Whereas it would be my hope to avoid nuclear.
I'm very skeptical of the safety of nuclear. We had also better develop much more respectful extraction methods if there is to be any nuclear future at all.
But most of all I'm unconvinced about the economics of nuclear. When Ontario Hydro privatized its operations, it sold off its nuclear plants for less than the estimated decommissioning costs, and the insurance is still the responsibility of the government. If it's so cheap in theory, why is it bankrupting us in practice?
No nuclear plant is ever insured. I'm not aware of any company that promises to decommission reactors. Storage issues have not been resolved anywhere. And every reactor I hear about seems to be behind schedule, over budget and shorter lived than planned.
You quote nuclear proponents extensively. I don't trust them.
When you say it's hard to imagine renewables taking up the slack, I hear and understand you. But it's still difficult for me to get enthusiastic about nuclear or embrace using it to "its full capabilities". Why would we want that?
And at least in Ontario, the experience has been that the nuclear industry has actively interfered with renewable development. And at least here in Ontario, the nuclear industry has historically been absorbing a great deal of public investment. Putting in a similar investment in renewables would be an excellent start. In fact, it would be a big help just to stop putting up roadblocks to renewable penetration.
Governments like big power projects. They're not interested in little power producers here and there. So until this year every single wind turbine or solar installation in Ontario was put up privately. Renewable proponents encountered enormous barriers to acceptance. They weren't allowed to hook up to the grid, or weren't paid if they did. Meanwhile the subsidies to the AECL kept flowing.
And still some people put up wind and solar. Even though it was privately insured, it was still economical in some cases. No nuclear company can do that.
Now the Province has finally developed Standard Offer Contracts for renewable power. But in order to secure a place for nuclear, the lands with the best wind in the Province have been declared off limits, because they are on transmission corridors the Province wants to reserve for future nuclear development. Meanwhile, even by the conservative estimates of the Province, economically recoverable on-land and Great Lake wind capacity amounts to over 700 GW, well over 20 times the provincial peak. Winds off James Bay are even better. If the city of Toronto covered just 10% of its roof space in solar panels, it could produce all the energy it needed. We are awash in energy.
At least in Ontario, the reason renewables comprise such a small portion of the load is a historic preference for big power projects, active interference from the nuclear industry and perverse subsidies for nuclear. I suspect this pattern is repeated all over the world. In jurisdictions that commit to greater renewable penetration, like your own country, renewables comprise much more than the 0.4% world average.
Nuclear proponents also actively interfere with DSM programmes. No big surprise. The rationale for a new power plant requires big demand. So while every government office accepts the fact that conservation dollars go a longer way in meeting new demand than generation, the plan is to throw $100 billion at nuclear and natural gas and leave renewables to private developers to a limit of 5% of the load. And I speak to nuclear engineers who wring their hands wondering whether the grid can support so much "unreliable" renewable power. It would be funny if the stakes weren't so high.
Time for me to jump back into this...luddite you have painted a very inaccurate picture of nuclear power by taking extreme examples and portraying them as representative of the entire industry. Half the story essentially.
First, nuclear power has proved its safety for a long time. The worst accident in a commerical US nuclear plant--TMI--No one got hurt or received any substaintial radiation. Compare nuclear with any heavy industry and it looks very good from a safety point of view.
Spent fuel is an issue. However, it is not insurmountable. When you indicate that no one has figured out how to deal with this issue, that is not correct. The French have been reprocessing fuel for a long time and storing it in dedicated facilities. The US has problems with its storage facility, but these are engineering issues and political. Spent fuel is radioactive for about 2-3 hundred years. A very few isotopes are longer lived and most of those can be disposed of with fast reactors.
Upgraded reactor designs now available with inherent fuel safety in the next generation of reactors will further reactor safety.
Nuclear plants in the US are all insured. The only difference is that the liability is limited. The decommisioning costs of a plant are required by law to be included in the cost of the plant. Accounts are set up to stockpile money for the decommisioning activity over the life of the plant--typically 40 years. Some utilities are extending the life to 60 years as well giving extra time to bank money. Plants that shutdown early are generally small in size and are less economical due to the fixed costs of running a plant.
The last generation of nuclear plants could be constructed in 6 years if properly managed. This may not have been typical in Canada and the US, but other countries have done much better. Most of the US problems were due to licensing and TMI retrofits. However, I worked in Korea in the nuke industry and they were able to build and startup the plants in six years. Their record if very good.
Next generation plants will take even less as they have improved the design and safety by system design improvements. Also, coal plants take about 4 years to build, not 1-2.
I have to say...most opponents of nuclear power and coal power do not seem to understand how much energy 6.5 billion people use. The world uses about 400 quads of energy each year. Conservation might be able reduce that 10%, maybe 20%. Wind and solar, with current technology can provide only 10-20 quad or so. The world needs a lot of energy. Fission and hopefully fusion will be able to provide a lot of that energy with no greenhouse emissions. Renewables are not going to provide 300 quads of energy any time soon. Renewables only comprise more that 0.4% when hydro power is included...take out hydro and the 0.4% is accurate.
You have also portrayed the Candu reactor as a problem...it is great design with an excellent safety record and some of the best capacity factors in the industry due to its online refueling capability. It has had normal design issues and refits like any evolving technogy..however...there is nothing systemically wrong with the reactor design.
Demand has caused plants to be built...not the other way around. The Air conditioners came first...utilities then needed to build plants--which they try to avoid due to capital costs. That's why they promote switching to appliances and bulbs that use less energy. Utilities do not like big power projects due to the risk involved.
When I get some time, I will address more issues you have brought up.
glenn
.)
