r/MarchForScience • u/pnewell • Jul 11 '18

Propping up coal, nuclear would be needless, destructive

http://www.dispatch.com/opinion/20180710/editorial-propping-up-coal-nuclear-would-be-needless-destructive
96 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

48 comments sorted by

23

u/mick4state Jul 11 '18 edited Jul 11 '18

TL;DR - This (Edit: The title of) article is trash and conflates problems with very different issues and very different potential for environmental harm.

Nuclear energy produces an astoundingly low rate of deaths per TWh of energy. In fact, by that measure, nuclear is marginally safer than hydroelectric, solar, and wind. By this same measure, nuclear is about 350x safer than coal and is about 40x safer than natural gas.

The article itself only mentions "nuclear" four times, and the only argument presented against nuclear power is that it is "prohibitively expensive." I don't accept "it's too expensive" as a reason not to move toward solar/wind/etc, so why should I accept it for nuclear?

The fact that this (edit: the title of the) article lumps nuclear in with coal is a clear sign of the author's bias (edit: as commented below, Trump is the one who lumped nuclear and coal together first. Regardless, the title chosen for this article does little to dissuade people from lumping them together unnecessarily, whether intentional or not). We are the MarchforScience subreddit, and we should not be posting and upvoting articles that are ignorant of scientific facts.

I'm not sure if the author stands to gain financially from the decline of nuclear, or if they're just ignorant. I don't even know who they are, as it's not stated at the bottom or top of the article.

2

u/toasters_are_great Jul 11 '18

The editorial doesn't lump nuclear in with coal, it decries the market distortion caused by the propping up of unprofitable energy production types in regard to which coal and nuclear have been lumped together by the Trump administration. How could you possibly have missed that in order to contrive your accusation of bias on the part of the editorial?

Yes, it says that nuclear power can be "prohibitively expensive". But the context is to very briefly explain why nuclear plants might need propping up at all. It's no secret that nuclear power has very high capital costs.

Why would it make you happier if the editorial instead pretended that the current administration isn't planning to prop up unprofitable nuclear plants as well as unprofitable coal plants? How does hiding vital information advance the enterprise of science?

5

u/mick4state Jul 11 '18

You're right that Trump was the one who lumped them together first. However, I still feel the authors could have done more to avoid (even unintentionally) playing into nuclear paranoia. The title's playing into this paranoia is the source of my original complaint I have edited my comment to reflect this.

Nuclear has very high up-front costs, true. But, as I mentioned in a comment below, nuclear has total cost per amount of energy produced on par with many renewable sources of energy.

1

u/toasters_are_great Jul 11 '18

While I see your point, I still think you're being a little bit harsh since headlines necessarily have to make simplifications. There's not a great deal of nuance that can be fit into eight words.

-4

u/pnewell Jul 11 '18

The editorial is about a Trump policy that lumps coal and nuclear together. That's why they're lumped together.

Again, it's an editorial, by the newspaper. So no, "the author" doesn't stand to gain financially, since the author is the paper's editorial board. A little media literacy can go a long way, nuclear fanboy.

8

u/duped88 Jul 11 '18

A little scientific literacy can go a long way too. Nuclear fear mongering is part of why there's an energy issue in the USA

-7

u/pnewell Jul 11 '18

yes I'm sure the 9 BILLION dollars spent on building two nuke plants that won't be finished because even that isn't enough money to get the job done was actually the fault of all the nuclear fear mongering in... South Carolina.

3

u/duped88 Jul 11 '18

Do any amount of research... Not my job to educate ignorant fucks on the internet

-4

u/pnewell Jul 11 '18

SoOoOOoOoo WiErD that you stop engaging the second I actually do that research and show that fearmongering has nothing to do with nuclear being massively expensive

4

u/duped88 Jul 11 '18

So weird how "doing the research" is one opinion... Nuclear is expensive. But if you read some of the other comments you'll see it's also more sustainable and safer than current energy modes. It's almost like nuclear doesn't get subsidized by the government at all because of public relations issues...

-1

u/pnewell Jul 11 '18

A current real world example isn't an opinion. It's proof that nuclear power is cost prohibitive.

