Sovacool and Cooper reported in 2008, about three years before the Fukushima incident involving the tsunami, provide us with the common views about nuclear power of the period. The authors declared right off that that nuclear power generators cannot be mass produced. They take much longer to build, and are therefore exposed to escalating interest rates, inaccurate demand forecasts, and unforeseen labor conflicts. [Response: Longer than a gas-burning power plant? Should be compared with the typical time to build hydroelectric power plant since both have active lifetime of more than 50 years. The payout is longer, but total returns are substantially greater than gas-burning plants, which only has a lifetime of about 25 years, see (more, p.4)]
Their centralization requires costly and expansive T&D systems. The nuclear system is thus subject to highly uncertain projections about uranium
availability [Update: Not now], is centrally administered by a technocratic elite [What BS even in 2008], and is vulnerable to the ebb and flow of international politics, requiring garrison-like security measures at multiple points in the supply chain.[More BS here even in 2008, see (more)]
[The anti-nuclear views expressed by authors are now exposed as pure bias as they conflate with the pros and cons of wind and solar].... Renewable power technologies, in contrast, reduce dependence on foreign sources of fuel [No longer an issue (more)], and therefore create a more secure fuel supply chain that minimizes exposure to economic and political changes abroad. Renewable technologies decentralize electricity supply so that an accidental or intentional outage affects a smaller amount of capacity than an outage at a larger nuclear facility.[What? There is no more centralized power than that produced by wind and solar. Nuclear power provides the grid 24/7 over decades. Wind and solar are not available on a constant 24 hr. basis, usually, and require back-up by a power grid, ether from gas-burning plants or from nuclear power plants. However, wind and solar have a place, but only in small systems of remote areas].
Renewable energy technologies improve the reliability of power generation by conserving or producing power close to the end-user [This is pure misinformation. Wind and solar are notoriously unreliable and intermittent], and minimizing the need to produce, transport, and store hazardous and radioactive fuel [This claim of waste issues is also misinformation. There are no real waste issues (aka used fuel), see (more)]. Unlike generators relying on uranium and recycled plutonium, renewable generators are not subject to the volatility of global fuel markets [That is no longer an issue in 2021]. They can also respond more rapidly to supply and demand fluctuations, improving the efficiency of the electricity market.[Wind and solar are intrinsically unreliable and are experiencing rising O&M costs in 2008. Examples are in Germany and California, see (more)]
Most significantly, renewable power technologies have enormous environmental benefits since their use tends to avoid air pollution and the dangers and risks of extracting uranium.[Bias Alert: Their is no significant risks involved in mining and processing uranium beyond simple industrial risks] They generate electricity without releasing significant quantities of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change as well as life-endangering nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides, particulate matter, and mercury.[What about the growing waste toxic metals involved in solar panels and turbine system disposal?] They also create power without relying on the extraction of uranium and its associated digging, drilling, mining, leeching, transporting, storing, sequestering, and polluting of land, and in some cases can restore degraded ecosystems.[Another Bias Alert: This is typical, unfounded rhetoric without merit of anti-nuclear and anti-mining claims (see (more)].
Our choice of an energy future thus boils down to a simple question: Do we want a nuclear economy, centrally administered by technical specialists [A. Not centrally managed, each plant has individual management of professionals], completely reliant on government subsidies [B. Not true, wind and solar (and oil & gas) receive more subsidies than nuclear power then (2008) and now (2021)], dependent on future breakthroughs in research, sure to promote international proliferation and worsen inequity and vulnerability, which requires draconian security measures, wastefully generates and distributes electricity, remains based on highly uncertain projections about theoretical nuclear designs and available fuel, fouls the nations water and land, and trashes the planet for many future generations [C. This is shameful rhetoric without foundation and even meaning]? ... [D. To answer the "simple" question, yes, nuclear power is superior in providing 24/7 grid power at a reasonable cost to the consumer over more than 50 years, safely and without serious incidents, see details (more).]
Or do we want a small to medium scale, decentralized electricity system that is more efficient, independent from government funding [A. Outright Falsehood], encompassing commercially available technologies, that operates with minimal harm to the environment [B. What about limited lifetimes and associated waste involved?], remains resilient to disruptions and terrorist assaults [C. What? This claim is False. They are actually vulnerable to bad weather and to vandalism], is equally available to all future generations [D. False. Future generations will have to replace installations becasue of their limited lifetimes], and highly beneficial to all income groups? [E. Wind and solar have hidden operation and maintenance costs passed on to consumers are becoming apparent by 2021] When the true costs of nuclear energy are compared to the true benefits of renewable technologies, the answer is almost too obvious [F. Also false statements: overly simplified response. Nuclear power is wining out over solar and wind by 2021 on the basis of cost [50-year amortization economic features stabilizes costs), safety (Chernobyl excluded), reliability, climate-friendly, and business-friendling (investment) issues (more)].
In a carbon-constrained world, continued investment in nuclear technologies still on the drawing board makes little sense, especially as such technologies rely on diminishing stocks of usable uranium that will require more and more energy inputs to enrich to fuel-grade status. Why invest in nuclear energy as a solution to global climate change when by the time such systems come online, enriching the fuel for them will require emitting as much carbon as today’s fossil fuel systems? [This claim has lost it's meaning now that SMR and the new nuclear technologies are being built. Such system with replace coal-fired plants and begin to replace failing wind and solar projects by the end of the decade (more)]
Any rational investor, regulator, and citizen would choose instead to invest in the deployment of technologies that require little to no energy inputs to harness free and clean fuels widely available in the United States and throughout the world. Policymakers should peek beyond the smoke-and-mirrors used to obscure the obvious advantages of renewable technologies and the obvious costs of nuclear systems. Any effective response to electricity demand in a world facing climate change involves enormous expansion in our use of renewable technologies and a steady abandonment of nuclear power. [All lame claims now that nuclear power and uranium are on the rise again (more), and that nuclear power technology and construction are being driven by investors, regulators, and rational citizens in the U.S. and around the world (more).]
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
