[Atlantis]

Dependence on nuclear energy reduces innovation in alternative energy sources. Thus, contrary to the claims of the nuclear lobby, nuclear energy is not the best way of fighting climate change.

Pro-nuclear countries making slower progress on climate targets

With Hinkley Point deal hanging in the balance, study casts fresh doubts over future of nuclear energy in Europe

A strong national commitment to nuclear energy goes hand in hand with weak performance on climate change targets, researchers at the University of Sussex and the Vienna School of International Studies have found.

A new study of European countries, published in the journal Climate Policy, shows that the most progress towards reducing carbon emissions and increasing renewable energy sources – as set out in the EU’s 2020 Strategy – has been made by nations without nuclear energy or with plans to reduce it.

Conversely, pro-nuclear countries have been slower to implement wind, solar and hydropower technologies and to tackle emissions.

While it’s difficult to show a causal link, the researchers say the study casts significant doubts on nuclear energy as the answer to combating climate change.

“By suppressing better ways to meet climate goals, evidence suggests entrenched commitments to nuclear power may actually be counterproductive.”

Professor Andy Stirling, Professor of Science and Technology Policy at the University of Sussex, said: "Looked at on its own, nuclear power is sometimes noisily propounded as an attractive response to climate change. Yet if alternative options are rigorously compared, questions are raised about cost-effectiveness, timeliness, safety and security.

“Looking in detail at historic trends and current patterns in Europe, this paper substantiates further doubts.

The study divides European countries into three, roughly equal in size, distinct groups:

Group 1: no nuclear energy (such as Denmark, Ireland and Norway)
Group 2: existing nuclear commitments but with plans to decommission (eg Germany, Netherlands and Sweden)
Group 3: plans to maintain or expand nuclear capacity (eg Bulgaria, Hungary and the UK)
They found that Group 1 countries had reduced their emissions by an average of six per cent since 2005 and had increased renewable energy sources to 26 per cent.

Group 2 countries, meanwhile, fared even better on emissions reductions, which were down 11 per cent. They grew renewable energy to 19 per cent.

However, Group 3 countries only managed a modest 16 per cent renewables share and emissions on average actually went up (by three per cent).

The UK is a mixed picture. Emissions have been reduced by 16 per cent, bucking the trend of other pro-nuclear countries. However, only five per cent of its energy comes from renewables, which is among the lowest in Europe, pipped only by Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands.

The team say that the gigantic investments of time, money and expertise in nuclear power plants, such as the proposed Hinckley Point C in the UK, can create dependency and ‘lock-in’ – a sense of ‘no turning back’ in the nation’s psyche.

Technological innovation then becomes about seeking ‘conservative’ inventions – that is new technologies that preserve the existing system. This is, inevitably, at the expense of more radical technologies, such as wind or solar.

Professor Benjamin Sovacool, Professor of Energy Policy and Director of the Sussex Energy Group at the University of Sussex, said: "The analysis shows that nuclear power is not like other energy systems. It has a unique set of risks, political, technical and otherwise, that must be perpetually managed.

“If nothing else, our paper casts doubt on the likelihood of a nuclear renaissance in the near-term, at least in Europe."

Lead author Andrew Lawrence of the Vienna School of International Relations said: “As the viability of the proposed Hinkley plant is once again cast into doubt by the May government, we should recall that -- as is true of nuclear fallout -- nuclear power's inordinate expense and risks extend across national borders and current generations.

“Conversely, cheaper, safer, and more adaptable alternative energy sources are available for all countries.”

[JohnRawls]

Nuclear energy is an efficient and important way to fight climate change. It is a very technical field though so not all countries can implement it. There are very few countries that can build nuclear reactors and even less countries that can build proper ones. Not to mention that it causes issues for nuclear proliferation. Basically nuclear power is a solution for nuclear armed powers but not for the rest of the world.

[anasawad]

No. Nuclear reactors also have bad effect on the environment and effects the climate in the same way. If everyone started using it, we'd have the same effect simply produced in different method.
Not to mention the type of waste resulting from it.

[JohnRawls]

Biased opinion. The newer generation nuclear plants are a lot safer and produce almost no radioactive by product. Sadly only the Russians can build them in a non-expirimental manner.

[anasawad]

If only one country can build them.
And we counted that only few countries can build 3rd generation nuclear reactors.
While all the rest of the world not only stuck with less technology, but due to economics, probably less safety and less experienced management.
Then switching to nuclear energy is not the solution.
The world should change to a method that will not cause any damage, at any way, and can be implemented everywhere, by everyone, efficiently.
That would be something like solar energy and alikes.

And why Biased opinion ?

[JohnRawls]

You stated that Nuclear reactors effect(Affect) the climate in the same way as other non-renewable power sources. This is the basis of most anti-nuclear propaganda and it is simply not true. The problem with earlier versions of nuclear plants was the safety which was more or less solved in gen 3+ plants.

