Arguments
Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Posted on 13 June 2019 by scaddenp
Abbott 2011 and Abbott 2012 doesn’t think so but perhaps there are better analyses? For discussions of economics, levelized cost estimates of various electricity technologies can be found here and here.
Nuclear energy is quite commonly proposed as the solution to reducing GHG emissions. As soon as this gets raised on an article's comment thread, there has been a bad tendency for on-topic discussion to be completely derailed by proponents for and against.
We have repeatedly asked for nuclear proponents to provide an article for this site which puts the case based on published science but so far we haven't had a taker. The proposal would need to be reviewed by Sks volunteers. In lieu of such an article, this topic has been created where such discussions can take place.
However, in the absence of a proper article summarizing the science, stricter than normal moderation will be applied to ensure that all assertions made for or against are backed by references to published studies, preferably in peer-reviewed journals.
Update - October 2020
This post has been up for a little over a year now, and has received over 200 comments. Now seems like a good time to add some clarification.
First of all, the challenge to "nuclear proponents" to provide an article requires that the article "summarize the science". It is not the desire of Skeptical Science to provide a one-sided, pro-nuclear assertion. The expectation is that an article would provide a balanced review of all aspects of nuclear energy as a practical, affordable, realistic source of low-carbon energy.
If you think of yourself as a "nuclear advocate", then writing a balanced article will be difficult for you. This is not a place for "lawyers' science", where the role is to pick a side and pretend there is no other reasonable argument. This is not about winning an argument - it is about coming to a common understanding based on all the available evidence.
If you think that criticism of your position represents an "anti-nuclear bias", then writing a balanced article will be difficult for you.
If you think that you are the only one that truly understands nuclear energy, then you are probably wrong.
Review of any submitted article will not be at the level of a review of a professional journal article, but anyone submitting an article needs to be prepared to have their positions examined in detail for weaknesses, missing information, lack of support in the peer-reviewed literature, etc. If you find it tough to accept criticism in the comments thread, then you will not find review any gentler.
tder2012:
It is a false pproposition that is more rapid to decarbonize using renewables and nuclear than to use nuclear alone. It is faster and releases less carbon to build out a completely renewable system. I note that your question was asked in 2012. Since then the cost of a compeltely renewable system has decreased greatly in cost and the storage isssue has been resolved completely. Meanwhile, modular reactor proposals that promised working reactors by 2020 are decades behind schedule. The money spent on nuclear is wasted.
If you had read Jacobson et al 2009 you would know that the emissions generated by the extreme long time manufacturing nuclear plants results in much more carbon release than building out a complete renewable system.
I don't read Jacobson at all. He has been thoroughly discredited and debunked. He has a scientific debate through the court system and loses that as well. But he claims "victory" because Stanford, and not him, have to pay all the legal fees, good grief. https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/15/stanford-prof-who-sued-critics-loses-appeal-against-500000-in-legal-fees/
Do you have any creditable evidence for your claim "It is a false pproposition that is more rapid to decarbonize using renewables and nuclear than to use nuclear alone. It is faster and releases less carbon to build out a completely renewable system."
tder2012,
Mark Jacobson has over 47,352 citations according to Google Scholar. Your assertions that his work has been discredited are false, deliberate misinformation, but you usually post misinformation.
I have already linked at least two articles for you that show that renewable energy systems are cheaper and faster to build than systems containing nuclear. I note that, according to your link, if enough nuclear plants were built to provide 10% of all power there is only enough uranium for 60 years, less than the claimed lifetime of the plants. One plant would have to be installed approximately every 10 days starting today. For the last ten years there have not been enough plants opened worldwide to keep up with lost capacity from closed plants.
Provide an up to date reference suggesting that it would be more rapid to build out a nuclear plus renewable grid than a renewable only grid. Jacobson 2009 conclusively shows that building out nuclear at any level increases the amount of carbon emitted. Lund et al, linked above also show nuclear results in increased emissions. Your previous quote, (no link), included no data or analysis to support your wild claim. it was simply idle speculation. Why do you ask me for more creditable evidence when you have offered no evidence at all? The last researchers who supported adding nuclear to renewables announced in 2022 that renewables were so much cheaper than nuclear that nuclear is not economic under any plan. (linked upthread, do your homework)
You are simply repeating your previous false claims. That wastes everyones time. You have had your say and I have had mine. The other readers can evaluate what we have both posted. Move on to another subject.
