Nuclear is Too Costly A valid argument against nuclear power is that it is too expensive. You bet it is; in some cases five or more times too expensive. Nuclear power emerged at just about the most difficult time possible economically. In the early-mid 1960's, the real cost of oil was at a all time low. The majors were buying oil in the Middle East at about a penny a liter. Oil was so cheap that it was pushing into electricity generation, the long time preserve of coal. This in turn forced the price of coal down, so it too was at an all time low. This was the cutthroat market that a technology that did not exist 15 years earlier, a technology that was just starting down a steep learning curve, had to enter and compete in. Amazingly it did so. Thanks to nuclear's incredible energy density, these fledgling plants were able to produce electricity at 0.37 cents per kWh in 1965.
How we get there is one question. Whether or not economic/political interests will "allow it" is another question, but right now is a sweet spot for progress. An old tech, CANDU, is safe and burns unenriched fuel. Other reactors burn 90%+ of their fuel. Mining. OK. Hmm. "in situ" leaching has cut down on air and water pollution. What if we used breeder reactors? Mine less. Burn safer. Dispose of less. Going to be interesting.
I made this point to several colleagues driving back to Phoenix after a day in the 110F to 130F temps working on some equipment we had installed at PaloVerde Nuclear. A couple of them thought the heat had gotten to me. But my great uncle, who was a strong influence on me as a child, ran a small bank at the end of his career. I remember distinctly conversations about bank failures, loan defaults and such. He impressed me deeply with the importance of a loss ratio. If you run a bank (or a banking system) that requires no one ever defaults on a loan, your bank never makes money. In a banking system you almost instantly produce a low innovation, high cost economy that grinds to a halt. Only the simplest, most idiot-proof businesses are funded and everything is expensive. Nuclear power (and all humanity) desperately need a whole new regulatory approach where risks balance the immense rewards. Deaths equal to say 1/2 other large scale power sources might be an excellent start. In a vital space program, some rockets need to explode. Business need to fail. Nuke plants need to have some releases.
I agree with you about replacing ALARA with a more practical system based on science. In general toxicity is not linear. But, here is an example of why ALARA is such strong motivator. I'm a winemaker by trade and home bread baker as a hobby. I own a small grain mill & grind most of my own flour. The other day I bought 25 lbs of rye grain to use in my mill. While I was pouring it into a storage container I noticed one ergot gain. Ergot is a fungus that can grow on rye in the field. It easy to spot because it causes the rye grain to turn black & grow much longer than a normal grain. It also happens to be toxic. At the time, I didn't know how much was in my 25 lbs maybe not enough to hurt anything. But knowing it was there motivated me to go through the whole 25 lbs to get rid of every last ergot grain. Somehow, I couldn't use the grain knowing I was going to grind a few grains of ergot along with the normal grain. I spent two hours shifting through it all to separate the ergot. I found a bit more, maybe not enough to hurt anything, but I wouldn't have used it without shifting through it first.
So the big question is how do we get there?
How we get there is one question. Whether or not economic/political interests will "allow it" is another question, but right now is a sweet spot for progress. An old tech, CANDU, is safe and burns unenriched fuel. Other reactors burn 90%+ of their fuel. Mining. OK. Hmm. "in situ" leaching has cut down on air and water pollution. What if we used breeder reactors? Mine less. Burn safer. Dispose of less. Going to be interesting.
I made this point to several colleagues driving back to Phoenix after a day in the 110F to 130F temps working on some equipment we had installed at PaloVerde Nuclear. A couple of them thought the heat had gotten to me. But my great uncle, who was a strong influence on me as a child, ran a small bank at the end of his career. I remember distinctly conversations about bank failures, loan defaults and such. He impressed me deeply with the importance of a loss ratio. If you run a bank (or a banking system) that requires no one ever defaults on a loan, your bank never makes money. In a banking system you almost instantly produce a low innovation, high cost economy that grinds to a halt. Only the simplest, most idiot-proof businesses are funded and everything is expensive. Nuclear power (and all humanity) desperately need a whole new regulatory approach where risks balance the immense rewards. Deaths equal to say 1/2 other large scale power sources might be an excellent start. In a vital space program, some rockets need to explode. Business need to fail. Nuke plants need to have some releases.
I agree with you about replacing ALARA with a more practical system based on science. In general toxicity is not linear. But, here is an example of why ALARA is such strong motivator. I'm a winemaker by trade and home bread baker as a hobby. I own a small grain mill & grind most of my own flour. The other day I bought 25 lbs of rye grain to use in my mill. While I was pouring it into a storage container I noticed one ergot gain. Ergot is a fungus that can grow on rye in the field. It easy to spot because it causes the rye grain to turn black & grow much longer than a normal grain. It also happens to be toxic. At the time, I didn't know how much was in my 25 lbs maybe not enough to hurt anything. But knowing it was there motivated me to go through the whole 25 lbs to get rid of every last ergot grain. Somehow, I couldn't use the grain knowing I was going to grind a few grains of ergot along with the normal grain. I spent two hours shifting through it all to separate the ergot. I found a bit more, maybe not enough to hurt anything, but I wouldn't have used it without shifting through it first.