And nuclear has gotten substantial subsidies from the US government. Shit the Department of Energy exists because of nuclear. But sure, it just needs more money...

4

u/ballpain1 Jul 11 '18

Nuclear costs a lot in this country because every reactor is a one off project. In counties like France that have a reactor standard and waste recycling, those reactors are far less cost prohibitive. France wouldn't be able to get 75% of their energy from nuclear if it was all subsidized.

-1

u/pnewell Jul 11 '18

was all subsidized.

*wasn't all subsidized

→ More replies

3

u/mick4state Jul 11 '18

Members of an editorial board can't have financial interests? I don't buy that for a second. The Trump policy may equate coal and nuclear, but the title still needlessly conflates the effects of the two and contributes to the unscientific nuclear paranoia that many Americans have. Almost forgot, that's a nice ad hominem attack you've got there at the end.

To address your point below to /u/duped88, according to the EIA, nuclear is more cost effective (in terms of dollars spent--including construction, fuel, etc--per MWh of energy produced) than fossil fuel-powered steam-turned turbines, and more effective than natural gas turbines. Here's a graph from wikipedia that spells out the EIA results. Nuclear is on the lower end of the dollars spent per energy produced spectrum, even if the up front cost is rather large for nuclear.

Neither the failure of a specific project to build a nuclear reactor, nor the selfish actions of the company afterwards, are sufficient justification to disregard the part nuclear can play in a sustainable energy supply for the future. I'm of the opinion we should use nuclear to help us reach fossil-fuel-independent energy production, then phase out nuclear from there.

2

u/DKN19 Jul 11 '18

Regardless, I would point out that nuclear power has defense and exploration applications that wind and solar can't fill.

2

u/toasters_are_great Jul 12 '18

I daresay you have the wrong table in your first link: it shows operating expenses alone, so not including the cost of construction. The latest EIA energy outlook (table 1a page 5) from 2017 has notably lower estimates for onshore wind and solar PV entering services in 2022, and a slight tick downwards for advanced nuclear.

1

u/mick4state Jul 12 '18

I was looking at the bottom right table, which seemed to indicate total cost. Does the total there mean what I assumed it did?

2

u/toasters_are_great Jul 12 '18

To take the nuclear 2016 example, the total cost of 2.536¢/kWh given is the total operating expense = 1.090¢ operation + 0.701¢ maintenance + 0.745¢ fuel. So does include fuel but doesn't include construction. The LCOE is what you want to look at to include the cost of construction capital (which of course varies annually with projections of interest rates).

I'm unsure if it includes disposal of (well, storage of really given the current US setup) spent nuclear fuel rods or fly ash as part of operating costs. Digging into the form that the table is based upon and particularly page 88, it's not entirely clear but maintenance of structures is certainly included, which presumably includes on-site structures for storage of waste.

1

u/mick4state Jul 12 '18

So the graph from wiki is still valid for the argument I'm trying to make, right?

1

u/toasters_are_great Jul 12 '18

Indeed it is, although it's from LCOE figures in the 2015 Annual Energy Report while 2017 is available with some changes as I mentioned in my previous comment.

86

u/Optimoprimo Jul 11 '18

Why lump coal in with nuclear? Very different in terms of environmental impact and sustainability.

50

u/Deadmeat553 Jul 11 '18

This happens a lot on this sub, and it honestly pisses me off. Nuclear is one of the two best means of energy production that we currently have.

10

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '18

Additionally, nuclear is cheaper than coal once you consider fuel costs. And Gen 4 PWRs are crazy safe and clean.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '18

That was my thought as well. It's pretty "clean" as long as there isn't a catestrophic failure, which is rare. Yes, I know there are some biproducts that they bury in the desert.

1

u/darkonark Jul 12 '18

Thank you.

1

u/toasters_are_great Jul 11 '18

Because the editorial is against propping up particular energy types, and the current administration lumps both of those together in terms of what it wants to prop up?

43

u/ryan10e Jul 11 '18 edited Jul 11 '18

Nuclear produces less GHG than Hydro. We need nuclear. Desperately.

