The Great Missed Opportunity of Nuclear Power

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. . . .

 

Sensible, sustainable nuclear power for Africa


Nuclear is most certainly a source of sustainable clean energy. At least seven African countries have signed agreements with Russian nuclear company Rosatom to develop nuclear capabilities. Small Modular Reactors…

 

We would have been better off simply because the environmentalist of the day championed all-natural coal over nuclear power in the same way that they champion "bio-fuels" today that would destroy the planet if imposed upon us today from their lofty perches.

 

A better way remains available.

Road to Climate Neutrality
Charles Rotter
“In addition to the energy sector, the climate debate also needs a transition. From ideology and wishful thinking, to facts, figures and rationality.”

 

Road to Climate Neutrality
Posted on February 8, 2021 by curryja | 35 comments
by Judith Curry

Spatial Requirements of Wind/Solar and Nuclear Energy and Their Respective Costs

“In addition to the energy sector, the climate debate also needs a transition. From ideology and wishful thinking, to facts, figures and rationality.”

Continue reading →
". . . Climate study advises EU to embark on a “Nuclear Renaissance” program

A new study on EU climate policy finds that it is practically impossible to generate sufficient energy with wind and solar energy as there is not enough available land to cover all electricity demand. The study, titled ’Road to EU Climate Neutrality by 2050’ advises the EU to embark on a “Nuclear Renaissance” programme in trying to achieve its climate objectives. . . ."

 

Well then, if nuclear is really so cheap, the free market should take care of it.

How's that working out? What's that? Nobody will touch it without massive government subsidies? Huh.

 

It has been advocacy-lawyered to death.

 

Democrats were activists in killing nuclear power. Ships in our own navy prove it is very safe and long lasting on vessels.

We have lost no Carriers nor Submarines due to nuclear power.

 

Your ignorance on this is hilarious, I happen to live right next door to a large Nuclear power plant, the ONLY one in the Pacific Northwest

LINK HERE

======

Jack is correct, the industry has been attacked so much by environmentalist's , it isn't viable economically to build new ones at this time.

 

The cold hard reality that nobody wants to talk about is that nuclear is the only way, as well as by far the safest way.

 

Nuclear power is a cross-cutting issue.
The Guardian Demands More Nuclear Power to Fight Climate Change, Slams Plant Closures
Eric Worrall
According to The Guardian, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Closure of Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant was a big step backwards in the battle to reduce CO2 emissions. . . .

 

The climate alarmists' agenda has trumped problem-solving.
Nuclear Power Not Welcome at COP26
Guest Blogger
“The nuclear industry provides most of the world’s CO2-free power, but is barred from UN IPCC meetings and even barred from the adjacent exhibit hall. Clearly UN IPCC does not…

 

The great work continues.
Lawrence Livermore Claims a Near Break Even Nuclear Fusion Burn
Eric Worrall
Inertial confinement fusion researchers have claimed a near break even experimental nuclear fusion burn, in which energy produced by the fusion reaction was comparable to the energy injected to initiate…

 

Nuclear power has come to Australia.
Australia Embraces Zero Carbon Nuclear Power for the First Time
Eric Worrall
Australia’s politicians have finally buckled on their blanket nuclear ban, in the face of Australia’s glaring strategic need for submarines capable of cutting four thousand mile ocean supply lines, in . . .

 

Better late than never.
Ghana, Turkey, Armenia Going Nuclear Because of Climate Change
Eric Worrall
The IAEA has written an enthusiastic report about nations embracing nuclear power to combat climate change. . . .

 

Will Asia lead a nuclear power renaissance?
Shift to Nuclear Brightens Asian Energy Future
Guest Blogger
This huge difference in the nuclear priorities of the East and the West may increase in the coming years as nuclear proponents face opposition from the climate collective — unless…

 

Not if you have the nuclear regulatory commission not allowing it.

Massive coal and natural gas subsidies are better?

 

Is there change on the horizon?
Finland’s Greens Welcome EU’s Classification Of Nuclear As “Sustainable”. Berlin “On The Wrong Track”
By P Gosselin on 12. January 2022

Share this...
While Germany recklessly continues to reject nuclear power – Finland welcomes it.

The parliamentary group leader of the Finnish Greens Atte Harjanne thinks EU classifying nuclear energy as a sustainable energy source is right and in WELT AM SONNTAG (WAMS) he explains why his party has dropped its anti-nuclear stance and why he thinks Germany is on the wrong track in terms of energy policy.



German Grafenrheinfeld nuclear power plant. Finnish Greens think Germany is on the wrong track shutting down nuclear power. Photo: Avda – own work, CC BY-SA 3.0 . . . .

 

Even wrong-headed people sometimes bow to the facts.
Climate worries galvanize a new pro-nuclear movement in the U.S.
By Evan Halper

 

A step forward.


World
Associated Press
Poland chooses US to build its first nuclear power plant

 

Wouldn't the same argument apply to green energy? How many TVs would sell with out massive tax credits, for instance? Can you name a single corporation willing to take on the cost and risk of large scale wind or solar facilities without help from Uncle Sam?

 

This is why renewables can never be the primary power source.

ERCOT renewable energy: reality check
Posted on October 31, 2022 by curryja | 34 comments
by Energy Meteorologist

A local example of the penetration problem for renewable energy in Texas

Continue reading →

". . . . Wind and solar are cheaper to build, but not when you take into account the overbuild and storage to fully serve the grid. When total costs are considered, nuclear power is the cheapest option while also having the smallest environmental footprint overall. . . . "

 

Well, no, given that fossil fuel and nuclear subsidies are so much bigger.

If the playing field was leveled, green energy would do even better.

 

"Leveled" so you want all the subsidies cut?

 

Nonsense.