sector is quickly finding out that it costs less to use less.

uBer, you do realize that, Solar and Wind energy are incredibly inefficient? Currently, it takes 1,200 square miles of wind turbines (if we follow the Pickens plan, which seems to have the most traction, currently) to produce as much power as a single nuclear reactor (Which takes up ~1 square mile per nuclear facility). Solar energy is even less efficient, especially considering that our most 'efficient' solar technology used on the space station has a conversion rate of ~20% and is incredibly expensive. Of course there are other pitfalls to these two, such as the fact that solar panels have to be extremely clean to actually suck up the sun's rays, and they're incredibly expensive to clean/maintain.

Wind farms also have problems. There's no real solution to 'store' the energy, so it's more of a supplemental energy form. Because of the structure of our electrical grid, there needs to be a balance of voltage, and because wind is so unpredictable, the entire electrical grid would need to be updated, or a solution would need to be found for this major flaw. Without a grid upgrade, wind energy will end up leading to massive brownouts/blackouts, etc. It would be a disaster. Grid operators spend every day of their lives balancing the flow of energy across the grids, making sure there's enough reserve energy to supplement usage hikes for times of the day, holidays, times of the year, etc. Without an upgrade to the grid, this would become a grid operator's nightmare.

Since I'm on the topic of pitfalls of other fuels, I'll include oil. A problem with hydrocarbon based fuel, is that it's subject to wild speculation. Oil, notoriously, is a slave to speculation.

On the other hand, the fuel that nuclear power plants use, can come from MANY different sources. That's why, in 2008, when there was a speculative bubble on uranium, nuclear power was hardly affected at all.

However, in support of Wind/Solar, there is a benefit to having a more diversified energy supply, and that's an increase in domestic security. That's honestly the only positive thing I have to say about Solar/Wind.

And yes, you're right. It's hard for nuclear power plants to get established, but it's not because it's not worth the money--it is. Nuclear energy is the cheapest form of energy (once you get past the initial capital investment) and the amount of energy you get from a unit of fuel, is astronomically high. It's so high, in fact, that there's more energy from the trace amounts of uranium found in coal, than there is the coal itself. Nuclear energy is so profitable that many of the nation's current nuclear power plants bring in $1 million dollars a day, and operate at 90% capacity, meanwhile Coal is around 60% and Solar/Wind are at an abysmal 30%. Not only is it efficient in that regard, it's extremely easy to maintain a nuclear facility, and the process of re-fueling has decreased in time by 66% in the past two or so decades. Even still, nuclear energy won't be affected by a 'carbon tax' that we will likely see in the future, which add +$.02/per kw/H to coal/gas energy.

If that wasn't enough incentive to produce nuclear energy, maybe the fact that there's the tax credit in the 2005 Clean Energy Policy, that gives Nuclear energy a $.018 per kw/H tax credit for the first 6,000 megawatts produced.

There are, of course, unseen economic benefits of using Nuclear power. For one, it's not a hydrocarbon. It's environmental impact is virtually non-existent compared to hydrocarbon fuels. Just think of all the nasty environmental things that mining/processing/consuming hydrocarbons creates, and nuclear energy would be an immediate departure from that damage. Secondly, you have the human cost. Recently mines have collapsed (I think there was a collapse in Russia just yesterday), and furthermore, you have miners dying from black lung (still) at an astonishing rate.

So clearly, the problem of Nuclear energy is not economical (like you seem to be alluding to). Because everything points to the fact that it's the most economically efficient fuel there is. Inversely, it doesn't seem like Wind/Solar are even feasible on their own economically (ergo, they can't survive without subsidies, whereas something else is holding back nuclear power). Tell me, why is it, in a country, where Wall Street can turn pretty much ANYTHING into something extremely profitable, do they still refuse to touch nuclear energy? As I've exhibited, it has nothing to do with economic viability. The efficiency at which energy can be produced is unrivaled. I'm guessing it has more to do with fear mongering (I DON'T WANT THAT IN MY BACKYARD) than anything else. In the case of Nuclear, you have the powerful coal/gas interests that have a vested interest in preventing new reactors from being made, and you also have an enviro-nazi interest, that are inherently (why?) afraid of a tiny nuclear power plant. Nuclear power hasn't killed anyone in the United States, but every year, coal and natural gas sends tens of thousands of people to their graves every year.

