Opinion of Nuclear Energy

[Redalgo]

FF of course, though to less of an extent than it could have been if the government had not encouraged research to proceed on a course that would allow fissile byproducts to be produced for the manufacturing of nuclear weapons. Had thorium-focused tech pressed ahead since the beginning we wouldn't have nearly so severe of a waste or security problem to contend with. As things stand, however, the only two sources of baseload electricity (i.e. sources providing a continuous, reliable, vast amount of energy with very little down-time for maintenance) available are coal and nuclear fission. Between the two of them I'd say fission is less environmentally hazardous provided the plants are operated carefully and wastes stored with great foresight. The lack of secure repositories for waste owing to the NIMBY factor is a major hassle, granted.

[Redalgo]

. . . can you explain why wind power is inappropriate? For sure it would be if you want to base all energy production in the wind, but the issue is that we should go to a diversification of energy sources. There are many places where wind blows constantly and it's a valuable resource that can be better developed. It has been used since time immemorial, because it's effective.

Wind energy suffers from the ebb and flow of output. It means we need much better battery tech and/or the construction of far more turbines than would be needed if they were always at full capacity, making their use material-intensive, inefficient, and liable to require greater use of fossil fuels to ready for service than fission stations relative to their energy output. They are also a serious hazard to birds, from what I've heard, and a lot of the best sites for building them are in scenic areas where their presence would be an eyesore and perhaps even end up discouraging tourism.

That is not to suggest wind turbines are a flatly bad idea, of course. Rather, a diversified collection of energy sources including wind ought to have an underlying foundation of electrical output that ceases to be coal. There are options out there better than nuclear fission using uranium or plutonium but I am not aware of any of them being ready to press into service quite yet.

[Redalgo]

. . . Indeed, what I'd consider the greatest actual challenge to nuclear power would be the usually staggering up-front cost it requires; it's often so high, especially (but I honestly doubt solely) when compounded with the regulatory hoops building a new nuclear power plant requires jumping through, that the break-even time is unattractively long for most private utilities.

I'll go out on a limb, however, and say that if we were to scrap all the subsidies given to other "renewable energies" and instead spend the money on subsidising the constructing and insuring of new nuclear power plants, we'd not just get more electricity for the money, but we'd see a greater reduction in emissions as well. This is to say nothing of the returns to scale, and inevitable resultant reduction of costs, that would result from a nuclear power plant building spree. I haven't done the math on this, though, so don't hold me to it. (Now I'm tempted to...) . . .

The state could build the plants and then either operate them or sell 'em off to other providers in smaller installments over the courses of their operating lives. Having the capital-intensive starting costs (it tends to be $2-5 billion, I think?) and delayed gratification involved strongly discourages investment and may make nuclear fission an example of market failure. The French offer an intriguing idea in settling on one reactor design to have built over and over again, which could greatly streamline authorization for future stations applying that layout... whereas the U.S. stations historically used a new design for every plant.