• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Great Missed Opportunity of Nuclear Power

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here is an interesting counterfactual paper. Where would we be today with nuclear power if its development and deployment had not been disrupted, starting in the 1960's? The answer: better off.


Forgone benefits of disruption to nuclear power since late-1960’s

Posted on December 21, 2017 | 19 comments
by Peter Lang
Could the costs of nuclear power have been 10% of what they are if not for the disruption?
Continue reading →

Could the costs of nuclear power have been 10% of what they are if not for the disruption?

A new paper, Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates: Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone [1], finds that nuclear power could now be around 10% of current cost, and have avoided up to 10 million deaths and 164 Gt CO2 between 1980 and 2015, if not for disruption to progress in the late 1960s and rapidly escalating costs since.
Other global benefits forgone are discussed in the ‘Policy Implications’ section. Figure 3 in the paper (copied below) shows the decreasing costs from 1954 to 1967 (at 32 GW cumulative global capacity of construction starts), and rising costs thereafter for seven countries. The learning rates are derived from the slope of the regression lines.

Figure 3. Regression lines for seven countries: OCC plotted against cumulative global capacity of construction starts. . . .

 
Jack Hays said:
Here is an interesting counterfactual paper. Where would we be today with nuclear power if its development and deployment had not been disrupted, starting in the 1960's? The answer: better off.


Forgone benefits of disruption to nuclear power since late-1960’s

[FONT=&]Posted on December 21, 2017 | 19 comments[/FONT]
by Peter Lang
Could the costs of nuclear power have been 10% of what they are if not for the disruption?
Continue reading →

Could the costs of nuclear power have been 10% of what they are if not for the disruption?

A new paper, Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates: Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone [1], finds that nuclear power could now be around 10% of current cost, and have avoided up to 10 million deaths and 164 Gt CO2 between 1980 and 2015, if not for disruption to progress in the late 1960s and rapidly escalating costs since.
Other global benefits forgone are discussed in the ‘Policy Implications’ section. Figure 3 in the paper (copied below) shows the decreasing costs from 1954 to 1967 (at 32 GW cumulative global capacity of construction starts), and rising costs thereafter for seven countries. The learning rates are derived from the slope of the regression lines.

Figure 3. Regression lines for seven countries: OCC plotted against cumulative global capacity of construction starts. . . .
Click to expand...

More Nuclear Power, more Nuclear error.

Three Mile Island = human error
Chernobyl = human error
Fukushima = human error
Hanford = human error
New Mexico = human error
and these are just the ones we know about. Fukushima is polluting the Pacific and will continue to do so, at increasing levels, in relative perpetuity.
/
 
Jack Hays said:
Here is an interesting counterfactual paper. Where would we be today with nuclear power if its development and deployment had not been disrupted, starting in the 1960's? The answer: better off.


Forgone benefits of disruption to nuclear power since late-1960’s

Posted on December 21, 2017 | 19 comments
by Peter Lang
Could the costs of nuclear power have been 10% of what they are if not for the disruption?
Continue reading →

Could the costs of nuclear power have been 10% of what they are if not for the disruption?

A new paper, Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates: Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone [1], finds that nuclear power could now be around 10% of current cost, and have avoided up to 10 million deaths and 164 Gt CO2 between 1980 and 2015, if not for disruption to progress in the late 1960s and rapidly escalating costs since.
Other global benefits forgone are discussed in the ‘Policy Implications’ section. Figure 3 in the paper (copied below) shows the decreasing costs from 1954 to 1967 (at 32 GW cumulative global capacity of construction starts), and rising costs thereafter for seven countries. The learning rates are derived from the slope of the regression lines.

Figure 3. Regression lines for seven countries: OCC plotted against cumulative global capacity of construction starts. . . .
Click to expand...

Yes Nuclear power. The wunderpower of the future that we can't get right today! The solution to all that nuclear waste is to dump it all in a poorly maintained facility under a mountain in Nevada.
 
DaveFagan said:
More Nuclear Power, more Nuclear error.

Three Mile Island = human error
Chernobyl = human error
Fukushima = human error
Hanford = human error
New Mexico = human error
and these are just the ones we know about. Fukushima is polluting the Pacific and will continue to do so, at increasing levels, in relative perpetuity.
/
Click to expand...

Had there been no disruption then your more recent examples might never have happened. From the OP link:

Rapid learning rates persisted since the 1960s for other technologies and industries, where public support remained high. The aviation industry provides an example of technology and safety improvements, and cost reductions, achieved over the same period in another complex system with high public concern about safety. From 1960 to 2013, US aviation passenger-miles increased by a factor of 19 [46], while aviation passenger safety (reduction in fatalities per passenger-mile) increased by a factor of 1051 [47], a learning rate of 87% for passenger safety. The learning rate for the cost of US commercial airline passenger travel during this period was 27% [46,48].
 
reinoe said:
Yes Nuclear power. The wunderpower of the future that we can't get right today! The solution to all that nuclear waste is to dump it all in a poorly maintained facility under a mountain in Nevada.
Click to expand...

