Harvard Business Review: The Future of Nuclear Energy

[kristopher]

1. Does nuclear energy make sense?

We can debate this topic endlessly and there are seemingly good reasons that environmental groups and others have changed their views on nukes. Put most simply, it provides steady base power (20% of our electricity today) and is close to "zero carbon." So as a longer interim solution, until the grid and economy are cleaner, it could be logical. But the most compelling argument I've heard against nuclear is not about safety (although, again, how can we not include that in the discussion given what's going on?). No, it's about cost.

For solid analyses on all things energy, I look to long-time expert Amory Lovins and his impressive assortment of in-depth studies. In a couple of reports, "Four Nuclear Myths," and "Nuclear Power: Competitive Economics and Climate Protection Potential," Lovins tackles the economics of building and insuring nukes, among other things. In short, compared to focusing on energy efficiency, nuclear is really expensive. And without going into massive detail on economics, I've always liked the really simple logic around renewables — they have zero variable cost (wind, sunshine, and underground heat are free). Lovins and others put more data around how the economics of renewables will win out over time, but basically, free is hard to beat.

2. Does any centralized energy make sense?

This may be a more heretical question, but it may actually drive us to an answer faster than the question about nuclear power itself: why do we generate energy at large plants on a grid to begin with? There are efficiencies of course, but also massive losses of energy as it steps down from the plant to the grid to our homes and buildings. Instead, why not build a far more distributed energy system? By that I mean solar on every roof, geothermal in every basement, local wind turbines in every neighborhood and on city buildings, and an electric car storing energy in every garage.

This vision of a clean energy grid is not a tree-hugger fantasy; in fact, it's already on its way.

Renewable energy experts have told me that cost of producing solar panels is down 50 to 70 percent in the last few years, a direct result of massive investment in the clean economy by China, which has become a solar manufacturing powerhouse. As solar entrepreneur and CEO of the Carbon War Room Jigar Shah says, "China is doing to solar panels what it did to computers and iPhones — bringing the cost way down."...

Much more at http://blogs.hbr.org/winston/2011/03/future-of-nuclear-energy.html

[Kalun D]

1. Ask Yourself This

""Does nuclear energy make sense?""

does turning inhabitable land into a ghost town graveyard make sense?

and you will have your answer.

[orwell]

2. No...

...and without the massive subsidies it becomes positively lunatic.

[Kalun D]

3. Typo, should read

""Does nuclear energy make sense?""

does turning HABITABLE land into a ghost town graveyard make sense?

and you will have your answer.

[kristopher]

4. The far stronger argument is the economic failure of the industry.

The idea that we should channel money into a dead end that preserves the inefficiencies embedded in a centralized grid is just plain crazy.

[marions ghost]

6. cost

is a much more compelling argument to the Powers That Be to stop building nukes than public safety. Well at least they come right out and say that instead of pretending they care.

When BUSINESS SCHOOLS CHANGE-- that is the only time you will see anything change.

Public safety--what a joke.

[bananas]

5. Environmental groups have not changed their views

That is a falsehood spread by the nuclear industry.

[kristopher]

7. Thanks for pointing that out.

But didn't you know? The right has formed its very own environmental group specifically to promote the use of nuclear power.

Honest. I noted its existence a couple of months ago, I'll try to find it and post the guy's name.

[bananas]

8. People think Greenpeace now supports nuclear energy.

When I talk to people, they think Greenpeace supports nuclear energy, because Patrick Moore is touted as "the founder of Greenpeace". They are intentionally trying to confuse people, these marketing campaigns are always tested on small focus groups first, they know they are misrepresenting the facts.

[bananas]

9. Here's a couple

There are probably more: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=658781&mesg_id=658851

edit to add: wow, I just noticed the crazy talk in that thread.

[kristopher]

10. Did you like this?

"It isn't complicated, if you want lies, go to the people who are going to lose money telling you the truth."