Jacobson is responsible for The Solutions Project. In 2023, Bangladesh used 2940 kwh per person per year. Germany used 38,052 kwh. Germans have a decent lifestyle, the people of Bangladesh are, unfortunately, the poorest in the world (population 171 million). https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/energy
The Solutions Project shows Bangladesh will use 59% less energy in 2050 than today!! On the main page for The Solutions Project it shows "We Love People & Planet", BS!!!. How do you think the citizens of Bangladesh would feel about this? I highly doubt civil engineer Jacobson is able to defy and/or reinvent the scientific laws of physics and thermodynamics!! https://thesolutionsproject.org/what-we-do/inspiring-action/why-clean-energy/#/map/countries/location/BGD
You can look thru The Solutions Project web site and see this is how Jacobson handles all poor countries, I just used Bangladesh as an example. Disgusting, shameful!
And to think there are people who actually respect Jacobson's work. The word "science" is in this site's name, but this, to me, looks like a classic appeal to authority logical fallacy.
Have a look at these six charts and provide any comments.
I have been following this back-and-forth.
This is the first time I have been motivated to say something.
I checked the Solutions Project link you shared. I saw the 59% reduction on the Bangladesh page.
So I checked what the solutions Project page for Germany said.
It said 59% reduction of energy use.
It would appear that either you didn't bother to do more investigation ... or you think people will simply take 'your take' without further investigating its validity.
Just to be clear: More energy use does not indicate that a person or nation or socioeconomic system is more advanced or superior. Advancement is understandably 'achieving the same quality of life with less material consumption, less energy use, and less harm done'.
Less Energy consumption is Helpful. The richest highest energy use addicts need to 'detox themselves' and set the examples of how to Live Better Less Harmfully.
Oh, I'm sure all countries would use less energy under Jacobson's Solutions Project, no point in even checking that. I'm concerned with poor countries today living in extreme poverty, one main reason being they have very much insufficient access to energy. So you're OK with the billions of people today living in extreme poverty having even less energy access and being even worse off under Jacobson's Solutions Project?
One Planet Only Forever, are you OK with the billions of poor people today barely having enough energy for a fridge, if that, and continuing to not have access to stove, washer, dryer, microwave, air conditioning, computers, internet, running water, industry, manufacturing, careers and women continuing to lack in education because they need to do many domestic duties like hauling water, wood and dung for fires, cooking and boiling water over wood and dung and washing clothes by hand? How much leisure time and fun activities do you think these billions of women have access to, let alone an education? Search Hans Rosling TED Talk "The Magic Washing Machine".
tder2012:
This thread is supposed to be about the prospects and technology of nuclear energy. The model that Jacobson used to project energy use in 2050 is off topic for this thread.
Perhaps we should compare Jacobson's model to one of the models that nuclear supporters use. Oops, no-one who publishes estimates of future energy use by country supports using any nuclear. Even if they did, it is impossible to generate more than 10% of all power using nuclear since there is not enough uranium available using current technology.
The people of Bangladesh would be much better off if they all installed solar panels on their houses like the people in Pakistan are currently doing. Pakistani's installed 17 GW of solar panels in 2024 alone. That is equal to the production of 5 GW of nuclear power installed in a single year. That is similar to all the new nucleat power installed in the entire world in 2024. And the nuclear plants took 10 years to plan and build.
tder2012:
I note that you have linked no creditable evidence for your claim that it would be faster to build out a renewable plus nuclear power system than a renewable only system. You demanded that I provide evidence to you, although I already cited two peer reviewed papers supporting my claims, and you have only quoted hearsay.
When you demand evidence you must provide evidence. Changing the topic is conceding that you were worng.
"The Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant prevents up to 22.4 million tons of carbon emissions every year, equivalent to removing 4.8 million cars from the roads". "Construction Program"
"In December 2023 at COP28 in Dubai, 22 countries and more than 120 companies pledged to triple global nuclear energy capacity by 2050".
I'm not familiar with any study in involving nuclear energy that is similar to Jacobson's The Solutions Project in which everyone will use much less energy by 2050, including those that live in extreme poverty today and have almost no access to energy.
