A future that's not nuclear

[kristopher]

This is an excellent summary of nearly all aspects of the debate surrounding the future of nuclear power.

A future that's not nuclear

The global population is set to increase from the current figure of seven billion to between nine and ten billion by 2050. Many wonder just how the energy needs of such a burgeoning population can be met.

Coal and oil resources are finite and pressure on them increases by the year. Their adverse environmental impact has been well documented. While wind, tidal and solar energy, for instance, are posited as being cleaner and sustainable, many countries have opted for nuclear power as the solution to their energy needs.

Any debate about nuclear power is dominated by perceived risks and benefits. There are also questions of opportunity cost: investing in and developing nuclear energy impacts on how much money (and commitment) is left to invest in other sources. Of course, various vested interests shape the nature of the debate, not least the pro-nuclear lobby. There’s a lot to be gained — and to be lost, depending on which way the policy decisions go.

And those interests are well aware that public opinion counts. Influencing risk perception among both policy makers and public alike is a particularly important aspect of the discourse. Incidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima have all raised concerns about the safety of nuclear power and have placed the nuclear industry on the back foot.

Nevertheless, supporters of nuclear power argue that, as an energy source, it is carbon-friendly...

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/180181/a-future-thats-not-nuclear.html

[4dsc]

1. Its not so called alternatives either..

Our future, simply put, is one with everyone using less, A LOT LESS.

[jwirr]

3. I for one would like to see that future start right now. The sooner we

start the better for us all.

[kristopher]

6. Renewables Investment Breaks Records (2010 up 32% over 2009)

Renewables Investment Breaks Records
By Renewable Energy World Network Editors
August 29, 2011

...The document, Global Trends in Renewable Investment 2010, an Analysis of Trends and Issues in the Financing of Renewable Energy, reports that the record itself was not the only eye-catching aspect of 2010. Another was the strongest evidence yet of the shift in activity in renewable energy towards developing economies. Financial new investment, a measure that covers transactions by third-party investors, was $143 billion in 2010, but while just over $70 billion of that took place in developed countries, more than $72 billion occurred in developing countries.

... renewable energy's balance of power has been shifting towards developing countries for several years. The biggest reason has been China's drive to invest: last year, China was responsible for $48.9 billion of financial new investment, up 28 percent from 2009 figures, with dominance in the asset finance of large wind farms. But the developing world's advance in renewables is no longer a story of China and little else. In 2010, financial new investment in renewable energy grew by 104 percent to $5 billion in the Middle East and Africa region, and by 39 percent to $13.1 billion in South and Central America.

...A second remarkable detail about 2010 is that it was the first year that overall investment in solar came close to catching up with that in wind. For the whole of the last decade, as renewable energy investment gathered pace, wind was the most mature technology and enjoyed an apparently unassailable lead over its rival renewable energy power sources. In 2010, wind continued to dominate in terms of financial new investment, with $94.7 billion compared to $26.1 billion for solar and $11 billion for the third-placed biomass & waste-to-energy. However, these numbers do not include small-scale projects and in that realm, solar, particularly via rooftop photovoltaic installations in Europe, was completely dominant. Indeed, small-scale distributed capacity investment ballooned to $60 billion in 2010, up from $31 billion, fuelled by feed-in tariff subsidies in Germany and other European countries, the report finds. This figure, combined with solar's lead in government and corporate research and development, was almost enough to offset wind's big lead in financial new investment last year, the document concludes.

Furthermore, no energy technology has gained more from falling costs than solar over the last three years. The price of PV modules per MW has fallen by 60 percent since the summer of 2008, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates, putting solar power for the first time on a competitive footing with the retail price of electricity in a number of sunny countries. Wind turbine prices have also fallen - by 18 percent per MW in the last two years - reflecting, as with solar, fierce competition in the supply chain. Further improvements in the levelised cost of energy for solar, wind and other technologies lie ahead, posing a growing threat to the dominance of fossil fuel generation sources in the next few years.

...

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/08/renewables-investment-breaks-records?cmpid=GeoNL-Thursday-September1-2011

[jwirr]

2. Unfortunately there is no such thing. We built them and they are

here to stay. We might and should shut them down but they and their spent rods are still here. How long does it take for them to become truly safe?

[madokie]

4. Too long

The nuclear genie should never have been let out of the bottle. Back when they were first pushing to build them it was obvious that they had no idea as to what to do with the waste. It looked like they had no interest in that aspect of it and it looks as if that is still the case today. You'd think that someone somewhere in the nuclear world would put two and two together and see that they'd better get serious about this but I hold out no hope of that ever happening.

[GliderGuider]

5. I go out the side door on discussions like this

There is no way that the population of this little blue marble will be 9-10 billion in 40 years. IMO we're much more likely to be past the peak of 8 billion and heading down, taking all our energy needs along for the plunge. So I think the core assumption of the above argument is fallacious.

If that is the case, nuclear energy becomes utterly irrelevant. It is in the process of being abandoned already, and falling demand will only make it increasingly irrelevant. The question then becomes, can we get the cost of renewables down far enough that it becomes attractive to abandon the sunk cost of fossil-fueled infrastructure, or will we be limited to life-cycle replacements of coal and NG?