I'd also like to address (Feel free to add more) some major problems with Nuclear energy. First of all, WASTE. Everyone pictures a Simpson-esque nuclear waste problem. Barrels, and barrels, and barrels of green radioactive waste, where nothing can be done with it, but throw it in the bottom of the sea.

Of course, that's a fallacy. The problem currently, is that the US government forbids power companies from fully recycling nuclear waste, so many millions of tons of 'waste' are produced, when in actually, only a fraction of that 'waste' is truly unusable. In France, they've been recycling nearly ~100% of their spent 'waste' and turning it into 'MOX Fuel' and selling the remaining fuel to medical/industrial facilities, where they make use of the isotopes. The result? The amount of waste left over is many thousands of times less than what is made in the US. If US companies were allowed to fully recycle nuclear waste, the 'waste' problem would be a near non-issue.

And of course, the really huge problem that freaks everyone out! Meltdowns. Everyone loves to point to Chernobyl as an example of what can happen, or even Three Mile Island. The simple fact was, Chernobyl was wildly inefficient (Yay Statism) and unsafe at every level, and had little to no precautionary measures. 3MI on the other hand, did have a meltdown, but because they followed precautionary measures, a nominal amount of radiation was leaked, and operation continued shortly thereafter. Last time I drove by the Susquehana, there wasn't a 100+ mile radiation area, with a giant lead 'cover' over 3MI.

As for financial problems (Ergo, the REAL problems);

Capital investment for a new nuclear power plant is astronomical. ~$10 billion dollars for a single plant, and their lifetimes are not that long (60 years? Maybe more?). On top of that, you have a licensing mess. It's so difficult to build a new plant in the US (thanks to regulations precipitated by enviro-nazi fear mongering), that there's actually a 'regulatory insurance' to protect new nuclear projects from licensing bureaucracy. End of life decommissioning for a power plant is also pretty expensive. Wikipedia has around $300 million listed. That's a considerable investment to dismantle a nuclear power plant after it's service is done.

There's some minor problems with employment, as well. You'd of course have to hire reliable people, and keep a strong security team in place to prevent sabotage/smuggling of nuclear materials.

I think the major thing holding back Nuclear energy, is the fact that it is so dependent on Government subsidies. The industry has never been subjected to a real market test, because it's never had to. It's artifically insulated from risk by the Government, so naturally, what motivation is there to innovate? Innovation entails risk, and when you're raking in dough from the Government gravy train, you're less motivated to take risks. If nuclear power plants were taken off of the Government dole, and forced to survive on their own, we'd truly see whether or not nuclear energy is viable on it's own, but unfortunately, we don't have that option. Trust me, I'd like to see the Nuclear energy industry either prove it's able to survive on it's own (or sink, if that's what the market says), but the very thing holding back Nuclear plants from becoming mainsteam, is what's going to prevent them from coming to the realization that they need to get off the government gravy train, and that 'thing' is politics.

I'm willing to give any source of energy the credit it's due. If solar and wind turn out to become good sources of energy... great! History has shown, the more we use a resource, the better we become at maximizing it's efficiency. Perhaps a couple years down the road, solar technology will experience a renaissance? Who knows, but as it stands currently, Nuclear energy makes the most sense, hands down. That really is the bottom line, black and white. Once you shed the fear mongering, and realize that Nuclear energy is extremely efficient (even more efficient than coal), the biggest problem we will face is 'can we get reactors up fast enough'?