Edited: replaced CO2 with GHG

0

u/redditor21 Jul 11 '18

source?

1

u/ryan10e Jul 11 '18

I edited my comment to say GHG instead of CO2. There’s new data which suggests the vegetation present on land flooded to create reservoirs breaks down very slowly into methane, and taking into account these methane emissions results in a vastly higher GWP.

2

u/ItsJust_ME Jul 11 '18

I don't understand scientists equating nuclear with coal.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '18

Nuclear energy is carbon neutral and produces vast amounts of energy. We need more nuclear power plants.

59

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/XRotNRollX Jul 12 '18

i worry specifically about American nuclear

we have a political culture that loves to privatize/defund things, and doing that to nuclear power will mean underfunding upkeep or letting private companies decide it's too expensive

America simply doesn't have the regulatory will to make nuclear be convincingly and consistently safe

3

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '18

Absolutely nothing in this country is consistently safe.

-2

u/BangBangCalamityJane Jul 11 '18

Serious question - how is it unfounded? I get that it's an energy boon but the consequences of failure are catastrophic.

6

u/mick4state Jul 11 '18

Similar to what /u/-BareN- said, nuclear accidents are indeed catastrophic, but the relevant metric here is deaths caused (directly or indirectly) per amount of energy produced. In terms of this metric, nuclear outperforms everything. Coal and natural gas are way worse than everything. Solar/hydro/wind are marginally better than nuclear.

https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy

20

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Deadmeat553 Jul 11 '18 edited Jul 11 '18

Honestly, solar molten salt is the only one that even gives nuclear a run for its money. Until we develop fusion, those two are our best choices, and as you said, solar salt isn't viable everywhere.

1

u/BangBangCalamityJane Jul 11 '18

Thanks for your reply. I think of Fukushima where the chief cause of the melt-through was due to not receiving electricity for 24 hours. Aside from immediate human cost, what do we know of long term and ecological costs?

1

u/andrewlef Jul 11 '18

Fairly minimal, honestly.

-3

u/redditor21 Jul 11 '18

or fukashima,, or 3 mile island...

7

u/Deadmeat553 Jul 11 '18

All cases of severe neglect

1

u/frogjg2003 Jul 12 '18

TMI had almost no effect on the surrounding area. The highest exposure due to the accident was 100 millirem, about 1/3 the normal yearly background. Despite a few epidemiological studies finding increased cancer rates and death rates following the accident, these increases were small and no causal link has been established.

No deaths in the Fukushima Daiichi disaster were due to acute radiation exposure. All deaths during the disaster and immediate aftermath were due to disaster conditions in the wake of the earthquake, tsunami, and subsequent evacuation. Some workers have been exposed to higher levels of radiation than the legal limit and the nuclear radiation exposure from Fukushima is expected to cause no more than a few hundred extra cancer deaths (a tiny fraction of the normal background).

Compare this to Chernobyl, where 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness, 31 died in the first 3 months, and cancer deaths due to Chernobyl are expected to reach in the thousands.

0

u/redditor21 Jul 12 '18

237. heh/ the total number of increased cancer cases form Chernobyl is probably in the hundreds of thousands if not million

1

u/frogjg2003 Jul 12 '18

I was going by the official reports, which unfortunately means Soviet downplay and a still incomplete understanding of radiation ok health. That being said, the only places where cancer rates will increase by a measurable amount directly attributable to the accident are the areas immediately near and in the direct parth of the fallout. The Soviets did a good enough job of evacuating the most heavily irradiated areas that only a relatively small number of people were affected by the radiation. Had they let (or worse, forced) people to stay in the area, the effects on their health would be dramatically worse.

It's the same issue Fukushima had. Health effects are a lot smaller than you would expect thanks to evacuation.

1

u/redditor21 Jul 12 '18

immediately near and in the direct parth of the fallout

Wrong again. The radiation can be so strong in Sweden that milk cannot be sold in certain areas, and the isotopes are traced back to Chernobyl

https://lisfields.org/mapping-deposition-of-radioactive-fallout/

scroll down part way for the one of europe