Currently the issue with nuclear power is that it goes against solar/wind power which requires less capital investment and produces energy less efficiently. Nuclear power is also government controlled so it does not have a lobbying arm unlike all other energy sectors (Gas, coal, wind, solar, oil etc)

I believe nuclear to be an efficient solution to climate change, nobody is just willing to support it because it is outside of hands of large corporations usually.

[Atlantis]

I believe nuclear to be an efficient solution to climate change, ...

While ignoring the findings of Sussex University reported in the OP, you simply express the contrary opinion without providing any evidence whatsoever.

In fact, none of what you said makes any sense. Even modern reactors produce vast amounts of nuclear waste, and there is no way of guaranteeing the safe storage of nuclear waste for 100,000 years. That you consider Russian technology to be "safe" belongs to the realm of the hilarious. And the presumed "efficiency" of nuclear energy is based on massive state subsidies. Anybody with such an amount of public subsidies could provide a cost-effective service.

nobody is just willing to support it because it is outside of hands of large corporations usually.

I don't understand what you mean. Nuclear energy has been falsely seen as a miracle solution for decades because nobody dared to challenge the powerful nuclear lobby.

In conclusion:
- nuclear is not safe
- nuclear is not economic
- nuclear is bad for the climate

[JohnRawls]

I see Atlantis. Ever thought about rechecking stuff?

The 2010 edition of the OECD study on Projected Costs of generating Electricity compared 2009 data for generating base-load electricity by 2015 as well as costs of power from renewables, and showed that nuclear power was very competitive at $30 per tonne CO2 cost and low discount rate. The study comprised data for 190 power plants from 17 OECD countries as well as some data from Brazil, China, Russia and South Africa. It used levelised lifetime costs with carbon price internalised (OECD only) and discounted cash flow at 5% and 10%, as previously. The precise competitiveness of different base-load technologies depended very much on local circumstances and the costs of financing and fuels.Nuclear overnight capital costs in OECD ranged from US$ 1556/kW for APR-1400 in South Korea through $3009 for ABWR in Japan, $3382/kW for Gen III+ in USA, $3860 for EPR at Flamanville in France to $5863/kW for EPR in Switzerland, with world median $4100/kW. Belgium, Netherlands, Czech Rep and Hungary were all over $5000/kW. In China overnight costs were $1748/kW for CPR-1000 and $2302/kW for AP1000, and in Russia $2933/kW for VVER-1150. EPRI (USA) gave $2970/kW for APWR or ABWR, Eurelectric gave $4724/kW for EPR. OECD black coal plants were costed at $807-2719/kW, those with carbon capture and compression (tabulated as CCS, but the cost not including storage) at $3223-5811/kW, brown coal $1802-3485, gas plants $635-1747/kW and onshore wind capacity $1821-3716/kW. (Overnight costs were defined here as EPC, owner's costs and contingency, but excluding interest during construction.)

Source: http://www.world-nuclear.org/informatio ... power.aspx

You can read the whole thing if you want but if you want a summary:

Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.
Fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants and much greater than those for gas-fired plants.
Providing incentives for long-term, high-capital investment in deregulated markets driven by short-term price signals presents a challenge in securing a diversified and reliable electricity supply system.
In assessing the economics of nuclear power, decommissioning and waste disposal costs are fully taken into account.
Nuclear power plant construction is typical of large infrastructure projects around the world, whose costs and delivery challenges tend to be under-estimated.

If you want to read about the historical issues of nuclear power plant costs then you can read here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1516300106
Note that the price of power plants varies heavily country by country.

Graphical representation:

[Atlantis]

@JohnRawls, just repeating the spin of the nuclear lobby doesn't yet amount to an argument.

Anyways, you are still ignoring the facts in the OP.

Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, ...

Nuclear power is only cost competitive when indirect subsidies such as third-party liability are not taken into account.

In assessing the economics of nuclear power, decommissioning and waste disposal costs are fully taken into account.

That is obviously false. Nobody knows how long-term waste disposal can work. Most countries haven't even identified a site. I certainly wouldn't want it in my neighborhood.

[Besoeker]

Let me say at the outset that I am not particularly pro or anti for nuclear. I think some of the negatives like waste disposal are blown out of proportion.

We have various forms of energy generation* available and I've had a little involvement with just a few projects so this is my take.
As a society, we have an expectation that when you flick that light switch that the lights will come on. It's an on demand expectation.
Green sources like wind and solar are on availability. A calm, dark night gives you neither. Energy storage could take up the slack but we'd need it at utility scale level. We don't - at least not yet.

Hydro is another renewable and this does work at utility scale in some places where the topography suitable. Norway is an example. The Netherlands on the other hand.........

So, back to nuclear. It can and does provide a steady base load. Waste disposal is one of the hot topics but much of it is recycled. After that it can be glass encapsulated and stored undergroung in geolicicaly stable strata. It doesn't even need to be hugely deep. The exponential decay sees to that.

