Arguments
Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Posted on 13 June 2019 by scaddenp
Abbott 2011 and Abbott 2012 doesn’t think so but perhaps there are better analyses? For discussions of economics, levelized cost estimates of various electricity technologies can be found here and here.
Nuclear energy is quite commonly proposed as the solution to reducing GHG emissions. As soon as this gets raised on an article's comment thread, there has been a bad tendency for on-topic discussion to be completely derailed by proponents for and against.
We have repeatedly asked for nuclear proponents to provide an article for this site which puts the case based on published science but so far we haven't had a taker. The proposal would need to be reviewed by Sks volunteers. In lieu of such an article, this topic has been created where such discussions can take place.
However, in the absence of a proper article summarizing the science, stricter than normal moderation will be applied to ensure that all assertions made for or against are backed by references to published studies, preferably in peer-reviewed journals.
Update - October 2020
This post has been up for a little over a year now, and has received over 200 comments. Now seems like a good time to add some clarification.
First of all, the challenge to "nuclear proponents" to provide an article requires that the article "summarize the science". It is not the desire of Skeptical Science to provide a one-sided, pro-nuclear assertion. The expectation is that an article would provide a balanced review of all aspects of nuclear energy as a practical, affordable, realistic source of low-carbon energy.
If you think of yourself as a "nuclear advocate", then writing a balanced article will be difficult for you. This is not a place for "lawyers' science", where the role is to pick a side and pretend there is no other reasonable argument. This is not about winning an argument - it is about coming to a common understanding based on all the available evidence.
If you think that criticism of your position represents an "anti-nuclear bias", then writing a balanced article will be difficult for you.
If you think that you are the only one that truly understands nuclear energy, then you are probably wrong.
Review of any submitted article will not be at the level of a review of a professional journal article, but anyone submitting an article needs to be prepared to have their positions examined in detail for weaknesses, missing information, lack of support in the peer-reviewed literature, etc. If you find it tough to accept criticism in the comments thread, then you will not find review any gentler.
Keep in mind the following:
nuclear 1GW x80% capacity factor x80 years = 560,640GWh lifetime
solar 1GW x25% capacity factor x30 years = 67,500GWh lifetime
wind 1GW x45% capacity factor x35 years = 137,970 lifetime
A recent SKS article identified a report released in June 2025 "Beyond LCOE" "This report explains why LCOE fails to reflect the full complexity of electricity systems and can lead to decisions that jeopardize reliability, affordability, and clean generation."
Keep in mind that Lazard's LCOE reports have many factors that they don't examine, which Lazard themselves clearly acknowledge.See the bottom of page 7 in the 2025 report (it was page 8 in 2024) "Other factors would also have a potentially significant effect on the results contained herein, but have not been examined in the scope of this current analysis. These additional factors, among others, may include: implementation and interpretation of the full scope of the IRA; economic policy, transmission queue reform, network upgrades and other transmission matters, congestion, curtailment or other integration-related costs; permitting or other development costs, unless otherwise noted; and costs of complying with various environmental regulations (e.g., carbon emissions offsets or emissions control systems). This analysis is intended to represent a snapshot in time and utilizes a wide, but not exhaustive, sample set of Industry data. As such, we recognize and acknowledge the likelihood of results outside of our ranges. Therefore, this analysis is not a forecasting tool and should not be used as such, given the complexities of our evolving Industry, grid and resource needs. Except as illustratively sensitized herein, this analysis does not consider the intermittent nature of selected renewables energy technologies or the related grid impacts of incremental renewable energy deployment. This analysis also does not address potential social and environmental externalities, including, for example, the social costs and rate consequences for those who cannot afford distributed generation solutions, as well as the long-term residual and societal consequences of various conventional generation technologies that are difficult to measure (e.g., airborne pollutants, greenhouse gases, etc.)"
[BL] Keep in mind that moderators here can delete everything and anything, and rescind your posting privileges.
Constantly shifting goal posts and repeating yourself will only lead to one place.
Responding to David-acct's off topic comment here:
Your claim that the data from your linked site does not support my statement that French nuclear power plants do not shut down is false on its face.
This data showed that reactors were shut down on the weekend:
date time Power MW
8/10 2:45 31645 Thursday 2023
8/10 13:45 30424
8/5 4:15 28489 Saturday 2023
8/5 16:15 25548
On Saturday at 16::15 6,097 MW less power was generated than on Thursday at 2:45. On 8/14/2023 I posed these questions to you:
"Several question about this raw data occured to me.
1) You state clearly that the data shows no nuclear power stations were shut down. Please explain why the power generated on the weekend is so much less than the power generated on Thursday. How does this show that no power stations were shut down over the weekend? It appears to me that about 6 of 31 power stations (20%) were turned off.
2) On both days they are generating more power at night when power is generated at a loss than they are generating during the day when the price of electricity is much higher. Can you explain why the "always on" nuclear plants generate less power during the most expensive part of the day than they do when electricity is cheapest?
