Even if people do accept nuclear power, it’s still not affordable

Fukushima and the Future of Nuclear Power : Science Blogs, Casaubon’s Book, April 1, 2011 , by Sharon Astyk“………More than any other kind of energy generation, nuclear frontloads its energy costs dramatically – reliable estimates vary from as low as 12 years before they produce more energy than went into building them to as high as 20. The upfront plant building costs are also vastly higher than for coal, natural gas or any other source.

At this stage (and this is the most critical point) just about EVERY SINGLE BIT of the upfront cost of nuclear power comes from fossil fuels. The energy that runs the economy to make the money to build them comes from fossil fuels. Uranium mining isn’t done on solar electric. The transport of fuel and worker, the concrete and heavy materials, the containment systems – everything is built with a huge front load of fossil fuels and fossil fueled money.

So while nuclear power does return net energy and while it may be true that public opposition to nuclear power will fall, it probably won’t matter – because no society in an energy decline, with declining fossil fuel resources, can afford to front-load a decade or two decades of energy in fossil fuels into a plant. It simply doesn’t scale – yes, you get more out in the end but that doesn’t matter – you can’t afford it, not financially, not in energy terms. Rising costs of those fossil fuels increases the upfront costs of any plant, while simultaneously undermining the financial stability of both the public and private resources that might otherwise be building nuclear plants. Those upfront costs of building plants also got substantially higher when the Fukushima disaster proved the limits of arguing that the 100 or 1000 year event will never hit your plant. If nuclear plants didn’t take 20 years to return net energy before, they almost certainly do now.

the worst case scenario for a wind farm is pretty benign, and the cost of any given wind turbine or solar panel is pretty reasonable – and it meets the failure analysis too – if you can only build 1/2 your solar panels, that’s ok – that’s still some valuable electrical generation. A half-built nuclear plant is not an asset.

Financially and in energy terms any major build out will compete with other resources and needs. Now could a society collectively choose to put aside all other projects for the greater good? Sure – but remember, you don’t get net energy out of those plants for two decades. The history of people sacrificing their own interests for their posterity is real and could be invoked here – but you have to sacrifice for a long, long time, on a long long build out, costing you lots of money you wanted for other things, and energy resources you would have liked to use for other things. It could be done, but the will to do so does not exist. Will it? Maybe. It is also possible that Fukushima has put the final nail in nuclear’s coffin – not because people will never accept it, but because it won’t matter when they do.

Fukushima and the Future of Nuclear Power : Casaubon’s Book