I find it quizzical that in all the suddenly revived talk about nuclear as an alternative solution to the emerging energy supply problems ahead, 2 key issues that have always been issues in the nuclear power debate seem to be ignored in the current hoo ha:
First, I don't see how the politics of nuclear power have changed lately. Anyone w…
I find it quizzical that in all the suddenly revived talk about nuclear as an alternative solution to the emerging energy supply problems ahead, 2 key issues that have always been issues in the nuclear power debate seem to be ignored in the current hoo ha:
First, I don't see how the politics of nuclear power have changed lately. Anyone want a nuclear power station built in their area? Didn't think so.
So the politicians can talk all they want about it, I can’t see it actually get off the ground. I expect the politicians will blow hot area about it in the immediate term, but more to be “seen to be doing something”, than actually achieving anything practically viable.
“Reactivating” mothballed plants may be viable, as in the case of Germany, but in other countries the “not in my neighbourhood” rule at the voting booth will determine any actual action (or lack thereof).
Of course, soaring energy prices may change that political dynamic. How would you feel about a new nuclear power plant if it wasn’t in your neighbourhood & your power bill was 3 times higher a year from now & power price driven inflation was 5%+ on everything from food to clothing to consumer goods? You’d do the math. And so will the politicians – they’ll give up the votes lost in the areas affected, if they can win the votes elsewhere.
Secondly, is nuclear really "green" energy solution in practicality? Yes, nuclear power doesn’t produce greenhouse gases, but is does produce nuclear radioactive waste. My memory is that the nuclear waste issue is a real & significant one. Has that problem just magically gone away now?
So the talk about a “nuclear solution” just seems to me to be more “kicking the can down the road” on an important environmental issue. Well, that does fit perfectly with the political dynamics of the day, so I expect the politicians will try & latch onto that talking point with enthusiasm.
Sadly, I can see us dealing with a nuclear waste crisis 10 years from now. So when we talk about building a new nuclear power station, lets also talk about building a new nuclear waste disposal site. Lets see how voters like a nuclear waste plant in their neighbourhood.
To: Just The Facts: Your well-thought-out commentary on the current prospects for nuclear energy (NE), deserves further reflection. May I add my grain of salt.
1. Has the politics of NE changed? Politics has always been the key to unlock NE and more so today with multiple stakeholders wielding power of veto. Something has changed on the ground but what does that mean for politicians? “Front Page” reality of the Texas Blackout, World Energy Crisis and Ukraine war has pushed electricity reliability & cost and the big sleeper: energy independence (E/I) to the forefront in the minds of top politicians on par with decarbonization & environmental concerns. So what is new?
Social media is now playing a key role in combatting dis-information before it can run rampant. It is true that NE is more popular with the people than with politicians. Expediency rules and we can at least, trust politicians to follow the wind. There is safety in numbers and if the recent stream of phase-outs of nuclear phase-outs (and phase-downs) continues, politicians now have the political will and “cover” from the mainstream i.e., polls. Support in the West, continues to grow with the majority of Americans and Europeans (including Germans!) strongly or generally supporting NE. The gauge of NE support will be the increase in Plants under Construction. As of March 2022, there were 440 NPPs operating with 55 under construction in 19 countries. De-growth of NE is over and a ramp-up can be expected. France’s recent presidential polling indicates that pro-nuclear expansion candidates received 72% of the popular vote. In addition to the numerous cancellations of Phase-outs (Belgium, S. Korea, Japan, etc.), the UK and Holland just announced major NE build programs.
Energy Independence has burst back onto the geo-political scene with a vengeance. Momentum will continue to build as even the globalists admit that Ukraine would not have been invaded by Putin's war machine without Europe’s 1B euros/day FF purchases, and moreover, Germany would not also still be sending Putin 0.5 B euros/day, 2 months into the war. People now see the ramifications of the current crisis: 1. Net Zero can never be achieved without a practical transition plan. A leap of faith on 100% RE won’t cut it. Resorting to “Hijacking” of Natural Gas supplies on the open ocean for emergency electricity is not energy policy. Even worse, burning Natural Gas for electricity generation to the detriment of other civilizational priorities such as fertilizers and industrial staples, is a recipe for global disaster that is now unfolding.
Investment cycles must play out. Global energy markets will remain roiled and suffer from high prices & volatility until at least 2025. In the interim high electricity prices, food scarcities and critical supply chains squeezes will foment unrest and keep the focus on energy. It appears that each generation must re-learn the true cost of sacrificing Energy Independence & diversity of supply. Germany sank to 30% E/I over the last decade in pursuit of Energiewende. By contrast, Japan and France took different paths but respected E/I’s key principles. Japan also sacrificed NE but deployed a successful FF diversification strategy until recent world events forced a NE reset. France with its 70% electricity supply from its nuclear fleet, has achieved an E/I about twice as high as Germany and avoided outright Nat Gas dependence on Putin. It is ironic that Mr Renewables himself, Elon Musk publicly called Germany out to take immediate action to re-start NE and take back its independence from Putin. His words are prescient: “A Renewables system cannot be ramped up fast”.