This example proves beyond doubt that examining cherry picked factoids without any analysis is a complete waste of time. Please do not cite raw data any more. You need to cite analysis of data that filter out gross errors."
You refused to answer and stopped posting at SkS for several months. Please answer those questions now.
Looking at the French power link again I found this data for the weekend of August 2 (Saturday) and August 4 2025 (Monday).
date time Power MW
8/2 05:00 39717
8/2 14:15 25091
8/4 04:00 39722
8/4 13:45 24128
On this weekend reactors were shut off during the day. On 8/4 15 MW less power was being generated at 13:45 than at 04:00. Please explain why so many reactors were turned off. Other posters have suggested that they might shut down the reactors because there is not enough cooling water or because they cannot compete with cheaper solar power. In any case, the reactors are turned off since no one wants to purchase their power.
I note that since France has 63 GW of nuclear power the highest capacity factor last weekend was 63% and the lowest was 38%.
If they wasted the nuclear power by turning down the power output that counts as shut down. We cannot tell from the data if 15 reactors were shut off or if 30 reactors were run at half power.
I note that you said here "It would seem the cost of doing so would be prohibitive given the costs of restarts,"
I found this on Bloomburg French power slumps as surging renewables push out atomic plants which suggests that nuclear plants cannot compete with renewables even when they are owned by the government.
I do not care if you are not skilled enough to find resources that state France does not shut down reactors on the weekends. I linked a site that specifically stated that plants close on weekends and provided data (from your link) that showed without doubt that several reactors were closed on the weekend.
Apparently now they are shut down on sunny and/or windy days, in addition to weekends, because they cannot compete with cheaper renewables.
The most recent report by the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (Nista) in England has concluded:
"Plans to dispose of the UK’s high-level nuclear waste in an underground repository – a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) – have been described as “unachievable” by a Treasury unit."
While nuclear supporters claim that it is simple to build underground storage facilities for high level nuclear waste it is proving difficult in practice. The USA currently has no proposed facilities. The current practice world wide is to store the waste in temporary casks on the grounds of existing reactors. Sometimes the waste is moved to another site.
Apparently FInland has a repoisitory near completion and Sweden has just started building a repository expected to begin taking waste in about 2040.
I have been reading this blog and it seems decent quality. I think that nuclear energy can used side by side renewable energy sources like wind and solar. That until we get the massive grid storage needed for all renewables that we can replace brown coal with nuclear at least in the short run.
I am not pro nor anti-nuclear, I just want to understand the topic better.
Pollution Monster,
Your blog is dated 2019. It is now out of date. Like many blogs, it contains many mistatements of facts, cherry picked numbers and deliberate lies. I recommend you read Jacobson et al 2022 which addresses all the issues with renewable energy raised in the blog and shows renewable energy is much cheaper than any other technology. Jacobson uses only existing technology to generate all world energy.
Abbott 2012, linked in the OP, lists about 13 reasons why nuclear will never be capable of generating a significant amount of power. Nuclear supporters have never addressed these issues. To me, the most important issue is there is not enough uranium to generate more than about 5% of all power
Since 2019 renewable energy and especially battery storage have dramatically decreased in cost. This solves the main issues the linked blog has with renewables.
Nuclear power is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium.
Thanks for the quick response. I will let the author know since he is still posting as if his 2019 assertions are correct. I couldn't find the Jacobson 2022, got too many off topic search results. I did read the Abbott 2012.
Sorry about posting a link with so many flaws.
PollutionMonster @456,
I'd assume the paper mentioned @455 is Jacobson et al (2022) 'Low-cost solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy insecurity for 145 countries'.
I read the links provided and I am still not 100% sure who is correct. The author of the blog posted a new post again promoting nuclear as part of the solution along side renewables.
Nuclear and renewables?
I see this as a puzzle I am trying to figure out. Basically the author still makes many references to nuclear while also promoting many renenwables including solar. Seeing nuclear, geothermal, and hydroelectric as a stepping stone before we go to fully renewable.
So who is right? Do we eliminate nuclear entirely or do we use nuclear as a stepping stone until we can go fully nuclear?
Thanks for your time and energy in advance.
PollutionMonster @ 458:
Expecting to be "100% sure" is an impossible goal.
Reading over that link you provide, I see a few unqualified assumptions:
So, I see that blog post as yet another marketing presentation, rather than evidence that nuclear provides a quick and reliable way of adding energy to the grid. It's an opinion piece, not a rigorous analysis.
Regarding PollutionMonster’s comment @454, and the comments since then, I add the following comment with related recent news items related to the context of my earlier comments @450, @428, @413:
The Trump administration exempts new nuclear reactors from environmental review, NPR, Geoff Brumfiel, Feb 2, 2026.
The Trump administration has secretly rewritten nuclear safety rules, NPR, Geoff Brumfiel, Jan 28, 2026.