[Bosnjak]

I Greenpeace, passive member. But their stand Nuclear technology is those of drugged Treehugers.


We have just to find a further Use for the Nuclear "Waste" Material, today become the waste deponies of the 70s, mining places.


Germany can just handle this due the French nuclear reactors, because Nature does not produce constant same amount of energy.

it takes a lot of place, good farming soil (with some life) is wasted for uggly Solarcells. this lets you doubt on the purpose of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens.



The windmills have sometimes even Dieselgenerators when its no wind. And god knows how much rare earth minerals the Ventilators use.

[Bosnjak]

I think the future of nuclear energy is Thorium. Experiments with Thorium in Germany have shown it works, but needs just a small ammount of weapongrade Uranium.


And every rooftop should be covered with solar cells. But I hate windmils because just they are as huge as Atomic powerplants, and solar cells on farming ground.

[quetzalcoatl]

No. Nuclear reactors also have bad effect on the environment and effects the climate in the same way. If everyone started using it, we'd have the same effect simply produced in different method.
Not to mention the type of waste resulting from it.

Nuclear reactors produce no significant amount of C02, and thus do not directly lead to climate change. Nevertheless, nuclear fission is an obsolete and dangerous method of generating electricity, and is a dead end technology.

The future of the grid is a multi-nodal system of renewable generating plants and storage devices - the grid itself must be an AI system capable of re-routing around faults/logjams.

[Bosnjak]

Iran has the highest natural radiation, and uran ore to power all Atomic power plant for thousand Years.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

They still haven't found a way to effectively dispose of the nuclear wastage from existing power plants.

Isn't the material used for the reactors as finite as coal or petrol anyway and doesn't its mining wreak havoc on the environment? We'll probably have to look for off planet solutions for a permanent remedy, if we get that far.

For now I think energy conservation should be the key issue. The west could probably cut its usage down to a tenth of what it is now or even more if a proper effort were made.

[Suntzu]

They still haven't found a way to effectively dispose of the nuclear wastage from existing power plants.

Isn't the material used for the reactors as finite as coal or petrol anyway and doesn't its mining wreak havoc on the environment? We'll probably have to look for off planet solutions for a permanent remedy, if we get that far.

For now I think energy conservation should be the key issue. The west could probably cut its usage down to a tenth of what it is now or even more if a proper effort were made.

Done properly there is very little waste. The French have figured out reprossessing. We probably can, too.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

How effective is reprocessing? maybe we should be looking for alternatives to electricity altogether.

[Atlantis]

How effective is reprocessing? maybe we should be looking for alternatives to electricity altogether.

It is very effective for producing weapon's grade material. That was the reason water-pressure reactors were chosen in the first place.

But aside from the spent fuel, there is the reactor itself and all the more or less radioactive material, all of which needs to be stored safely for a very long time.

[XogGyux]

No. Nuclear reactors also have bad effect on the environment and effects the climate in the same way. If everyone started using it, we'd have the same effect simply produced in different method.
Not to mention the type of waste resulting from it.

Actually not so much. If you ignore the climate impact of the emission generated to build the facility (e.g. trucks, transport, machinery, mining, etc) then the climate impact of a nuclear plant should be negligible in theory. Why ignore it? not that its not important, but rather the same impact would occur for any alternative as well (building a solar array that generates as much energy as a nuclear plant will also require trucks and transport that will emit co2. same for all alternatives).
The real problem with current nuclear technology (fission) is the radioactive waste. Radioactive waste has negligible to no impact on climate change. The big concern is ecological/environmental concern (which could range from "minimal" concern to "very high" concern depending what part of argument you side with the truth probably being somewhere in the middle.)
I do think current nuclear (fission) technology has a positive effect in fighting climate change. In terms of CO2 emissions it will lower them compared to fossil fuels. However I also think there is a tradeoff and just the same way we wont be able to use fossil fuels forever (either because the environment or simply because they run out, after all they are a finite resource). I dont think we will (or can) use fission technology infinitely (eventually we will run out of ways to safely dispose dangerous material, and/or the one we already "disposed off" (really just hidden under the mat) start causing us problem.

However! All of these methods, including solar and wind energy will become obsolete once we have mastered the power of nuclear FUSION. Nuclear fusion is 100% clean, no harmful radiation. In fact it is exactly what powers our sun. This will probably be the last, best and most reliable form of energy production that humanity will have short of antimatter annihilation. Nuclear fusion is a reality, with the first experimental reactor expected to become functional by 2020 in france and the energy source become popular by mid century.

[quetzalcoatl]

Practical and economic fusion power is now twenty years away. In the 1950s fusion was twenty years away. Fifty years from now fusion will be twenty years away.

The simple fact is that any form of nuclear power is politically impossible. The right is striving mightily to make solar and wind politically impossible as well. They will succeed unless we concentrate all our efforts in pushing this technology forward. Any political capital expended on nuclear power is a dangerous and ill-advised distraction.