Originally Posted by
JamesNoBrakes
Who told you this? Based on what evidence?
The reason Nuclear isn't bigger is that it's hugely cost and energy inefficient, it doesn't produce the "cheap energy" that was claimed in the 50s. The massive infrastructure required, design, maintenance, security, contaminated parts, etc., requires massive amounts of money and energy to keep going. Even for the "fast breeder" reactors, there are significant technological challenges that have yet to be totally overcome. In some locations, it works ok due to several factors, but it's far from some windfall that solves everything. It's more energy efficient to use gas-turbines in cities. Even if you are powering an electrical car, it's more efficient to use the gas-turbine to make electricity and send it to the grid. They passed the 50% efficiency barrier years ago and are around 65% total efficiency, which is pretty amazing. If you need more power, installing another gas-turbine unit is relatively quick and easy. It's fossil fuel, but a far better way to use it, not to mention other options of renewable sources. If you really do the research on nuclear you'll see it's not practical in many/most places, it ends up sucking way too much energy and resources.
The US nuclear industry is stuck using 1950's technology for the most part. Modern designs and technologies exist which enhance safety and significantly enhance economics. It's just hard to get a permit to build a new one in the US.
Kind of like if airlines still operated 727's and DC-8's.
One of the issues is that all of the early generation US plants were one-off designs... basically every build is a prototype, and every operator a test pilot.
Other countries have done far better in that regard (ie France). I think the NRC's intent is to license standardized designs in the future (I think the economics would be better, and the safety certainly would).
Modern technology nuclear would compete in the ballpark with current fossil fuel prices and have zero net carbon footprint compared to fossil fuels (assuming carbon footprint to actually build the plant, manufacturing and construction, is similar to a conventional fuel plant). Also would not be subject to any catastrophic fuel price spikes.
Building anything has a carbon footprint, what the car manufacturers don't want you to realize is that the net carbon impact of building a new hybrid is probably higher than just driving your 2006 camry for another ten years. But hey when you're cool and hip, details like that don't matter as much as making a statement. When the camry actually wears out, then you can do the planet a favor by getting a LEV/ZEV.
But if carbon is the main concern, nuclear is the best way to get lots of juice to the grid. This is going to be even more important going forward, as vehicles transition to electric... large power plants will be the PRIMARY source of net carbon at some point, vice vehicles. Wind and solar can make a dent, but can't cover it all by a long stretch.