Trump's rush to build nuclear reactors across the U.S. raises safety worries, NPR, Geoff Brumfiel, Dec 17, 2025.
It appears that some people who made significant bad bets (investments) trying to develop small modular nuclear reactors have gotten the USA leadership-of-the-moment to weaken developed requirements requirements for evaluation and understanding of the risks and harms of new nuclear reactors.
The people who placed those losing bets appear to understand that the new nuclear systems being developed would be more expensive than the renewable alternatives if they had to be as safe and publicly well understood as the developed requirements for nuclear power plants would require.
One tragic argument in favour of small modular nuclear power plants is that the magnitude of the harm is limited because the plants are smaller than the large scale plants. The (il)logic appears to be that the damage done by a small nuclear plant would be less than the damage done by a large nuclear plant … therefore smaller plants can be riskier and be more harmful per unit of power generated than a large one.
The reality will be that the risks and harm of these new small modular nuclear reactors will become known after there are many of them in use. And, after the attempts to limit public awareness of the risk and harm, it will likely be argued that correcting what has been developed will be 'too harmful'. After all, it is unlikely that the powerful people pushing for benefits from the harmful unsustainable activity will suffer significant harm.
I will repeat the closing part of my comment @450 (with its pointing back to my comment @428):
Also, in the future, any energy system that is unsustainable will be unable to be continued. Unsustainable activities either use up non-renewable resources or produce accumulating harm. Nuclear power systems consume non-renewable resources and produce accumulating harm.
Therefore, no future energy system will include nuclear power generation. And since it is also a very costly way of generating electricity it should be unpopular.
However, humans have a tragic history of regionally developing popular support for harmful costly misunderstandings, as I implied in my comment @428.
Pollytion Monster:
Perhaps you do not understand the scientific method. Scientists spend much time measuring and experimenting to learn new information. Then several experts write a paper about what they have learned. They submit the paper to a scientific journal where an editor who knows about the subject finds several unbiased experts who review the article for errors. Then the article is published. An article is not necessarily correct, but it has been written by experts and screened for errors.
Your blog post is written by a neurosurgeon who claims no experience in energy systems. It accepts nuclear industry propaganda as fact. Bob Loblaw has identified several serious errors in it. There are more errors that he did not bother to point out.
If your doctor tells you that you need surgery do you ask your barber whether you really need it?
The comments policy at Skeptical Science asks for strong references to support your position. Most blogs do not count. Your blog does not address the issues raised in Abbott 2012.
For example, there is not enough uranium to generate a significant amount of world power. Money spent on nuclear is wasted, it should be used to build out renewable energy.
Read the rest of the posts in this thread, all of your questions have been addressed.
Nuclear power is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium.
Sorry for the typo in yiur name, my phone is correcting my typing.
@michael sweet 455
"To me, the most important issue is there is not enough uranium to generate more than about 5% of all power To me, the most important issue is there is not enough uranium to generate more than about 5% of all power"
Nuclear enegy already generates 9% of all power. Where are you getting the 5% number?
Nuclear 9% from 440 reactors
No problem about the typo.
"The comments policy at Skeptical Science asks for strong references to support your position. Most blogs do not count."
Ok, still kind of new here thanks for pointing this out, I just looked over the comments policy didn't see that. I do understand the scientific method, but I am new to the entire nuclear angle of climate change. I plan for this to be my last comment here for a while until I read your previous comments as suggested, been busy at work so may take awhile.
Pollution Monster:
In your own link, the statement is that "Nuclear energy now provides about 9% of the world's electricity..." [emphasis added]. The world uses a lot of energy in forms other than electricity (Michael's "all power"). Beware the denominator.
As for the comments policy, there are two relevant statements:
Although those sections are not a "thou shalt under all circumstances" rule, there is an expectation that opinions expressed here need to have more evidence and support that just a reference to another opinion.
Pollution Monster,
It appears that you posted at your link asking how they made their conclusions. Questioning people is a good way to learn.
At your link they claimed that I used motivated reasoning to skew data and conclude nuclear cannot generate more than 5% of all power and pointed out that nuclear currently generates 9% of electricity. Another poster pointed out that electricity is only 20% of all power. 9% of electricity is only 2% of all power. Who is using motivated reasoning?
This shows me several points:
1) The OP did not read Abbott 2012. Nuclear supporters generally do not do their homework.
2) The OP does not know what all power is. They do not even know the basic vocabulary of energy systems. Nuclear supporters do not discuss all power since it is obvious that nuclear cannot provide a significant fraction.
3) Most nuclear posters do not know much beyond nuclear industry propaganda.
There is no data showing modular reactors are safer. Upthread I link a report from a national nuclear regulator (French I think) stating this fact. Modular reactors produce more radioactive waste than conventional reactors. Cost will probably be higher. Links upthread.
In 2006 modular reactor designers said they would have running reactors in 2020. Few have even a design now, much less an approved design. When will their designs be ready? Why should I think they will be built faster when nuclear designers have promised faster, cheaper builds for Fifty Years and not delivered on their promises?
