5 Myths About Nuclear Energy - Myth 3

[kristopher]

Myth 3. Nuclear Energy Is Necessary to Address Climate Change

Government, industry and university studies, like those recently from Princeton, agree that wind turbines and solar panels already exist at an industrial scale and could supply one-third of U.S. electricity needs by 2020, and the vast majority of U.S. electricity by 2050—not just the 20 percent of electricity possible from nuclear energy by 2050. The D.O.E. says wind from only three states (Kansas, North Dakota and Texas) could supply all U.S. electricity needs, and 20 states could supply nearly triple those needs. By 2015, according to the D.O.E., solar panels will be competitive with all conventional energy technologies and will cost 5 to 10 cents per kilowatt hour. Shell Oil and other fossil-fuel companies agree. They are investing heavily in wind and solar.

From an economic perspective, atomic power is inefficient at addressing climate change because dollars used for more expensive, higher-emissions nuclear energy cannot be used for cheaper, lower-emissions renewable energy. Atomic power is also not sustainable. Because of dwindling uranium supplies, by the year 2050 reactors would be forced to use low-grade uranium ore whose greenhouse emissions would roughly equal those of natural gas. Besides, because the United States imports nearly all its uranium, pursuing nuclear power continues the dangerous pattern of dependency on foreign sources to meet domestic energy needs.

[no limit]

1. Can you please post a link to the study you are referencing?

No offense, but any claim made that says 1/3 of our power can come from wind and solar in the next 10 years makes my BS Meter go off.

[kristopher]

2. 2020 is 12 years from now, not 10.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=154609&mesg_id=154609

No offense taken. But (no offense) you might want to get that meter recalibrated by a professional, it is clearly giving false readings.

The above link is to a post with the original article. I'm looking for point by point discussion. You won't find endnotes in the article, it is an editorial. But if you google a few of the keyword on google scholar, you should find plenty of support.

[kristopher]

3. 2nd take

I want to apologize for the flip answer, it wasn't called for. Things get testy around here and I let that get in the way of a proper response to your reasonable question.
I think the operable word in the OP is 'could'. Her point is that technologically and economically, it is possible to do with the proper policy support. She isn't saying it will happen. Personally though, I wouldn't rule it out as a possible scenario. Once things get rolling it is hard to predict the pace of development. Neither wind nor solar have any intrinsic obstacles other than dedication of resources, and, as stated, that is a matter of political will.

[no limit]

4. Wind and solar (especially solar) have plenty of obstacles

you should read up on them before setting your mind on that being the solution. There is no way in hell we can get 1/3 of our power from wind and solar in the next 12 years (and yes, I do know basic math, I used 10 as a round figure).

Global warming is a very real threat that requires real solutions. Dreaming about wind and solar solving this problem (or even coming close to it) is not a real solution, especially not in the next 10 or even 20 or 30 years.

[kristopher]

5. I've been studying this with some of the top people in the nation for several years

Perhaps you are the one that needs to "read up on them".

[no limit]

6. No need to be rude

I have done plenty of reading. All I orginally did was ask you for any evidance to back up the claim that 1/3 of our power could come from solar and wind. You couldn't provide me with that evidance. So that is my only point here and my point still stands unless I see proof otherwise.

[kristopher]

7. I wasn't being rude.

I just suggested you take your own advice.

[Nederland]

8. Question about core melt

The link you provided says that nuclear reactors have a 1 in 5 chance of core melting over their lifetimes. Given that there are hundreds of nuclear reactors across the globe and we've only seen one core melt (Chernobyl), that statistic seems way off. Can you provide a link to the DOE study that shows how the 1 in 5 statistic was calculated. I'm curious how they arrived at that figure. Thanks.

[kristopher]

9. No, I can't. I didn't write the article

However, if you'd like to visit the author's website and evaluate her expertise through her academic writings, I do have that link.
http://www.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/

[Nederland]

10. Thanks

Thanks for the links.

Apparently I was reading the article out of context. According to the DOE, the chances of a core melt for an individual reactor designed in the 1960's is between 10^-4 and 10^-5 per reactor year. Spread out over the entire US reactor fleet that translates into a 1 in 5 chance of seeing a core melt over the 60 year lifetime of those reactors. In my opinion these are not very comfortable odds, which argues strongly for phasing out these reactors and putting into place the newer designs that DOE estimates have a core melt odds of 5 × 10^–7 per reactor year. These statistics place reactors in the same category as large dams with regard to the odds of catastrophic failure and the resultant loss of life.