When should we use nuclear power

[kristopher]

I see two scenarios where I would support the use of nuclear energy.
Both of those cases would be determined by the extent of climate change.

We have 100 nuclear reactors here now as I understand it.

If the climate change timeline is amended to require quicker action then we throw everything at the problem, including nuclear.

If the climate change timeline allows a generation for action, then we could probably build 50-100 to augment renewables in areas where access to current technology renewables is limited.

If we have 2 generation to act, then I don't see a probable need for nuclear except perhaps specifically scaled to industrially zoned areas.

[Hardrada]

1. We only need a small amount of radiation to sterilize the White House

when Shrub finally leaves the place.

[losthills]

2. Nuclear power is not an effective response to global warming.

You would just be creating more and worse problems.

[bhikkhu]

3. I am not against nuclear power per se, but it shares problems with fossil fuels

As far as being a limited resource that must be extracted and refined.

http://www.fraw.org.uk/mobbsey/papers/oies_article.html is a pretty balanced article about the problems and questions of sustainable nuclear power. I think the reasonable conclusion is that it is not sustainable, but the OP's point of using nuclear during a transition to sustainable power remains.

The possible conclusion (as there are "unknowns") is that even if we built a bunch of reactors quickly at great expense, we might not have the uranium at hand to power them, ever.

Saying this, I will admit that I have the luxury of my opinion mattering little, and I would not mind being wrong. As a contingency or transitional plan nuclear power may be necessary. But the "law of receding horizons" should be kept in mind.

[Dead_Parrot]

4. We should use it to fill in the gaps left by renewables

If an area can meet demand with wind, and with hydro as a backup, that's good.
If an area can meet demand with solar peak, and with geothermal baseload, that's good.
If an area can meet demand with wave, and with biomass as a backup, that's good.

But that leaves a lot of gaps, in reality. That's where nuclear comes in: We have a lot of transport, and a lot of industrial processes, to get off fossil fuels. If we can't do them with renewables, we should do them with nuclear. End of story.

By the way, I'd just like to point out that we don't have two generations to act.
We don't even have one.

[GliderGuider]

6. "...we don't have two generations to act. We don't even have one."

That's the key to the entire puzzle. I share your conviction that we have very little time left before technological, ecological and social failure avalanches start disabling significant portions of our civilization's "action space". My estimate is that we have ten to fifteen years until that point, with increasing difficulties between now and then.

If we are correct in our estimates, that probably takes long-duration, high-capital, high-technology programs like a nuclear build-out off the table regardless of its technical potential or any safety issues. My concern is that many countries will go ahead with such a program anyway, and will be end up operating a fleet of sub-standard reactors just when their ability to support them is compromised.

[Dead_Parrot]

8. Depends how you look at it

It takes 3 years to get a reactor like an AP-1000 up and running, in physical terms: it might take longer in political terms, but that's up to us. If we have 10 years (which I doubt) we could shift a fair fraction of our energy to low-carbon means...

Hey, Paul: We're fucked, aren't we?

[GliderGuider]

9. A lot depends on what happens to the capital markets in the next 5 years.

Any significant destabilization of the global financial system will impact all large programs, and energy replacement is a large program by any measure whether it's nuclear, solar or wind. We'd probably be better off concentrating on programs that inherently decentralized and can be built piecemeal, like wind.

Are we fucked? It depends on who you include in "we" and how you defined "fucked" I guess. A lot of people are going to see their horizons come in really close, and many of us are going to experience levels of physical discomfort we haven't known for a few hundred years.

[Dead_Parrot]

10. "we" = humanity, "fucked" = ...

...nonfunctional as a technological society.

My horizons tend to be fairly narrow: Such steps as I can take, so that my daughter enjoys some semblance of what I call 'normality', have been taken.

Beyond that, your guess is as good as mine. Probably better, to be honest.

[GliderGuider]

11. I used to think that "civilization is going to crash". I no longer think that, at least not exactly

For me, the idea "we're fucked" requires an amorphous, undifferentiated, monolithic view of our civilization. In that view every part is critically connected to every other part, and failure avalanches would always cascade through the entire structure, rendering it inoperable in toto. I've finally realized that the reality is not going to be exactly like that.

Large parts of civilization will indeed be rendered inoperable, but what is likely to happen is fragmentation rather than complete collapse. That's a subtle distinction, and may be cold comfort for people who understand how many of us will be in the way of those avalanches. However, in that view large chunks of civilization will continue to exist, though they will all experience some (potentially severe) degradation in capacity from having to operate in an ecologically degraded, resource poor environment. The fragmentation will be driven mainly by the failure of mechanical transportation and disruptions in our high-tech communications systems.

Such an outcome is devoutly to be wished for IMO, because only in such an environment can we have any hope of a long-term sustainability ethic supplanting our current growth imperative. If there is to be any long-term future for mankind, we need this crash.

[Dead_Parrot]

12. The problem is, we don't "do" local anymore

Quickly scouting around my desk: This keyboard was made in China. So was my mouse. My monitor was made in Taiwan, the desk itself was made in
Sweden, The sofa that Mrs_P is sitting on was made in Italy, the processor in my machine was made in the USA (it's an old PC).

The only thing that's locally made is my swivel chair, and frankly a future full of swivel chairs is not want I wanted for my retirement.

You're right, we will get sustainable communities out of this mess - but they won't be the majority. I just hope to hell I picked a likely one.

[GliderGuider]

13. That's exactly what I mean about being in the way of the failure avalanches

Depending on imported goods or energy for critical things like eating or staying warm puts you squarely in the path of the avalanche. Food and energy don't even need to be imported across a geographic barrier like an ocean to present an enormous risk -- just requiring a long supply line is going to make them problematic.

I wouldn't worry about chairs and monitors except as a metaphor for the whole complex, brittle system we've come to depend on. Local access to food, water and personal heat energy are the top priorities. Everything else can be substituted, rationed or foregone.

[jpak]

5. We should use nuclear power to produce plutonium to build bombs to take back our oil

:evilgrin:

[Dead_Parrot]

7. Or to fund solar research...

...for another 120 years until the bugger starts working.