Bob Loblaw and I have followed nuclear for a long time. Nuclear designers are very long on promises with very few successes.
Nuclear is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium
Thank you for continuing the discussion. I have read the previous comments. Let's talk about Abbott 2012.
"What this means is that the industry would only have to increase its mining costs by 30 percent in order to increase the amount of accessible uranium for fueling conventional nuclear reactors by sixtyfold" Abbott 2012
If I understand correctly this means there is plenty of uranium. Sixtyfold would be more than enough uranium to get us through the next 50 years for a nuclear realist point of view about 20% of all electrcity.
Pollution Monster,
I do not think that you understand the quoted section of the paper correctly. In that portion of the paper Abbott is arguing that breeder reactors will not be practical. He points out that breeder reactors are even more complex and expensive than conventional reactors. The breeding of fuel does not make up for the extra complexity . I note that there are currently no reactors running world wide that breed fuel. Upthread RitchieB1234, a nuclear engineer, stated that the US Nuclear Reguatory Agency thinks breeders are not practical.
Abbott says:
"The World Nuclear Association (2011) conservatively projects 80 years of economically extractable uranium at the current rate of consumption using conventional reactors. The 2010 figure for installed nuclear capacity worldwide is 375 gigawatts. If this were to be scaled up to 15 terawatts, the 80-year uranium supply would last less than five years." my emphasis.
After the ecconomical supply of uranium is extracted there is no remaining ore that is worth mining. If nuclear generated 10% of All Power the uranium would run out in 50 years, way before the claimed life of the reactors. Nuclear supporters hope that more uranium can be found.
Think it through: if there was enough uranium, nuclear engineers would not be talking about extracting uranium from the ocean (which Abbott shows takes more energy than you get from the uranium) and extremely complex breeder reactors which are difficult to build and run.
In addition, Abbott lists 9 other reasons why nuclear reactors cannot provide a significant amount of power. Abbott does not even list that reactors take too long to build and are too expensive. Nuclear supporters have never attempted to respond to these reasons.
I note on your favored blog site that you are sympathetic to their unsupported arguments. Abbott 2012 is a peer reviewed paper. Your blog is written by someone who does not even understand the basic vocabulary of energy systems and appears to not know that proposed renewable systems provide All World Power. Who seems like a more reliable source of information?
Jacobson et al 2022, linked above, describes a system to provide All World Power. Electricity, heating, transportation, trucks, agriculture, industry and any other energy requiring activity. Your blog discusses nuclear providing 20% of current electricity. To be frank, that discussion was resolved in 2010. If nuclear could provide 20% of current electricity in 2050 it would be less than 4% of the energy that Jacobson's system would provide.
In addition, nuclear energy does not add to renewable energy well. A mostly renewable system requres backup that can provide more than 10% of daily power on the days it needs backup. Most of the time there is extra power being stored for the occasional slow days. Nuclear plants cannot provide cheap power to store for the slow days.
Nuclear is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium.
A followup to my comment @460,
The US leadership-of-the-moment’s push to deploy massive amounts of small nuclear reactors without rigorous proof that it will be safe continues as described in the following report:
US military airlifts small reactor as Trump pushes to quickly deploy nuclear power, reported in NPR, by Associated Press, Feb 21, 2028.
This is an example of misleading marketing abused by gamblers (inventor/investors) who will try to harmfully maximize their benefit from potentially bad bets (or bad ideas). The harm will be discovered in the future (because the innovator is not required to rigorously investigate potential for harm). And it is likely that the promoters of the ‘innovation’ will obtain benefits that cannot be taken away from them in the future when the harm they benefited from causing becomes undeniable – like the fossil fuel climate impact issue.
Selected quotes from the article:
Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Undersecretary of Defense Michael Duffey, who traveled with the privately built reactor, hailed the Feb. 15 trip on a C-17 military aircraft as a breakthrough for U.S. efforts to fast-track commercial licensing for the microreactors, part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to reshape the country's energy landscape.
...
Skeptics warn that nuclear energy poses risks and say microreactors may not be safe or feasible and have not proved they can meet demand for a reasonable price.
Wright brushed those concerns aside as he touted progress on Trump's push for a quick escalation of nuclear power. Trump signed a series of executive orders last year that allow Wright to approve some advanced reactor designs and projects, taking authority away from the independent safety agency that has regulated the U.S. nuclear industry for five decades.
...
The minivan-sized reactor transported by the military is one of at least three that will reach "criticality" — when a nuclear reaction can sustain an ongoing series of reactions — by July 4, as Trump has promised, Wright said.
"That's speed, that's innovation, that's the start of a nuclear renaissance," he said.
...
Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the transport flight — which included a throng of reporters, photographers and TV news crews — was little more than "a dog-and-pony show" that merely demonstrated the Pentagon's ability to ship a piece of heavy equipment.
