* an economic lifetime of over 40 years (more for new reactors)
While in 20 years, solar (concentrated solar power and photovoltaic) are expected to have the same cost as coal power.
-%26gt; this would mean that over 50% of its lifetime, the new nuclear reactor would cost more than solar power.
Moreover, investments in energy efficiency can lead to the save the same quantity of electricity the nuclear plant would have had to produce... but at a lower cost.
What is your opinion?
Additional Details
7 months ago
Dana: I can only agree. It might more be a solution for countries which are already nuclear power but have a limited potential for renewables like China.7 months ago
Kyle M: The French reprocessing is interesting but still the life expectancy at the pipe which flows into the ocean would be one hour.The cost of refining the fuel is moreover partly hidden in military budgets.
I nevertheless agree with you on the inherent safety which is very high and the fact that nuclea power plants release less radioactivity and heavy metals than coal power plants.
7 months ago
Wonderful: Solar power is already cheaper on some remote places but also for example in sicily and cyprus.If you look at what is called the %26quot;learning curve%26quot; of the technology (price vs. time), this is actually a very accurate forecast.
And you seem to forget that other sources of generation will see a huge increase in prices (coal 2x its price over the last 10 years, coal power plants: +50% in 3 years, barrel of oil at $100 and the list goes on)
Best Answer
A lot of the problems associated with nuclear power come as a result of poor decisions by the atomic power industry during the 1950%26#039;s and 1960%26#039;s, which in turn led to somewhat onerous regulations being enacted in the 1970%26#039;s.In a lot of ways, the nuclear industry needs a %26#039;clean slate%26#039; of both regulation, but also of design, operating and design practices.
In the early days, we were building the %26#039;next generation%26#039; of bigger power plants before we had time to learn lessons from those we had just built. Lots of mistakes were perpetuated.
Modern nuclear reactors can be and are very safe. The newest designs fail safe- the process of approaching meltdown by definition prevents a meltdown. Given our design and safety practices (dated though they are), a Chernobyl type incident is impossible here, and Three Mile Island was an aberration because of a host of factors.
New reactors (probably on a smaller scale than the last generation of super-stations from the 70%26#039;s) can be a cost effective way of generating power, provided that regulations are changed to eliminate a host of outdated or unwise provisions (and strengthened in some areas).
The other controversial bit is fuel reprocessing. Reprocessing spent fuel to use again reduces the half life of nuclear waste from hundreds of thousands of years to less than 300 years, and there are some interesting prospects to go even further. The problem is, of course, that reprocessing gives you nuclear bomb material (though you%26#039;ve got to have VERY precise manufacturing do anything useful with it). Given our good security record, and the fact that we can divert money from litigating about long term storage to further security, we can generate power without the kind of long-term problems old reactors create. The French do this and they don%26#039;t have any problems.
Nuclear power is of course not appropriate to every application, but it definitely has a place in meeting our future needs.
Other Answers (6)
-
I think nuclear power is *part of* the solution.
I don%26#039;t think we should build a bunch of new nuclear power plants. Besides the problems you list, there are also the inherent dangers associated with nuclear power, and the problem of what to do with the waste. I think we should certainly use the nuclear power plants which have already been built and perhaps build a few new ones in conjunction with increasing renewable energy plants like solar, wind, geothermal, and wave power.
I certainly think that many people wrongly consider nuclear power to be the only solution, or the silver bullet in combatting global warming. Nuclear is part of the solution, but not *the* solution. -
Nuclear Powr generation should NOT be an option
1) The wate is radioactive - cancer causing - for up to 1million years(Greenpeace research)
2) if you store waste in the ground, the radioactivity will seep into the rocks, and then into our water supply - Cancer on Tap forever
Nuclear stations are difficult to build and plans have to be accurate according to the ground (granite and sand have different qualities) they are built on
So far, ONLY the company, people and shareholders have gained any benefit from Nuclear - the British Govt paid £360 million to keep the reators going because they couldn%26#039;t charge their customers enough.
NUCLEAR PLANTS WILL POLLUTE THE FUTURE - STOP THEM! www.greenpeace.org.uk -
A simple and loud N O !
Why use something that you cannot get rid of the totally poisonious waste?? Wrong!
Renewable energies - that%26#039;s the way - solar, hydro, wind, geo... Common sense -
While in 20 years, solar (concentrated solar power and photovoltaic) are expected to have the same cost as coal power.
Oh you are delusional aren%26#039;t you? Where might this be the case? Hawaii? -
I don%26#039;t think nuclear energy is a responsible answer.
It gives off it%26#039;s own polution in the form of nuclear waste material. For which there in no known way to contain it long enough to make it safe. Current nuclear facilities have been operating in the US since the %26#039;60s and we still do not have a facility to store the nuclear waste. How many generations are going to have to pay for this short sightedness?