The solar panels being installed in Bangladesh, how much CO2 emissions will it prevent every year? Will Bangladesh people now have access to stove, washer, dryer, microwave, air conditioning, computers, internet, running water, industry, manufacturing, careers and women will now have access to education?
tder2012 @406 and 407,
As Michael Sweet has pointed out this thread is about ‘Nuclear Energy being the Answer to the needed rapid ending of developed harmful unsustainable (over-) consumption of fossil fuel energy’. I will connect this comment to that point ... and also connect my comment @495 to that point.
I do not see where your comments legitimately refute the fundamental understanding I presented that:
The question becomes about the merit of using an increase of nuclear, a non-renewable (near future dead-end) harmful energy systems to ‘help solve the climate impact problem and help the poorest’.
More new nuclear power supply is Not the Answer.
There are rich high energy-users in Bangladesh. They need to most dramatically change their ways and help those who genuinely need the benefit of more energy consumption live better.
And other richer people should pay more for products made in Bangladesh to improve the circumstances of the workers in Bangladesh. US import tariffs that reduce the tax burden for the richest in the US are unhelpful.
What happens in the near future when the nuclear systems can no longer be benefited from? The answer is to build truly renewable energy systems now, in parallel with the pursuit of ‘lower energy consumption ways of living well’.
More new nuclear power generation in Bangladesh would not effectively help the poor ther (or anywhere).
The best way to help the poorest is to help them get their ‘needed energy’ from all the energy system options that would actually have a lasting future – Not New Nuclear.
Indeed, this post is mistitled, obviously no energy source is THE answer. I believe nuclear energy can be part of the solution. Please take less than 10 minutes to check out these six slides and provide comment. Also, consider obtaining a copy of "The LNT Report" when it is published in August, 2025, see cover and back of the book here. "For decades, the notion that any amount of nuclear radiation is hazardous to human health has been perpetuated by flawed science, ideological agendas, and misinformation. The LNT Report reveals the shocking truth behind this myth, exposing the bad faith, muddled thinking, and prejudice that have fueled unnecessary fears about nuclear power", if we overcome this fear and instead support nuclear power, maybe we could build fast breeder reactors, high temperature gas reactors, etc.
[BL] This is growing tiresome. The comments threads here are not intended to be a social-media-like spewing of any thought that comes into your head.
You have posted 39 comments in less than a week. Your comments have included numerous errors, and highly-selective choices of evidence. You seem to have great difficulty in keep comments on-topic, even though people have tried to point you to proper threads.
Please take the time to be more thoughtful about what you post, and condense your comments into a more coherent argument. One or two thoughtful comments per day will be far more constructive than a stream-of-consciousness spattering of loosely related items.
Also please read the Comments Policy. There is always a link to it above the box you edit your comment in.
In particular, note that the comments policy states "No link or picture only". Although you are burying your links in verbiage, you are saying little about those links other than "look here". And your references often seem to show the opposite of what you seem to say they show.
Please slow down, and apply more thought to what you post.
tder2012 @412,
I will limit this response to the parts of your comment that relate to this discussion.
Indeed the question for this discussion is “Is New Nuclear Energy systems a viable part of the solution to the challenge of limiting climate change impacts to well below 2.0 C?”
Regarding the last of the Slides you linked to:
I don't bother with predictions, so only one comment on this prediction of yours "The future of energy production will ‘be without’ Nuclear and the Fossil Fuel systems" I linked to the article in which 22 countries and 120 businesses pledged to triple nuclear capacity by 2050 in 2023 at COP28, see this link, 6 more countries joined this pledge at COP29 in 2024. If I had to bet (which I don't), I would certainly bet on these 28 countries and 120+ over your prediction, One Planet Only Forever. I would also bet on these countries and companies over The Solutions Project as I doubt any country in the world would agree to using 50+% less energy in 2050 than they are using today, especially the countries in which the overwhelming majority of their citizens live in extreme poverty.
tdder2012 at 410:
Regarding The Solutions Project claiming that in 2050 societies will use much less energy and you being unwilling to use less energy.
Nuclear power plants waste 70% of the energy they generate as thermal pollution of the environment. This pollution is very distructive to the environment. If we switch to renewable energy no waste heat is generated. That means if we switch from nuclear to solar power we reduce energy usage by 70%.
Likewise electric cars save 80% of the energy since ICE engines are so inefficient that most of the energy goes out the tailpipe. Heat pumps are 3-4 tmes more efficient than thermal furnaces saving 60-70 percent of the energy. Overall energy savings from more efficient renewable energy are about 40% when you count the storage costs of renewables.