The flight "doesn't answer any questions about whether the project is feasible, economic, workable or safe — for the military and the public," Lyman said in an interview.
Rapid scale-up to power AI data centres could see 1000s of these ‘potential disasters’ in operation by 2030. The expected global power demand for AI data centres by 2030 is over 1000 TWh. Assuming a 5 MW generator, like the one reported to have been shipped by the military on Feb 15, 2026, operates at full power 24 hrs a day every day it would produce 5 x 24 x 365 = 43,800 MWh = 0.0438 TWh. (Also note that a typical AI data centre requiring 100 MW would need twenty 5 MW generators).
Poorly regulated, unrestricted, innovation in pursuit of personal benefit has a history of producing harmful results that Others have to deal with. New Nuclear appears to be rapidly becoming a New Future Disaster promoted by Master Misleading Marketers.
"It can also be argued that nuclear power has a key role to play in meeting emissions targets (Brook, 2012) for mitigating climate change" Abott 2012
The above quote shows that nuclear power can be arguged to help with emission targets.
The weakness with peer reviewed articles is they are technical and difficult to understand. I have seen people claim many peer reviewed articles support their claims and the opposite be true. It is easy to misunderstand.
As for uranium and the blog, both you and them are quoting the same peer reviewed article and coming to different conclusions. Sks is a blog within itself.
Personally, I am confused, I don't know if there is enough uranimum or not and I am just trying to figure this out. As for the answer I desire, I want the answer to be renewables. I don't want to have to pay extra money for nuclear let alone the risk of a meltdown. I personally had to pay the highest price in the country from PECO energy because of nuclear.
Nuclear is not cost competitive according to this article.
Nuclear too expensive to matter
This is an update on my previous comments regarding the Trump-led government efforts to speed-up and reduce the costs of 'New small scale nuclear power plants'.
There is a new news item: Secretly rewritten nuclear safety rules are made public, NPR, Geoff Brumfiel, Feb 26, 2026.
The following quote reinforces the understanding that 'compromising safety - increasing harm done or risk of harm' is to be expected from the Trump-led government-of-the-moment ... as long as the right people benefit and the people the likes of Trump don't care about are most likely to be harmed.
The rule changes came about after President Trump signed an executive order calling for three or more of the experimental reactors to come online by July 4 of this year — an incredibly tight deadline in the world of nuclear power [likely to result in more harm and more risk of harm]. The order led to the creation of a new Reactor Pilot Program at the Department of Energy.
People who made bad bets on developing new nuclear power plants should not be 'rewarded'. But rewarding harmful bad-bet-makers is at the core of Trump's "Art of the Deal".
My last link in 469 was an editorial. I have done some more research. I think nuclear versus renewable has taken too much of the front stage. We should focus on decaboninzation.
"Overall, the findings support the role of nuclear energy in achieving global decarbonization targets, provided that safety, equity, and environmental responsibility are upheld."
nuclear energy decarboninzation.
This is a peer reviewed article from 2025 that explicity says nuclear can helpo us meet emissions targets, Abott 2012 is a bit dated and the author admits that nuclear can arguably be used to address climate change.
Each energy source has its own strengths and weakness. For example, wind is low during heatwaves. Wind turbines are also dangerous to fix and workers have died from falling. Hydroelectric dams can break causing many deaths, take for example the Banqiao Dam failure. Nuclear killed zero people in contrast in 2025.
As for the cost of nuclear there is red tape driving up consturction cost and time. Like renenwables most of the cost for nuclear is in the construction.
Red tape nuclear power construction cost and time
The problem with nuclear is not a technological problem, but a regulatorary problem. We shouldn't be arguing we should be trying to phase out fossil fuels which kill many via air pollution.
[BL] Link fixed, as per following comment
Sorry broken link for first link, no way to edit.
Nuclear energy decarboninzation.
[BL] The site does not provide any editing features for regular users once you submit a comment. Typos, spelling errors, grammar, broken links, etc. are preserved in perpetuity. It's up to the user to check before clicking on "Submit".
Pollution Monster:
Your reference Nuclear Energy Decarbonization seems to me to be simply a regurgitation of nuclear industry propaganda. It has too many false claims for me to begin to list them all. For example it claims:
"For example, in hybrid systems for island economies such as the Canary Islands, SMRs have proven to be a viable solution, achieving competitive levelized costs of electricity (LCOE) ranging from EUR 46 to EUR 84/MWh when integrated with renewables and hydrogen production." my emphasis
How can they possibly have "proven" that SMRs can do anything when no designs for non military SMRs have been approved and none have been built? This is just accepting industry propaganda. Renewable energy costs less that EUR 40 today.
