Nuclear power.

Thanks for starting the debate off, TBR. I agree that we face some difficult energy challenges, especially given the problem of climate change and looming carbon constraints. So this is definitely an important topic and I'm excited to finally debate it. With that said, I'll jump right in to my arguments.--There are insolvable infrastructural, economic, social, and environmental problems with nuclear power. These insolvable problems include enormous complexity and immense capital costs (nuclear isn't "relatively simple and cost effective" as TBR claims), as well as problems with reactor safety, waste storage, vulnerability to the effects of climate change, weaponization of uranium, and vulnerability to terrorist attack. Renewables do better on every front. They're more efficient, safer, they provide significant environmental benefits, they don't depend on foreign sources of uranium (so they're more reliable), and they're also not as vulnerable to terrorism or to the effects of climate change.(1) Nuclear power is prohibitively expensive.Renewables are cheaper than nuclear. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) says the average cost of electricity produced by a next-generation nuclear plant (which is cheaper than current plants) is $0.1084 per kilowatt-hour ("kWh"), and the soonest we can get these advanced plants running is 2018. The EIA also says the average cost of solar is $0.1443/kWh, and the average cost of wind is $0.0866/kWh. [1]But the EIA has historically overestimated the cost of renewables, and underestimated the cost of conventional sources. [2] The new 50-MW Macho Springs solar plant in New Mexico will deliver power for $0.0508/kWh. [3] Other US solar projects come in the range of $0.07 to $0.09/kWhh. [4] According to these recent numbers, the cost of solar is already half that of advanced nuclear power in 2018. And the cost of solar is still falling, while the cost of nuclear continues to rise. [5]Moreover, the EIA's analysis didn't take into account construction costs, insurance costs, decommissioning costs, and waste management costs. A recent study by MIT shows that including plant construction costs in the equation increases the cost to $0.7 or $0.8 per kWh. [6] Decommission easily costs $3 billion per plant. [7] And the costs of waste management -- which were estimated at $96 billion in 2008 -- are ongoing and rising, because nuclear waste keeps building up, and it lasts thousands of years. [8] There's also the costs of cleanup after a meltdown; for example, the costs of Fukushima, the most recent catastrophe, is estimated at $100 billion. [9] Also consider the costs of uranium mining, which is already expensive because it creates serious health problems, and which will only continue to increase as uranium becomes a scarce resource.These costs are borne by taxpayers, and without taxpayer investments, nuclear plants wouldn't ever be built. Even after a trillion-dollar taxpayer investment, nuclear power has only grown 1% per year. [10] One commentator notes that "even while the nuclear industry is able to externalize its costs for insurance (which are federally limited), loan guarantees (which are federally backstopped), decommissioning (which is pushed onto ratepayers) and waste handling (which is pushed onto taxpayers), it still lost. If it had to stand on its own and pay its full insurance costs like every other energy source, we could never build another nuclear plant in America, because no private investors would be willing to take that kind of risk." [11](2) Nuclear power isn't a solution to climate change.TBR's right that nuclear power emits almost no carbon dioxide ("C02"). Renewables also emit almost no C02. But here's what TBR doesn't tell you: nuclear power has higher costs than renewables per unit of net C02 displaced. [12] That means that every dollar we invest in nuclear power buys less C02 reduction than if the dollar were spent on renewables. The importance of investing our dollars wisely in the fight against climate change suggests that renewables are a better option than nuclear, as renewable sources are a cheaper (and faster) way to reduce C02.TBR also doesn't mention that vast amounts of fossil fuels must be burned to mill, mine, leech, transport, and enrich uranium, and to build and decommission nuclear plants. [13] For example, "in 2002, the Paducah [uranium] enrichment plant [in Kentucky] released over 197.3 metric tons of Freon, [a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide]." [14] Moreover, the Oxford Research Group projects nuclear power will generate as much carbon dioxide per kWh as comparable gas-fired power stations by 2050, because of uranium depletion. [15] This bears repeating: at current levels of nuclear power generation, by 2050 nuclear plants will be