I think it is interesting that you prefer to pollute the environment with heat than to save money.
tder2012 at 410:
You are Gish Galloping again. That is a techniquie used by nuclear supporters when they realize thay have lost an argument.
Regarding the Barakah nuclear power plant. Planning for the plant began about 2005 and the first power was generated in 2020, 15 years. In 2005 solar was more expensive than nuclear power and a nuclear reactor might have made sense.
Today nuclear power is 10 times more expensive than solar on a GW generated basis and a solar farm takes only 2-4 years to build from initial plans. The carbon dioxide released in the 10-15 extra years it takes to build the nuclear plant is enormous and counts as emitted by the nuclear plant.
i note that no additional power plants using the Barakah plans are being built anywhere in the world outside of Korea. They are not legal to build in the EU and USA since they do not meet safety regulations. They are not economic, people are building solar and batteries instead.
Your comments on Bangaledesh power usage are off topicc. In any case, nuclear power will not lift the poor out of poverty since it costs ten timesw as much as solar.
tder2012 at 412:
We have already extensively discussed LNT on this thread. Part of your homework is to read the earlier posts so that you do not bring up items that have previously been resolved.
The BIER VII report by the National Academy of Science, using only recently obtianed data, states that the LRNT model is the accepted scientific consensus. Your book by someone who has no papers on Google Scholar regarding radiation safety and no advanced degree at all is simply trash. I note that Ed Calabrese, whose name is on the cover of the book as having read it, was a member of the Academy of Science committee that concluded LRNT was the scientific consensus.
I note that I have years of professional experience handeling very large amounts of radiation and have spent weeks in professional radiation safety training. I do not like internet educated noobies lecturing me about radiation safety.
tder at 414:
While a number of countries have signed on to the pledge to increase nuclear by 2050, very few are actually building new plants. According to your link above if we tripled nuclear power there is only enough uranium to last 30 years, hardly a good long term solution.
A simple timeline analysis indicates that this pledge is extremely unlikely to be realized. It takes 9-15 years to plan and build a nuclear plant (when existing designs are used, longer for new designs). If we started planning today it would be 2035 before the first plants came online. There are about 440 nuclear power plants in operation. Most will close before 2050 due to old age. They would have to comission 1320 new plants to triple capacity. That would be about 264 per year or one plant every 1.4 days in the 15 years remaining after 2035. Currently about 2-6 plants are opened per year.
At the end of this build there would be enough nuclear for about 10% of all needed world power. The other 90% would be renewable. Since nuclear and renewable energy do not add we would need enough renewable energy for about 95% of all power.
Please do not respond that undesigned plants will be built much faster and run on no uranium. I have heard those promises from nuclear engineers for over 50 years and they have never panned out.
I have already addressed your desire to thermally polute rather than use cheaper renewable energy.
I am sorry, I made a math error. 1320 plants devided by 15 yrears is only 88 plants per year or1.7 plants per week.
for comment 409, sorry I had forgetten about this chart until now "Largest 10-year deployments of low-carbon electricity generation"
[BL] Once again, the Comments Policy states "No link or picture only". You were previously warned that when you provide a link, you should provide some sort of text telling readers what you want them to see in that link.
If you can't be bothered to take the time to provide explanatory text, why should readers bother to take the time to follow your links in search of relevant information?
If this pattern of behaviour continues, expect to see portions of your comments deleted - or even entire comments.
I thought the fact that I used the text "Largest 10-year deployments of low-carbon electricity generation" and the descriptions on the x and y axis of the picture would have been clear enough, sorry.
[BL] You were wrong.
We can't see the axis labels until after we follow the link. And when you link to something like a Google doc, there is a risk that the link will lead nowhere at some time in the future when others read the thread.
You should help the reader by stating something like "this graph shows [something] plotted against [something else]". And then explain what feature you think the graph shows that pertains to the discussion.
The same applies to links to other web pages, documents, or reports. Explain what the document contains, which portion of it you want the reader to note, and why it is important to the discussion.
This is particularly true when people are finding parts of documents you link to that refute the claim you are trying to make. Unless you state what part you read to get your interpretation, we can't tell if you are just not reading the entire document, or you are misunderstanding the document. (Both may be true.)
tder2012:
Your graph uses arcane units (ten year average MWh per capatia) designed to make nuclear power look good and stops at 2020 before most of renewable energy was installed. A single nuclear plant opened in a small country like Sweden appears to be a lot of nuclear.