Had there been no disruption it is more than possible that a better disposal solution would have been found.
 
Jack Hays said:
Here is an interesting counterfactual paper. Where would we be today with nuclear power if its development and deployment had not been disrupted, starting in the 1960's? The answer: better off.


Forgone benefits of disruption to nuclear power since late-1960’s

[FONT=&]Posted on December 21, 2017 | 19 comments[/FONT]
by Peter Lang
Could the costs of nuclear power have been 10% of what they are if not for the disruption?
Continue reading →

Could the costs of nuclear power have been 10% of what they are if not for the disruption?

A new paper, Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates: Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone [1], finds that nuclear power could now be around 10% of current cost, and have avoided up to 10 million deaths and 164 Gt CO2 between 1980 and 2015, if not for disruption to progress in the late 1960s and rapidly escalating costs since.
Other global benefits forgone are discussed in the ‘Policy Implications’ section. Figure 3 in the paper (copied below) shows the decreasing costs from 1954 to 1967 (at 32 GW cumulative global capacity of construction starts), and rising costs thereafter for seven countries. The learning rates are derived from the slope of the regression lines.

Figure 3. Regression lines for seven countries: OCC plotted against cumulative global capacity of construction starts. . . .
Click to expand...

If only we could have figured out how to safely dispose of the waste and keep those damned reactors from having accidents, I'd be all in on nuclear. But, when you consider that Chernobyl was within hours of rendering 90% of Europe uninhabitable....you really can't be a fan.
 
Jack Hays said:
Please see my replies in #4 and #5.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the disruptions were the result of the accidents. See the edited additional part of my post in bold below.

calamity said:
If only we could have figured out how to safely dispose of the waste and keep those damned reactors from having accidents, I'd be all in on nuclear. But, when you consider that Chernobyl was within hours of rendering 90% of Europe uninhabitable....you really can't be a fan.
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
Here is an interesting counterfactual paper. Where would we be today with nuclear power if its development and deployment had not been disrupted, starting in the 1960's? The answer: better off.


Forgone benefits of disruption to nuclear power since late-1960’s

[FONT=&]Posted on December 21, 2017 | 19 comments[/FONT]
by Peter Lang
Could the costs of nuclear power have been 10% of what they are if not for the disruption?
Continue reading →

Could the costs of nuclear power have been 10% of what they are if not for the disruption?

A new paper, Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates: Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone [1], finds that nuclear power could now be around 10% of current cost, and have avoided up to 10 million deaths and 164 Gt CO2 between 1980 and 2015, if not for disruption to progress in the late 1960s and rapidly escalating costs since.
Other global benefits forgone are discussed in the ‘Policy Implications’ section. Figure 3 in the paper (copied below) shows the decreasing costs from 1954 to 1967 (at 32 GW cumulative global capacity of construction starts), and rising costs thereafter for seven countries. The learning rates are derived from the slope of the regression lines.

Figure 3. Regression lines for seven countries: OCC plotted against cumulative global capacity of construction starts. . . .
Click to expand...

Nuclear reactors create glowing waste, which the residents of NV did not want thrown inside Yucca Mtn. On paper nuclear looks good, much like coal. If you dig under the surface, both options create a LOT of nasty waste.
 
yankintx said:
Nuclear reactors create glowing waste, which the residents of NV did not want thrown inside Yucca Mtn. On paper nuclear looks good, much like coal. If you dig under the surface, both options create a LOT of nasty waste.
Click to expand...

Please see my reply in #5.
 
DaveFagan said:
More Nuclear Power, more Nuclear error.

Three Mile Island = human error
Chernobyl = human error
Fukushima = human error
Hanford = human error
New Mexico = human error
and these are just the ones we know about. Fukushima is polluting the Pacific and will continue to do so, at increasing levels, in relative perpetuity.
/
Click to expand...

Oh ya Chenobyl, I was living in the UK. I remember the news reporting HIGH levels of radiation in the Scottish Highlands, no one could figure it out, it took the Soviets a week to fess up while that glowing cloud floated above, no thanks !!
ok
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
Please see my reply in #5.
Click to expand...

I guess my next question would be, were is all this glowing leftovers stored. I was living in Vegas 2001-2005. Yucca Mtn was a hot topic.
 
yankintx said:
I guess my next question would be, were is all this glowing leftovers stored. I was living in Vegas 2001-2005. Yucca Mtn was a hot topic.
Click to expand...

Because we are missing several decades of research and experiment (the point of the study) that question cannot be answered today. But it might have been.
 
Jack Hays said:
Because we are missing several decades of research and experiment (the point of the study) that question cannot be answered today. But it might have been.
Click to expand...

The research into nuclear power never stopped. If you're operating under the "learn by doing" approach then I'd rather take a pass on that method when it comes to nuclear power. What you're talking about sounds more like trial and error: emphasis on the "error".
 
yankintx said:
I guess my next question would be, were is all this glowing leftovers stored. I was living in Vegas 2001-2005. Yucca Mtn was a hot topic.
Click to expand...