NIMBY? An impressive and growing list of Environmentalists are now advocating for NE as the necessary solution and complementary partner to RE. They see NIMBY working to NE’s advantage given its small footprint i.e., much less of a land grab & existing infrastructure, compared to Renewables. Germany ‘s Energiewende plan to scale-up RE is now stalled by the growing NIMBY backlash from rural voters. Global Installation of wind turbines has plateaued in recent years. Whereas surveys around the West’s NPPs (and coal plants) repeatedly show high support for NE and a strong desire for new build.
2. Is Nuclear a green solution in practicality? N¬¬ot so long ago, over 75% of Europeans believed that NE generated GHGs. The recent EU Green Taxonomy battle reached a favourable conclusion for NE with the EU Commission declaring support for NE on the basis that it is essential for the Net-Zero goal AND it does no more harm to the environment than Renewables. The disinformation battle is being won and this speaks to NE burnishing its green credentials in the eyes of the public.
The nuclear waste issue has long been a favourite and effective cudgel of detractors. Yet after a short discussion with most people, invariably a certain re-balancing occurs. They are surprised to learn that hospitals generate comparable quantities of medium & low-level radioactive waste. I did not know 40% of hospital ER procedures are dependent on radiation and nuclear plants. They are even more surprised when they learn modern countries produce 200Kg of Toxic waste (chemicals, etc.) per capita per year. By comparison, France (70% reliant on NE) generates only 1 gram p.c./yr. of spent fuel waste. Nuclear waste is managed to high standards, unlike other industries such as RE. While some will complain it is preposterous to compare waste from wind and solar infrastructure to coal and nuclear waste as far as toxicity goes the reality is otherwise when spent fuel has aged 400 years. There is no reason to disparage solar and wind, but people are recognizing the relatively more voluminous turbine blades and PV panels will exact a toll on people and the environment as the heavy metals inevitably leach out from landfills.
A nuclear waste plant is not for every neighbourhood, but it is safe to say that the tide has been turned with the successful siting and placing into service of nuclear waste facilities in Finland & Sweden. Ontalo, Finland is on the map with the support of the Finnish Greens and has demonstrated the power of the consent-based process. Innovation is gearing up to play a major role as numerous waste management solutions have been demonstrated such as Transmutation, Waste Burning reactors, Engineered Lateral wellbores, etc. They will arrive over the next decade as SMRs and advanced reactors come online.
In the final analysis, Nuclear Energy is just one more tool in the toolbox that will only be ignored at our collective peril.
I find it quizzical that in all the suddenly revived talk about nuclear as an alternative solution to the emerging energy supply problems ahead, 2 key issues that have always been issues in the nuclear power debate seem to be ignored in the current hoo ha:
First, I don't see how the politics of nuclear power have changed lately. Anyone want a nuclear power station built in their area? Didn't think so.
So the politicians can talk all they want about it, I can’t see it actually get off the ground. I expect the politicians will blow hot area about it in the immediate term, but more to be “seen to be doing something”, than actually achieving anything practically viable.
“Reactivating” mothballed plants may be viable, as in the case of Germany, but in other countries the “not in my neighbourhood” rule at the voting booth will determine any actual action (or lack thereof).
Of course, soaring energy prices may change that political dynamic. How would you feel about a new nuclear power plant if it wasn’t in your neighbourhood & your power bill was 3 times higher a year from now & power price driven inflation was 5%+ on everything from food to clothing to consumer goods? You’d do the math. And so will the politicians – they’ll give up the votes lost in the areas affected, if they can win the votes elsewhere.
Secondly, is nuclear really "green" energy solution in practicality? Yes, nuclear power doesn’t produce greenhouse gases, but is does produce nuclear radioactive waste. My memory is that the nuclear waste issue is a real & significant one. Has that problem just magically gone away now?
So the talk about a “nuclear solution” just seems to me to be more “kicking the can down the road” on an important environmental issue. Well, that does fit perfectly with the political dynamics of the day, so I expect the politicians will try & latch onto that talking point with enthusiasm.
Sadly, I can see us dealing with a nuclear waste crisis 10 years from now. So when we talk about building a new nuclear power station, lets also talk about building a new nuclear waste disposal site. Lets see how voters like a nuclear waste plant in their neighbourhood.
To: Just The Facts: Your well-thought-out commentary on the current prospects for nuclear energy (NE), deserves further reflection. May I add my grain of salt.
1. Has the politics of NE changed? Politics has always been the key to unlock NE and more so today with multiple stakeholders wielding power of veto. Something has changed on the ground but what does that mean for politicians? “Front Page” reality of the Texas Blackout, World Energy Crisis and Ukraine war has pushed electricity reliability & cost and the big sleeper: energy independence (E/I) to the forefront in the minds of top politicians on par with decarbonization & environmental concerns. So what is new?