Let us look at terrawatt hours of power produced in the entire world.
In 2024, according to Ember, wind produced 2494 TWH of electricity, solar 2131 TWh, and nuclear 2768 TWh. Since you like 10 year results in 2014 solar produced 198 TWh, wind 706 TWh, and nuclear 2499 TWh. I note that nuclear has been flat for 20 years while solar increased 1,100% and wind increased 350% over 10 years.
Wind and solar combined produced approximately 650 TWH more in 2024 than in 2023. The largest increase in nuclear power was in 1985 when 234 TWh were added (Our World in data) Wind and solar will increase more this year since more factories are being built. In the 1980's people realized that nuclear is not economic and stopped building most new plants.
Nuclear power is not economic, takes too long to buid and there is not enough uranium.
You have still not pprovided any data to support your wild claimm that a renewables plus nuclear grid can be built out faster than a renewables only grid.
comment 417 about the BIER VII. BIER VII was published in 2006. Since then, there have been at least eight reports that have been published. In addition "we know far more about DNA damage and repair than we did in 2006. Hundreds if not thousands of papers on the subject have been published. In 2015, three Nobel Prizes were awarded for describing how our bodies repair DNA damage. We now know that normal metabolic damage to our DNA produces 200 to 5000 times as many Double Strand Breaks as background radiation. We have considerable evidence that closely spaced Double Strand Breaks are the one form of damage which our amazingly effective repair processes have a problem with. This argues for a highly rate dependent harm process". This author thinks these eight new reports published after BIER VII, in addition to this quote I included, should be incorporated into a BIER VIII report, thus this post "Is it time for BIER VIII?"
comment 422, interesting. So in 2024, wind produced 2494TWh from 1.017TW of capacity for a capacity factor of 28%. In 2024, solar produced 2131TWh from 1.419TW of capacity for a capacity factor of 17%. In 2024, nuclear produced 2768TWh from 0.39TW of capacity for a capacity factor of 81%. For perspective, in 2024, BESS produced 363GWh from 150GW of capacity according to the Volta Foundation.
Capacity numbers from wind and solar are from Our World in Data. Nuclear capacity number is from this link https://visualizingenergy.org/global-nuclear-power-capacity-additions/.
"[BL] You were wrong." Thank you for the explanation, I will strive to be more careful with my posts.
tder2012:
Responding to post 423: linking a blog post in response to a National Academy of Science consensus report makes you look bad. Nuclear supporters have challenged the BIER VII report ever since it was released. When the National Academy of Science decides to write a new consensus report come back here and we can talk about it.
tder2012:
Responding to post 424: so for you a higher capacity number is more important than the cost of production. New nuclear power currently costs ten times more than new solar power.
Nuclear power is not economic, takes too long to buid and there is not enough uranium.
You have still not provided any data to support your wild claim that a renewables plus nuclear grid can be built out faster than a renewables only grid.
tder2012,
michael sweet @418 provided a good response to your response @414 to my comment @413. I will add the following:
There may be some ‘new nuclear power systems’ built due to misguided leadership actions supporting bad bets. But they will almost certainly be expensive, or less safe, and be too late to help limit global warming impacts.
I understand that limiting the negative impacts of wasteful and harmful, but popular and profitable, developments in self-interest driven socioeconomic-political systems is a constant challenge for people who try to sustainably develop improvements, especially improvements for the poorest. Misleading marketing fuelled pursuits of popularity and profit in misguided competition for perceptions of superiority relative to others has a proven history of developing and excusing a diversity of unsustainable and harmful activities.
Some people have invested significantly in developing new nuclear power systems. They can be expected to try to profit from their investments. People invested in the belief that ‘new nuclear will be cheaper and built fast enough to help keep human global warming impacts significantly below 2.0 C have tragically misdirected their efforts.
The evidence is now clear that there are many better ways than new nuclear power to sustainably achieve that important objective. And most of the options that are more sustainable and less harmful than ‘new nuclear’ are also less expensive sources of energy.
It is understandable that people invested in a bad bet will try to argue against the reality that they have made a losing bet. Some of them will even try to claim that their investment (bets) ‘need to pay off to help the poor’ (a version of the non-sense theory of trickle-down economics).