Abdulla from the Center for Energy Research, University of California, San Diego opined in mid-2018 that in 2025, the second of two nuclear reactors at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in California may be shut down [unless the federal government or the courts step forward to offset this gigantic mistake]. Locally, critics of the technology will rejoice at the fulfillment of their ultimate goal: a nuclear-free California, [undertaken by clearly ignorant people who have allowed the renewable energy and the natural gas industry to combine in offering part-time, increasingly expensive power (more) & (more)].
At the same time, through the shutdown of its four nuclear reactors, the state will have lost more annual low-carbon electricity than its solar PV and wind plants cumulatively generated in 2016. Commercial nuclear reactors provide roughly one-fifth of the electricity produced in the U.S. Across the country, they face grave threats to their profitability and, therefore, to their continued operation. Nuclear power’s hard times have come relatively quickly – and show no signs of reversing. [More recent effort are afoot to level the operating field between nuclear and renewables, President Biden is being encouraged to protect the existing nuclear power plants, as the new technology comes into play (more)]
Nuclear Faulters, But Has Been Continuing to Operate 93 Nuclear Reactors in the U.S.
Only a decade ago, nuclear reactors were cash cows. But a combination of low natural gas prices and a boom in solar and wind power has rendered them unable to compete in states with price competition for power. [But they carry on nonetheless because a stable power grid is needed that renewables (wind and solar cannot do without]] Five of the country’s nuclear plants have shut down in the past decade. Of the remaining 99, at least a dozen more may close in the next.[But in 2021, President Biden has vowed to keep them open]
Recognizing this, several states have moved to subsidize their nuclear power plants, most recently in New Jersey. But such efforts are arguably temporary fixes, given that the average American nuclear power plant is 37 years old. [The plants were built to last more than 50 years, and most are being permitted to remain open to at least 60 years, barring any other issues].
Meanwhile, efforts to build new nuclear reactors in this country have been either canceled or beset by substantial delays and cost overruns. There seem to be no innovations or policy changes on the horizon that might provide a respite for the technology in the foreseeable future.[Bias Alert: Only partly true but there is growing interest in the new nuclear technologies and and SMRs in the U.S. and overseas (here)]
Abdulla , along with his colleagues, have been investigating the current and likely future prospects of nuclear technologies for the past decade. The industry’s common refrain is that its troubles are the result of unfortunate economic realities, mismanaged federal energy policy, stringent regulation and organized opposition (see how such organized groups mislead the populations]. In his view, that downplays some catastrophic miscalculations on its part. To be sure, each of the factors that the industry laments does play a role. If the cost of natural gas and renewables had remained high [the gas prices (here) and renewable energy consumer prices are increasing rapidly (here), it’s likely that would have created a modest renaissance in nuclear power plant construction. [That was his views in 2018. Let's see what he and his colleges are saying now that new nuclear construction is underway and the new technologies are coming soon.]
Even so, Abdulla "sees" deeply ingrained problems in the industry: an inability to convince policymakers that it can contribute to a low-carbon energy transition, forcing it to resort to other narratives; the difficulty and expense inherent in nuclear innovation; and the failure to improve public perception.[All that is now just plain BS without foundation in 2021]
Attempts to Pivot
Now that the industry is in dire straits, a range of ideas for revivifying it are being hotly debated across the industry and in Congress. In Abdulla's 2018 view, while some of these ideas happen to rely on modest, well-considered arguments informed by history and experience, others are spurious or inappropriate. For example, some proponents of nuclear power cite national security in their efforts to secure substantial appropriations. These advocates worry about a world where China and Russia lead in nuclear technology and nuclear power plant exports. In response, some analysts have recommended that the Department of Defense invest in reviving the U.S. civilian nuclear enterprise.[Wow, talk about ignorance, then and now, or is his agenda (and investments?) showing?].
His research group has investigated the merits of this argument in depth and find it unconvincing. In addition to the regulatory and economic challenges posed by a reactor designed to fulfill a defense mission, saddling the Department of Defense with the task of saving the U.S. nuclear industry poses deeply troubling questions regarding its mission and its role in American public life.[More WOW, that is the objective of the DoD; it's not saddled with a task....clear bias here].
Proponents of nuclear power also suggest commercializing a new generation of nuclear technologies. These envisioned systems would be smaller, cheaper or safer than current reactors. But innovation in nuclear power is different from that in most other industries. It takes roughly US$10 billion to commercialize a new nuclear power system, and the process will undoubtedly require government involvement due to the elaborate testing infrastructure needed and the sensitive nature of nuclear technology. Their research suggested that government efforts to stimulate innovation in this domain have thus far lacked funding and focus. Even if the federal government – or an extremely generous investor – were to write a check for that amount, I have come to suspect that the likelihood of success would be small.[Even another WOW. This "research" from Abdullah is worthless, biased without foundation. Same on them, even in 2018, they should have been less ignorant].
Public Perception
Meanwhile, a small number of the technology’s supporters champion changing the mission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to focus not only on regulating reactor safety but also on promoting the construction of new nuclear reactors across the country. [Bias Alert: Use of "small number" without citing a reference is clear sign of BS].
In Abdullah's view, this idea betrays profound ignorance of the technology’s history and public perception challenge. Research shows that nuclear power suffers from worries over safety in a way other energy sources don’t. Even decades ago, researchers highlighted that nuclear power evokes dread in people because they see its risks as unknown, immediate, uncontrollable and potentially catastrophic.[Bias Alert: Fear Pandering here. Sure radiation has always been a concern, but no longer, becasue the nuclear industry has learned how to handle incidents, which are like any other industrial incident involving chemicals that burn, create dangerous gases or particles in the air (more)].
One explanation for this dread is the lack of trust in the risk communicators associated with the nuclear industry, such as public officials and industry scientists. There’s also the relationship between radiation from a potential nuclear accident and cancer, itself a disease that engenders dread.
It’s very troubling that the industry has failed to resolve this negative public perception challenge over the past five decades. Could a new generation of nuclear technologies realistically overcome some of the public’s dread? Despite an enormous literature on public perception and risk communication, I have found no convincing answer to this question.[More bias. Most of his comments consist of misinformation, outdated concepts, and inappropriate fear pandering. See above reference opposing these claims]
The loss of nuclear power in the U.S. will have profound environmental implications, delaying national efforts to mitigate dangerous warming gases down to negligible levels. In 2017, the U.S. nuclear industry avoided 547.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions – providing more low-carbon electricity than solar and wind power combined.[This is accurate information, but part of his biased winding of this article] Furthermore, we will increasingly need reliable sources of low-carbon electricity: The world is likely to witness increased electrification over the coming decades while seeking to dramatically reduce emissions.
Those who care about the mitigation of greenhouse gases, like myself, should be deeply concerned that nuclear power appears to be on the verge of collapse in the U.S.[The author must have realized in writing this article that his views were BS in 2018.... checking on his views in 2021 and will advise here]]
[Note on Abdulla's publications in 2020 (here). Interesting, supporting nuclear fusion and renewables (here), but still putting out misinformation on nuclear fission.]
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