Later they say:
"Finally, there are structural and economic limitations that challenge the sustainability of nuclear energy. The inherent risk of nuclear safety is so high that coverage in free markets is unfeasible without state subsidies, which undermines the principles of just sustainability and intergenerational responsibility. Moreover, the full life cycle of the technology (from uranium mining to plant decommissioning and waste management) entails an emissions footprint and environmental impacts that contradict its claimed climate benefits. In the face of increasingly competitive and safer renewable technologies, the continued relevance of the nuclear sector demands radical transformations in its governance and a structural reduction in risk in order for it to be considered a truly sustainable option." my emphasis
So I should accept an industry that is so risky they cannot provide insurance for their accidents and taxpayers will have to pay to clean up their mistakes? While they take all the profits?
They cite an economic analysis that claims nuclear is cost and materials effective compared to solar and wind that was published in 2007 (their ref 110)? Do you realize that the cost and materials of solar and wind have declined immensely since 2007 while nuclear has increased in cost? It is dishonest to use completely outdated information when up to date information is readily available.
The journal Processes does not seem to me to be a good place for an analysis of energy when many other more suitable journals exist.
You are selectively quoting Abbott 2012. He says "It can also be argued" not that he supports that opinion. Obviously your cite makes that argument. In Abbott's conclusion he states:
"There are fundamental engineering and resource limits that make the notion of a nuclear utopia impractical. It can be argued [Abbott does not agree with this argument] that a nuclear nirvana supplemented by renewables may mitigate the need to reach 15 terawatts by nuclear alone (Manheimer, 2006). However, a reduced goal of several terawatts of nuclear power would still run into many of the limitations described above. Even for a more modest goal of 1 terawatt, one only has to divide the numbers above by 15 to see that a single terawatt still stretches resources and risks considerably." my emphasis
Nuclear supporters have never responded to Abbott. They cannot now claim that his objections are null because they have not countered them.
Keep reading about renewable power. In the last day more renewable energy was installed than nuclear in the last year. Don't believe all the nuclear propaganda that nuclear supporters accept as gospel. Remember that SMR developers promised in 2006 that they would have running reactors by 2020. It is impossible for them to manufacture significant numbers of reactors before 2040. Renewable energy will generate all current electricity and transportation by then. Nuclear cannot compete on price.
With the war in Iran showing how economically risky fossil fuels are many countries are increasiing their uptake of renewables to protect their economies.
Nuclear power is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium.
@Pollution Monster #471:
You state: "The problem with nuclear is not a technological problem, but a regulatorary problem."
Do you regard the proper disposition of the nuclear waste to be a regulatory problem? If so, should this particular problem be resolved prior to the "go-ahead" for the construction of a new nuclear power plant?
PollutionMonster @471,
The end quote from the abstract of the peer reviewed article in your “nuclear energy decarboninzation.” link (the quote above the link), correctly indicates the need to maintain and improve safety, equity and environmental protection.
As indicated by the series of NPR articles I pointed to in my comments @ 460, 468 and 470 the US leadership-of-the-moment has likely reduced the safety, equity, and environmental protection related to nuclear power systems.
Your brief statement comparing safety of different energy systems ending with “...Nuclear killed zero people in contrast in 2025.” is an absurdly simplistic comparison of harms and risk of harm.
The IFP article (Institute for Progress) you linked to with the rather bizarre wording ‘Red tape nuclear power construction cost and time’ does not say what you seem to believe it says. Did you read the entire article? The opening statements of IFP article are misleading. You have to read quite far into the article to see important details that are not mentioned in the opening statements.
The opening statements are:
Nuclear plant construction is often characterized as exhibiting “negative learning.” That is, instead of getting better at building plants over time, we’re getting worse. Plants have gotten radically more expensive, even as technology has improved and we understand the underlying science better. [This statement is made in spite of the detailed content of the article explaining that many reasonable factors, including important updating of safety requirements, are the reason for the cost increase.]
Nuclear power currently makes up slightly less than 20% of the total electricity produced in the U.S., largely from plants built in the 1970s and 80s. People are often enthusiastic about nuclear power because of its potential to decarbonize electricity production, produce electricity extremely cheaply [that is a blatant misleading statement] and reduce the risk of grid disruption from weather events [this ignores the reality that designing and constructing nuclear power systems for the potential risks of weather events is part of the ‘high cost of nuclear power’, unless regulations do not require those concerns to be investigated and addressed]
But U.S. nuclear power has been hampered by steady and dramatic increases in plant construction costs, frequently over the life of a single project [later explained to be due to new understandings of safety problems that had not been identified and adequately addressed before construction of the system had begun].
…
Constructing cooling systems that can continue to operate in a damaged plant contributes heavily to nuclear construction costs.
Also buried later is the following: “Rising labor costs are the bulk of increased construction costs”.