Ideally they would be reused over and over again until no longer radioactive
 
reinoe said:
The research into nuclear power never stopped. If you're operating under the "learn by doing" approach then I'd rather take a pass on that method when it comes to nuclear power. What you're talking about sounds more like trial and error: emphasis on the "error".
Click to expand...

Please refer to the OP link. It cites other industries with strong safety concerns and the remarkable progress they made.
 
reinoe said:
The research into nuclear power never stopped. If you're operating under the "learn by doing" approach then I'd rather take a pass on that method when it comes to nuclear power. What you're talking about sounds more like trial and error: emphasis on the "error".
Click to expand...

If you take a look at the history of naval nuclear reactors here in the US, we've done extremely well. We know how to do it safely. There are differences in scale, to be sure, but if the discipline the military demonstrates in operating nuclear reactors were replicated commercially, we'd be fine with nuclear power. That's a big if, but saying it can't be done is incorrect. It can be done.
 
humbolt said:
If you take a look at the history of naval nuclear reactors here in the US, we've done extremely well. We know how to do it safely. There are differences in scale, to be sure, but if the discipline the military demonstrates in operating nuclear reactors were replicated commercially, we'd be fine with nuclear power. That's a big if, but saying it can't be done is incorrect. It can be done.
Click to expand...

I was going to post something similar earlier. We have reactors functioning reliably and safely on submarines and aircraft carriers for 50 + years. But we have extensive safety requirements built in and strenuous training and response drills in case of accidents/incidents. It can obviously be done. I don't really understand how the private sector is so bad at this. Create a solid design, make it modular in nature so you add units not build a bigger reactor that becomes a new design. Build redundancy into everything, especially the backup power supplies.
 
trblmkr said:
I was going to post something similar earlier. We have reactors functioning reliably and safely on submarines and aircraft carriers for 50 + years. But we have extensive safety requirements built in and strenuous training and response drills in case of accidents/incidents. It can obviously be done. I don't really understand how the private sector is so bad at this. Create a solid design, make it modular in nature so you add units not build a bigger reactor that becomes a new design. Build redundancy into everything, especially the backup power supplies.
Click to expand...

It's the difference in scale that's problematic right out of the gate. Naval nuclear reactors have a lot of redundancy, and as you say, the people who service and maintain them are highly qualified and disciplined. Commercial reactors lack that redundancy at least in part because of costs at that scale. I have hoped to see smaller reactors pursued at a commercial level, but it doesn't appear that power generators are willing to take that risk in investment while facing all of the public and regulatory concerns. :shrug:
 
humbolt said:
It's the difference in scale that's problematic right out of the gate. Naval nuclear reactors have a lot of redundancy, and as you say, the people who service and maintain them are highly qualified and disciplined. Commercial reactors lack that redundancy at least in part because of costs at that scale. I have hoped to see smaller reactors pursued at a commercial level, but it doesn't appear that power generators are willing to take that risk in investment while facing all of the public and regulatory concerns. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Hence the missed opportunity.:(
 
trblmkr said:
I was going to post something similar earlier. We have reactors functioning reliably and safely on submarines and aircraft carriers for 50 + years. But we have extensive safety requirements built in and strenuous training and response drills in case of accidents/incidents. It can obviously be done. I don't really understand how the private sector is so bad at this. Create a solid design, make it modular in nature so you add units not build a bigger reactor that becomes a new design. Build redundancy into everything, especially the backup power supplies.
Click to expand...

You have made a good point. Nuclear power stations are VERY expensive to build, you add in all the neccesary regulations, and its a show stopper.
 
The UK government has recently given the go-ahead for the construction of Hinkley Point C, the UK's first new nuclear power station in 20 years. It will be constructed by the (state-owned) French power company EDF with additional investment from the (state-owned) Chinese power company CGN at a cost of around £20 billion. The project has been hugely controversial in the UK, not least because of the high fixed price that the UK government has promised for 35 years after it starts operation. This essentially means that the UK taxpayer will be subsidising the electricity that it generates in order to remove the risk to EDF and CGN, a prerequisite for them to take on the project. You can understand why people aren't terribly happy about this!
 
Surface Detail said:
The UK government has recently given the go-ahead for the construction of Hinkley Point C, the UK's first new nuclear power station in 20 years. It will be constructed by the (state-owned) French power company EDF with additional investment from the (state-owned) Chinese power company CGN at a cost of around £20 billion. The project has been hugely controversial in the UK, not least because of the high fixed price that the UK government has promised for 35 years after it starts operation. This essentially means that the UK taxpayer will be subsidising the electricity that it generates in order to remove the risk to EDF and CGN, a prerequisite for them to take on the project. You can understand why people aren't terribly happy about this!
Click to expand...

Sounds like a risk premium to hedge against political uncertainty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom