Luddite seems to be a very honest person.
I wonder if he will reconsider his position as a whole given the facts presented in this thread.
It's really, really, a great thread.
I reconsider my positions all the time. I'm cautiously tending to thinking nuclear waste is not as dangerous as I thought. Though I've still got research to do.
I've known for years that the routine emissions from nuclear plants, while not insignificant, pale in comparison with the dangers of other forms of generation which are accepted more easily.
I remain unconvinced that nuclear is economical without substantial subsidies. I remain unconvinced that in a level playing field renewables wouldn't do very well, with a much higher penetration rate. I remain unconvinced that there is anywhere near enough uranium to maintain our current worldwide electrical needs, never mind the transportation requirements.
In fact, I'm convinced of the opposite. The Energy Watch Group seems to do very careful work. And they're expecting uranium to peak in a few decades at current rates of use.
I think one big difference between me and some of the others on this forum is that they begin with a premise that we need x amount of energy. I begin with the premise that we have x amount of resources. And every serious analyst I've seen, and I've seen many, indicates that the resources we have, no matter how we bend and twist and exploit them, simply cannot supply our "energy needs". Most serious analysts predict that we will need to dramatically drop our energy demands.
I've spent several decades knowing that there would be an energy crisis because of global warming and oil depletion, and counting on some technological miracle. There has been every policy incentive to encourage this technological innovation. Enormous subsidies have been poured into developing alternatives. The fact that they haven't materialized is strongly suggestive to me that they will not. A few years ago, I gave up.
We are now in a situation where emissions reductions in the next 5-10 years are absolutely critical for climate stability. And nuclear simply cannot deliver them. We cannot possibly build enough nuclear plants to make a dent in emissions. There has been no serious attempt to deny my assertion that you have to count on 10 years to build a nuclear plant. And the facilities simply aren't there to build more than a few a year anyway.
And every dollar poured into the nuclear industry is a dollar not spent on things that will deliver emissions cuts faster.
I think renewables will be a big part of the answer. They go up fast and can be expanded quickly. And wind is cheap and getting cheaper. It's definitely cheaper than all the natural gas plants they're putting up. I'll say it's a lot cheaper than nuclear, although people on this forum will disagree.
But by far the biggest answer will be in conservation. Recently on this forum, someone pointed out that conservation has only delivered small cuts. That's true, but there are two reasons for this:
1. We've made only feeble attempts to promote it, mostly as we approached a crisis such as transmission constraints.
2. Energy has been really cheap. You get an energy-efficient fridge and that just leaves you with enough money to buy an electric lawn mower. And ironically you don't even think about the lawn mower as you feel virtuous about your fridge.
These two conditions will not continue. It is my hope that they will not continue because we come to our senses and address global warming with appropriate carbon taxes or quotas or emissions caps or other hard measures that will drive down overall demand, not just increase efficiencies in individual appliances. But even if we're so stupid as to not address the climate crisis, oil and North American gas are both right around peak now. And as much coal as there is, it cannot realistically replace all the transportation fuel and home heating that oil and gas provide.
So energy will become more expensive and more rare. In economic terms, that's one and the same. And if we hit a crisis point, utilities are only too aware that the ONLY thing that can immediately meet the difference between supply and demand is conservation.
So where do I see nuclear fitting in? Not much, really. If the Energy Watch Group is correct, and I see no reason why they wouldn't be, there is a limited role for nuclear power anyway from a resource perspective. Again, I'm looking at it from the resource point of view, not from the energy needs. Supply rather than demand. If the supply just isn't there, prices will rise until demand falls. That's all there is to it.
I've said all along that I'm very sympathetic to the voices of people who say we need it all. When I'm talking to analysts who look at the total resource mix and scratch their heads and say "80-90% reductions in energy use are simply unavoidable", I'm extremely sympathetic to people who say "I'll take 80% instead of 90%, please". Just keep in mind when you're saying that, that nuclear is also finite, so we're pushing for a future not too far ahead when you'll have to do without it anyway. So the only way I can see the point of investing the time and money in technology that remains dangerous is with the recognition that this is an interim measure to ease the transition to a truly sustainable future.
I know about fusion. Like I said, it's not like we haven't had ample incentive to figure it out in the last 30 years. We haven't. At this stage, I think it would be wildly irresponsible to count on a high energy future. Hope for one? Sure. Continue building up our cities and industries counting on one? That's just stupid.
And then there's one other concerning aspect of nuclear power which has never been addressed in this forum. The nasty fact that it involves uranium mining. And the only way that uranium mining has been profitable is by leaving the tailings behind. Whole communities are left with radium and other crap in their water. The dust that's disturbed settles on agricultural lands. Cancer rates go up, deformities in children go up. This has been overwhelmingly imposed on first nations populations. In Canada, coincidentally, native lands are under federal jurisdiction, which happens to have much lower standards for radiation safety than any of the provincial standards. I have yet to see a plan where uranium mining is cleaned up. I have yet to see remediation plans that address existing messes from past uranium mines. Looking at the piles of tailings, it's hard to imagine. And I absolutely will not impose more mines on communities that derive little benefit from nuclear power unless we either figure out how to do it with a lot less impact or demonstrate that the resulting lack of power would cause far more widespread destruction.