Much further into the article is the following:
“One key indicator of regulatory standards, the number of Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) “regulatory guides” stipulating acceptable design and construction practices for reactor systems and equipment, grew almost seven-fold, from 21 in 1971 to 143 in 1978. Professional engineering societies developed new nuclear standards at an even faster rate (often in anticipation of AEC and NRC). These led to more stringent (and costly) manufacturing, testing, and performance criteria for structural materials such as concrete and steel, and for basic components such as valves, pumps, and cables. [sounds like the original plans were inadequate and unsafe]
Requirements such as these had a profound effect on nuclear plants during the 1970s. Major structures were strengthened and pipe restraints added to absorb seismic shocks and other postulated “loads” identified in accident analyses. Barriers were installed and distances increased to prevent fires, flooding, and other “common-mode” accidents from incapacitating both primary and back-up groups of vital equipment. Similar measures were taken to shield equipment from high-speed missile fragments that might be loosed from rotating machinery or from the pressure and fluid effects of possible pipe ruptures. Instrumentation, control, and power systems were expanded to monitor more plant factors under a broadened range of operating situations and to improve the reliability of safety systems. Components deemed important to safety were “qualified” to perform under more demanding conditions, requiring more rigorous fabrication, testing, and documentation of their manufacturing history. [all this is justified ‘increased costs’ that raise valid questions about pushes to get cheaper ‘new nuclear now’]
Over the course of the 1970s, these changes approximately doubled the amounts of materials, equipment, and labor and tripled the design engineering effort required per unit of nuclear capacity, according to the Atomic Industrial Forum.”
… [still much later in the article]
Some regulatory increase wasn’t necessarily unreasonable. Early safety requirements for nuclear plants often overlooked critical risks. For instance, prior to the proposed power plant at Bodega Bay near the San Andreas fault, seismic activity had not been considered in the design of nuclear plants. Subsequent analysis revealed that the potential for severe seismic events was much more widespread than had previously been thought. Similarly, tornado design requirements weren’t created until an application to construct a plant in a high tornado area revealed that tornado risk was much more widespread than had been assumed. When accident risk was considered, it was often analyzed incorrectly. A reactor meltdown was thought to be an astonishingly unlikely accident, yet Three Mile Island experienced one after relatively few reactor-years of operation.
Regulations constantly change
In response to learning more about how nuclear reactors could fail, the NRC’s regulatory stance became a deterministic, defense-in-depth approach – the NRC imagined specific failure modes, and specific ways of preventing them, and then tried to layer several redundant systems atop each other to compensate for uncertainty. Whenever something new was learned about potential failure modes, the regulations were changed.
These changes applied not only to future plants, but often to plants under construction. In some cases existing work had to be removed, requiring intervention and oversight from design engineers, managers, field inspectors, and other expensive personnel. This became another major source of increased costs.
... [a little further along]
To minimize the likelihood of cost overrun, plants should be built using mature designs that don’t need to be changed during the construction process. In construction of the French reactor fleet, for instance, the CEO of the French utility company EDF noted that during plant construction “Whenever an engineer had an interesting or even genius [improvement] idea either in-house or at Framatome, we said: OK, put it on file, this will be for the next series, but right now, we change nothing.” [however, if an engineer raises a new safety related concern it should be rigorously evaluated and adequately addressed]
By building multiple reactors using an unchanging design, the benefits of learning-by-doing can be unlocked. In the French reactor fleet, though costs increased whenever a new reactor type was introduced, later plants using a given reactor design tended to be cheaper than earlier plants. Similarly, the 4th unit built at the UAE’s Barakah plant was 50% cheaper than the 1st unit.
…
However, it’s not impossible to deliver nuclear plants in reasonable amounts of time for a reasonable budget. We have a playbook for improving this process. By using mature plant designs that can be built repeatedly, learning-by-doing gains can be achieved, making each plant built cheaper than the last. By developing and maintaining a robust nuclear supply chain with the necessary expertise and experience, we can ensure we don’t lose the ability to deliver plants in the future. By stabilizing regulations, making them clear, and making changes to them predictable, we can prevent cost overruns associated with expensive and time-consuming on-site rework.
But we should be realistic about what this playbook might achieve. Public concern about nuclear accidents likely makes any significant reduction in plant safety requirements untenable. Experience with the Navy’s nuclear program suggests that even by following the above playbook, building a nuclear plant to the level of safety required is a fundamentally expensive undertaking. Truly moving the needle on nuclear power might require a ground-up rethinking of how we build plants, towards things like small modular reactors or nuclear plants built in shipyards in large numbers and floated into position along the coast.
Note that the key understanding to avoid cost increases regarding nuclear power plants is having a ‘mature design’. That means having thorough updating to be confident of safety systems and environmental protection. That means ‘lots of time required before embarking on the building of a new nuclear system and the understanding that any newly identified safety concerns need to be properly evaluated and addressed even if that delays or increases the cost of construction or requires a shut-down of operations if the safety concern is discovered after the item is in operation.
Also note that a modular nuclear system design would need to be adequately safe in all possible worst conditions of all possible installation locations.
The prerequisites for success of small modular reactors is acceptance of the reality that they will be higher cost, potentially higher cost per unit of generated and delivered electricity than renewables with battery back-up. That revises the question for discussion to be “Why is effort being wasted on the promotion and development of more expensive electricity generating alternatives?”