Social media is now playing a key role in combatting dis-information before it can run rampant. It is true that NE is more popular with the people than with politicians. Expediency rules and we can at least, trust politicians to follow the wind. There is safety in numbers and if the recent stream of phase-outs of nuclear phase-outs (and phase-downs) continues, politicians now have the political will and “cover” from the mainstream i.e., polls. Support in the West, continues to grow with the majority of Americans and Europeans (including Germans!) strongly or generally supporting NE. The gauge of NE support will be the increase in Plants under Construction. As of March 2022, there were 440 NPPs operating with 55 under construction in 19 countries. De-growth of NE is over and a ramp-up can be expected. France’s recent presidential polling indicates that pro-nuclear expansion candidates received 72% of the popular vote. In addition to the numerous cancellations of Phase-outs (Belgium, S. Korea, Japan, etc.), the UK and Holland just announced major NE build programs.
Energy Independence has burst back onto the geo-political scene with a vengeance. Momentum will continue to build as even the globalists admit that Ukraine would not have been invaded by Putin's war machine without Europe’s 1B euros/day FF purchases, and moreover, Germany would not also still be sending Putin 0.5 B euros/day, 2 months into the war. People now see the ramifications of the current crisis: 1. Net Zero can never be achieved without a practical transition plan. A leap of faith on 100% RE won’t cut it. Resorting to “Hijacking” of Natural Gas supplies on the open ocean for emergency electricity is not energy policy. Even worse, burning Natural Gas for electricity generation to the detriment of other civilizational priorities such as fertilizers and industrial staples, is a recipe for global disaster that is now unfolding.
Investment cycles must play out. Global energy markets will remain roiled and suffer from high prices & volatility until at least 2025. In the interim high electricity prices, food scarcities and critical supply chains squeezes will foment unrest and keep the focus on energy. It appears that each generation must re-learn the true cost of sacrificing Energy Independence & diversity of supply. Germany sank to 30% E/I over the last decade in pursuit of Energiewende. By contrast, Japan and France took different paths but respected E/I’s key principles. Japan also sacrificed NE but deployed a successful FF diversification strategy until recent world events forced a NE reset. France with its 70% electricity supply from its nuclear fleet, has achieved an E/I about twice as high as Germany and avoided outright Nat Gas dependence on Putin. It is ironic that Mr Renewables himself, Elon Musk publicly called Germany out to take immediate action to re-start NE and take back its independence from Putin. His words are prescient: “A Renewables system cannot be ramped up fast”.
NIMBY? An impressive and growing list of Environmentalists are now advocating for NE as the necessary solution and complementary partner to RE. They see NIMBY working to NE’s advantage given its small footprint i.e., much less of a land grab & existing infrastructure, compared to Renewables. Germany ‘s Energiewende plan to scale-up RE is now stalled by the growing NIMBY backlash from rural voters. Global Installation of wind turbines has plateaued in recent years. Whereas surveys around the West’s NPPs (and coal plants) repeatedly show high support for NE and a strong desire for new build.
2. Is Nuclear a green solution in practicality? N¬¬ot so long ago, over 75% of Europeans believed that NE generated GHGs. The recent EU Green Taxonomy battle reached a favourable conclusion for NE with the EU Commission declaring support for NE on the basis that it is essential for the Net-Zero goal AND it does no more harm to the environment than Renewables. The disinformation battle is being won and this speaks to NE burnishing its green credentials in the eyes of the public.
The nuclear waste issue has long been a favourite and effective cudgel of detractors. Yet after a short discussion with most people, invariably a certain re-balancing occurs. They are surprised to learn that hospitals generate comparable quantities of medium & low-level radioactive waste. I did not know 40% of hospital ER procedures are dependent on radiation and nuclear plants. They are even more surprised when they learn modern countries produce 200Kg of Toxic waste (chemicals, etc.) per capita per year. By comparison, France (70% reliant on NE) generates only 1 gram p.c./yr. of spent fuel waste. Nuclear waste is managed to high standards, unlike other industries such as RE. While some will complain it is preposterous to compare waste from wind and solar infrastructure to coal and nuclear waste as far as toxicity goes the reality is otherwise when spent fuel has aged 400 years. There is no reason to disparage solar and wind, but people are recognizing the relatively more voluminous turbine blades and PV panels will exact a toll on people and the environment as the heavy metals inevitably leach out from landfills.
A nuclear waste plant is not for every neighbourhood, but it is safe to say that the tide has been turned with the successful siting and placing into service of nuclear waste facilities in Finland & Sweden. Ontalo, Finland is on the map with the support of the Finnish Greens and has demonstrated the power of the consent-based process. Innovation is gearing up to play a major role as numerous waste management solutions have been demonstrated such as Transmutation, Waste Burning reactors, Engineered Lateral wellbores, etc. They will arrive over the next decade as SMRs and advanced reactors come online.
In the final analysis, Nuclear Energy is just one more tool in the toolbox that will only be ignored at our collective peril.
There may be NIMBYism in certain parts of the world, but globally there is significant growth in buildouts and restarts (e.g. China)
As for nuclear waste, a relatively small amount is produced and viable solutions exist (e.g. underground storage).
It ain't perfect, but it's still my favorite all things considered.