The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand | The Trouble With Energy

58 comments on The Trouble With Energy - Part 3.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

steve from Virginia on June 16, 2009 - 11:35am

All it will take is one serious breakdown and that is the end of the nuclear industry. One terrorist bombing, one shipment of fuel diverted to a 'rogue state' one core containment 'event'.

The costs associated with building conventional, light water plants cannot be wished away. Added to this is the uncertainty over liability. For some strange reason, the US tolerates + 40,000 fatalities on the highway every year. The same public will not tolerate less than fail safe performance of reactors.

Until the liability issues are resolved it is hard to see any public embrace of nuclear power. Some of the new designs show a great deal of promise, but these must be tested and assurance given that this inherent safety isn't compromised by scaling of plant production.

These are all stupendously expensive plants, who will pay, both for the plants themselves as well as cover the all important liability? The government is heading toward insolvency. The ratepayers won't shoulder the cost and allow themselves to be stuck with liabilities at the same time.

This is a concept killer. It put Shoreham in Long Island out of business. It is the reason no new nuclear plants have been built in the US since Three Mile Island. Electric utilities sell convenience. Selling anything else is difficult ... unless the power industry can figure out how to put nuclear power stations into the backs of peoples' cars.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Arthur Robey on June 16, 2009 - 2:53pm

On the other hand, strong opinions will soften when the beer gets warm and the television goes off.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Engineer-Poet on June 16, 2009 - 4:38pm

All it will take is one serious breakdown and that is the end of the nuclear industry. One terrorist bombing, one shipment of fuel diverted to a 'rogue state' one core containment 'event'.

You think so?

One terrorist bombing outside a plant boundary would do roughly nothing. Nuclear plants are very hard targets. A bombing of a dry-cask fuel storage facility would scatter some stuff around and require folks to do some work with gamma cameras and whisk brooms. This will probably be on the level of a chemical spill, minus the threat of seepage.
PWR fuel is enriched to about 3.5% U-235. It's useless for bombs without a lot more enrichment, and diverting it would be a big waving red flag. Proliferators will start with yellowcake, like Iran. Spent fuel is also useless for bombs; the Pu isotope mix is way wrong.
We already had a core containment "event" in the USA. Despite massive errors on the part of the operators, nobody was hurt; not even the pressure vessel was damaged. Today's systems are even better.

I didn't mean to make this whole thread about nuclear, but we really do need to separate the facts from the propaganda.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

lengould on June 16, 2009 - 4:48pm

Gotta admit, though. The whole thing keeps lots of lawyers rich, and politicians are almost always lawyers...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

anyone on June 20, 2009 - 6:29am

For some strange reason, the US tolerates + 40,000 fatalities on the highway every year. The same public will not tolerate less than fail safe performance of reactors.

Who knows? Maybe because cars and trucks are quite practical and nuclear power plants are actually not the only option to generate energy for a hot coffee or a warm shower or some lighting.

It is the reason no new nuclear plants have been built in the US since Three Mile Island.

So if the huge capital costs were not to blame, why did they have to pass laws forcing consumers to pay for the capital costs of new nuclear power plants in advance?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89169837

Comments can no longer be added to this story.