And the lack of transparency by the Trump administration suggests that reduced safety, increased harmfulness and increased risk of harm, is being secretly pursued because it will reward the people who made bad bets on ‘developing small modular reactors’.
Things will indeed be quicker and cheaper if the harmfulness or the risk of harm is allowed to be increased. But that only proves the unacceptability of allowing potential benefits for a few people to justify increased harm or risk of harm to Others. This would only be OK if the only people negatively affected by the reduced safety would be the people who profit from the less safe item.
Additional points regarding my @475 response to PollutiionMonster:
The following points are based upon my expertise as a Professional Structural Engineer knowledgeable regarding dynamic design requirements such as seismic design, design for vibrating forces, and design for blast forces and missile penetration.
The IFP article (Institute for Progress) is a ‘questionable presentation of opinions’ by people who lack expertise. Their statements may ‘sound reasonable’ but are not.
An example of the ‘questionable presentation of opinions’ is the following part of the quotes I included in my previous comment:
Some regulatory increase wasn’t necessarily unreasonable.
I bolded the word Some for a reason. Using the word Some at this point in the article implies that later presented opinions would be examples of regulations that are not reasonable. Later in the article the following ‘questionable presentations of opinion’ get made:
Quote 1
In addition to generating substantial increases in labor costs, regulations also influence the direct costs of nuclear plant construction via QA/QC requirements. Plant components require extensive testing and verification to ensure they’ll continue to function even after extreme accidents. This often takes the form of carefully recording what happens to every component at each step of the manufacturing and construction process, to ensure the correct part with precise performance characteristics is put in the right place.
This sort of documentation can be extremely burdensome to create. For example, here’s a description of QA requirements during the construction of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, via Komonoff again:
“Simple field changes to avoid physical interference between components (which would be made in a conventional plant in the normal course of work) had to be documented as an interference, referred to the engineer for evaluation, prepared on a drawing, approved, and then released to the field before the change could be made. Furthermore, the conflict had to be tagged, identified and records maintained during the change process. These change processes took time (days or weeks) and there were thousands of them. In the interim the construction crew must move off of this piece of work, set up on another and then move back and set up on the original piece of work again when the nonconformance was resolved…
The incorrect implication is that the people doing the construction are intimately familiar with the design to the point of being experts at determining what are ‘simple changes they can make and how they can make them’. And the statement “(which would be made in a conventional plant in the normal course of work)” is a potentially dangerously misleading “opinion”. I have worked as a ‘construction engineer’. In that role I did indeed design and approve ‘field changes’. But I always contacted the original designers when I was, as a ‘knowledgeable expert’, not absolutely certain that I understood and could determine the acceptability of the ‘field change’.
Quote 2
Nuclear-grade components don’t necessarily have higher performance requirements than conventional components. Reinforcing steel in nuclear-grade concrete, for instance, is the same material used in conventional concrete. Instead, the additional cost often comes from the additional documentation and testing required.
There actually are important differences in the available reinforcing steel for concrete structures. An important difference is that reinforcing bars with the same ‘yield strength’ can be ‘more brittle’ or ‘more ductile’. And seismic, vibrating, and blast resistant structure performance requires the reinforcing to be ‘certain to be the ‘more ductile’ type. Also, the more ductile reinforcing is less likely to have micro-cracks formed when it is being bent into the shapes required. And micro-cracks increase the likelihood of corrosion failure. Note that the more ductile and more brittle reinforcing bars look almost identical. And in some cases there are producers, and buyers/constructors, who would attempt to get away with misleadingly selling/buying/installing the ‘more brittle’ bars including false documentation claiming the material is ‘more ductile’ bars. This problem also applies to seismic steel structures, not just nuclear plants, where the ‘more ductile steel and fastening bolts’ is critical to the performance.
Quote 3. The article includes the following questionable statement:
Some experts think these QA/QC requirements and their downstream market effects are the prime reason for high nuclear construction costs:
This is potentially a very questionable use of “Some” “experts” and “think” to imply that the “QA/QC requirements” are excessive or unnecessary.
It is like the claims that: Some experts think climate science is incorrect and that the ‘implied’ restrictions of freedoms and forced changes to developed desired ways of living are ‘fraudulent - all a Big Lie – a communist plot’.
Additional points regarding one of my points @476:
When I was a field engineer every alteration, change, of the issued design that I was involved in was rigorously recorded including the record that I was taking responsibility for the ‘change’. I made sure that the record was complete clear and accurate. And I expected the same from others who were ‘field engineers’ for items I was responsible for the original detailed design of.
Also, I was involved in investigating the failure of parts of a civil/structural system to perform adequately, including out-right failures. In some cases there was evidence that the item had not been ‘constructed in accordance with the design’ but there was no record of who was responsible for the ‘change’.
Some people thrive on ‘plausible deniability’ to get away with unacceptable behavior. Reduced regulation is a gateway to ‘increased plausible deniability’.