producing as much GHG as some fossil fuel plants.Finally, note that renewable energy is faster and cheaper to roll out than nuclear, which is a critical factor given the tightness of the timeframe vis-à-vis climate change. It takes 10 to 19 years to build a new nuclear plant. The latest research on renewable energy, most notably by Mark Jacobson’s team at Stanford, shows that a global transition to 100 percent renewable energy -- “wind, water and solar” -- is both technically and economically feasible by 2030. [16] That means lowering GHG emissions in line with science-based targets doesn't require building a global network of new nuclear plants. Mark Jacobson notes that “if we invest in nuclear versus true renewables, you can bet that the glaciers and polar ice caps will keep melting while we wait, and wait, for the nuclear age to arrive. We will also guarantee a riskier future for us all.” [13](3) Nuclear power is vulnerable to terrorist attack.Because of the potential mass destruction, nuclear plants are a major target for terrorists. 9/11 would be tiny by comparison. If a plane were flown into a nuclear plant, the disaster would be immeasurably worse than Chernobyl. For instance, "John Large, an international independent expert on nuclear power, has said that if a plane was flown into the nuclear waste storage tanks at Sellafield, the whole of the English Midlands could be catastrophically contaminated." [17] Terrorists could also target waste sites, for a similar effect.Terrorists could also steal nuclear materials by attacking storage facilities, processing facilities, uranium mines, or by intercepting nuclear materials in transit. The more nuclear power expands, the more opportunities that become available for using (or diverting) nuclear material for non-peaceful uses. These risks, including the potential fatalities, must be taken into account.(4) Nuclear power is vulnerable to the effects of climate change.Over the last decade, extreme weather, flooding, and storm surge have increasingly made nuclear plants unsafe to operate, requiring temporary shutdowns. For example, three plants were shut down in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, leaving many people without power for extended periods of time in cold weather. [18] Anticipated effects from climate change are going to interfere with nuclear plants. So the idea that nuclear power provides reliable baseload power isn't going to hold up. Plants along low-lying coastal areas will be particularly vulnerable to storm surge and hurricanes, and might even become permanently unusable due to sea level rise. And note that rising seas and flooding don't just create a risk of shutdown, but also a risk of releasing hazardous materials, like what happened at Fukushima. These potential safety issues are going to require more and more administrative oversight over time. Moreover, climate change could increase security threats from terrorists, complicating efforts to prevent terrorist attacks on nuclear plants and waste disposal sites.Climate change increases the risk and uncertainty associated with nuclear power. Given the high upfront costs of building new nuclear plants, and the difficulty of adapting them to climate change (because they're large and centralized), renewables are a better option going forward. Renewables are decentralized and small, which makes them easier to move, and it also makes them more reliable in the case of extreme weather. Renewables are spread out so that when one wind farm goes out, you still have electricity. Nuclear doesn't work that way, so it's actually less reliable than renewables (also, another reliability point is the dependence on foreign uranium, which renewables don't need).(5) Nuclear power is prohibitively dangerous.Should failure occur, the consequences are probably the worst of any high risk activity that humans engage in. There have already been four nuclear accidents: Windscale, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Each accident was unique, and each was supposed to have been impossible. Yet each happened. 985,000 people died from Chernobyl between 1986 and 2004. [17] We don't know the figure for deaths from Fukushima yet, but note that it's the worst industrial disaster in history. It led to three simultaneous, complete meltdowns which proved impossible to stop or contain for years, and these meltdowns are still pouring radiation pollution across the Japanese landscape.Failures like these can and will continue to happen. The risks and costs are too high.Sources:[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...[11] http://tinyurl.com...[12] http://tinyurl.com...[13] http://tinyurl.com...[14] http://tinyurl.com...[15] http://tinyurl.com...[16] http://tinyurl.com...[17] http://tinyurl.com...[18] http://tinyurl.com...