Environment & Energy

Lodestar

(2,388 posts) Sun Apr 3, 2016, 05:43 PM Apr 2016

Nuclear renaissance? Nuclear Industry's rhetoric as flat as their stagnant growth.

Nuclear renaissance? Failing industry is running flat out to stand still

Despite the endless rhetoric about a 'nuclear renaissance', there are fewer power reactors today than there were a decade ago, writes Jim Green. The one country with a really big nuclear build program is China, but no one expects it to meet its targets. And with over 200 reactor shut-downs due by 2040, the industry will have to run very hard indeed just to stay put.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987010/nuclear_renaissance_failing_industry_is_running_flat_out_to_stand_still.html

(excerpts)

The nuclear power industry's malaise was all too evident at the COP21 UN climate change conference in Paris in December. Former World Nuclear Association executive Steve Kidd noted:

"It was entirely predictable that the nuclear industry achieved precisely nothing at the recent Paris COP21 talks and in the subsequent international agreement. ...

"Analysis of the submissions of the 196 governments that signed up to the Paris agreement, demonstrating their own individual schemes on how to reduce national carbon emissions, show that nearly all of them exclude nuclear power.

"The future is likely to repeat the experience of 2015 when 10 new reactors came into operation worldwide but 8 shut down. So as things stand, the industry is essentially running to stand still."

//P

A striking feature of the debates around the COP21 conference was the vitriol directed at the anti-nuclear and environmental movements. Tim Judson from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service noted:

"The industry's rhetoric is getting increasingly desperate and personal. The industry rolled out a new front group called 'Nuclear for Climate', which handed out thousands of copies of a book attacking anti-nuclear activists and blaming us for the climate crisis.

"Needless to say, their efforts to intimidate activists are backfiring. In fact, they have given us a clear sign of how close we are to winning.

"Greenpeace International's Kumi Naidoo reminded activists in a speech in December - in which he broadened the call for divestment to include nuclear, as well as fossil fuels - of the famous adage attributed to Gandhi about the path to victory: 'First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. And then you win.'"

Perhaps the five stages of grief are relevant as nuclear lobbyists confront the reality that the nuclear renaissance didn't eventuate and isn't likely to. Denial and anger are very much in evidence, along with some bargaining ('we need all low carbon power sources'), depression and, in time, acceptance.

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Nuclear renaissance? Nuclear Industry's rhetoric as flat as their stagnant growth. (Original Post) Lodestar Apr 2016 OP

I recall a study of the potential kinectic energy of offshore wind on the eastern seaboard of the CentralMass Apr 2016 #1

civilian reactors were basically created to say "see? the sector's not all a-Bomb-related" MisterP Apr 2016 #2

This author suggests there is a connection with military use. BUT Lodestar Apr 2016 #3

oh, my OP was to show that they were never an independent power-generation industry MisterP Apr 2016 #4

CentralMass

(15,265 posts)

1. I recall a study of the potential kinectic energy of offshore wind on the eastern seaboard of the

Reply to Lodestar (Original post)

Sun Apr 3, 2016, 06:01 PM

Apr 2016

United States. The study showed that if properly tapped (a major and costly undertaking ) the power generated would exceed the combined output of all of the countries nuclear and fossil fuel power plants combined.

While I don't have that link other studies like this one talk about producing all of the East coasts power needs from offshore wind

http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/09/atlantic-offshore-wind-turbines/

Tapping the potential of offshore wind on the east coast should be a top priority.

MisterP

(23,730 posts)

2. civilian reactors were basically created to say "see? the sector's not all a-Bomb-related"

Reply to Lodestar (Original post)

Sun Apr 3, 2016, 06:06 PM

Apr 2016

plus a little of the usual space-cadet raving about how this or that would end all problems forever: I think they even said Formica would end homelessness or something similar

Lodestar

(2,388 posts)

3. This author suggests there is a connection with military use. BUT

Reply to MisterP (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 3, 2016, 07:10 PM

Apr 2016

he also says the nuclear industry is dead for one primary reason (besides the horrific effects of 'disasters' and environmental activism). He suggests that it was/is primarily the result of the end of
government subsidies to the industry combined with the problems attendant to the production
of Plutonium.
And he warns that these dependencies on government subsidies could also potentially bring an
end to the renewable industries as well unless precautions are taken.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-07-08/the-real-reasons-behind-the-nuclear-failure-and-what-that-means-for-renewables

(excerpt)

Rather, I propose here that there is a clear single cause that brought nuclear power on its knees in the 1970s. It was, simply, that nuclear energy stopped being subsidized by the US government. At that point, building new plants became unprofitable and the expansion of nuclear power stopped.

The question of the subsidies needs some explanation, because the nuclear industry often claims it needs none. A list of subsidies is given in the 2011 report by Doug Koplow, who, however, seems to have missed what was probably the historically most important subsidy to the Western nuclear industry: the production of plutonium for the US military to be used for military weapons. This market was probably of the same order of magnitude as that resulting from the sales of electricity and was a major source of profit for the owners of nuclear plants (for an estimate of these revenues, see note at the end of this post)

With the expansion of nuclear power, the production of plutonium increased in proportion. But, in 1977, the US senate approved a law forbidding the reprocessing of spent fuel from nuclear plants to produce plutonium. In a sense, it was a badly needed decision, since the growing production of plutonium was creating an economic and strategic disaster. The risk of nuclear proliferation increased with the amount of plutonium produced and the number of warheads in the US and in the USSR military systems was growing out of control with more than 30,000 nuclear stockpiled in the US alone. That gave to the concept of "overkill" a whole new meaning (image source). Apart from the strategic problems it created, plutonium purchasing was also a considerable financial burden for the US government, at that time in a serious financial difficulties generated by the ongoing oil crisis.

//P

But the transition to renewable energy is the only hope we have to overcome the resource crisis and the climate crisis we are facing. Renewable energy is showing rapid progress: costs are going down, efficiency is increasing, and new solutions for energy storage are being developed. Renewable energy is now a credible competitor for fossil fuels even without subsidies and it needs not suffer the same failure of nuclear energy. But we need to watch out for a last ditch attempt of the fossil lobby to get rid of a competitor by lies and slandering. We need to keep the momentum for the transition to a better world. And to keep it, we must fight for it.

MisterP

(23,730 posts)

4. oh, my OP was to show that they were never an independent power-generation industry

Reply to Lodestar (Reply #3)

Sun Apr 3, 2016, 07:27 PM

Apr 2016

the electricity was secondary to the main goal, of shoring up the atomic establishment, to add service and even (pl)utopia to its ideology and language of defense and security, to show how everyone relied on state Big Science in every aspect of daily life

Reply to this discussion