Did Tesla Just Kill Nuclear Power?

[eye.surgeon]

No. Public perception killed nuclear power. Musk is just providing a viable alternative.

"but the nuclear industry would have you believe that humankind is smart enough to develop techniques to store nuclear waste for a quarter of a million years"

And this is part of that incorrect perception that seems to be unstoppable. A proper nuclear reactor produces waste that only lasts a few hundred years, not to mention how miniscule an amount it would be.

Nuclear will never go away completely. Without it, we can't explore deep space (the New Horizons space craft heading to see Pluto up close for the first in human history this summer is essentially nuclear powered). While I'm sure bad public perception could also kill off space exploration, I'm pretty sure the Navy isn't going to give up nuclear power for their colossal ships and submarines.

Thank-you.

The idea that the world could replace the vast amounts of nuclear generated power with a bunch of windmills and solar panels is a fantasy. The only failure of Nuclear power is a public relations one. In a world governed by sane policy and science, we would have nuclear reactors powering neighborhoods and cities, college campuses and factories, much as they power submarines, carriers, and spacecraft now, where public paranoia doesn't limit them.

 

[mwulff]

Short term (50 years og so) we will need nuclear. If the liquid fluoride thorium reactor becomes viable it could we be the technology to power humanity for the 100 years. not knowing how cheap fusion power will be this is our best bet right now.

Nuclear + wind + solar + batteries = a much better world for all of us.

 

[tonybelding]

The problem with fusion is NOT that it is estimated to be 20 years into the future until it becomes practically viable as an energy source. The real problem is, that it has been constantly 20 years in the future since the 1960s...

That's not a valid argument. That's like people in the 1990s arguing that electric cars could never become viable -- because better batteries have been touted as "right around the corner" for 100 years, but we're still stuck with lead-acid and 40 miles range (downhill, with a tailwind).

There are a lot of people, and companies, pursuing multiple strategies for fusion power now. It's more a question of which one(s) will work, rather than if.

It could happen faster if some of these projects (practically all of them except ITER) could get decent funding, instead of running on a shoestring.

 

[Johan]

The problem with fusion is NOT that it is estimated to be 20 years into the future until it becomes practically viable as an energy source. The real problem is, that it has been constantly 20 years in the future since the 1960s...

Don't be a Debbie Downer here. Fusion is coming, the only real "threat" is that by the time economically sound reactors can be mass produced solar may be so cheap and ubiquitous that fusion becomes only a niche product, for special applications such as underwater, polar, space travel etc.

 

[SmartElectric]

That's not a valid argument. That's like people in the 1990s arguing that electric cars could never become viable -- because better batteries have been touted as "right around the corner" for 100 years

Nice try. Batteries were used in all sorts of things, including computers in the 1990's. It was obvious way back then that battery technology would be a profitable place for R&D dollars. Tesla benefited due to the massive investments made by Panasonic for computer laptop cells for example.

Nuclear has no such possibility, I don't see non-government working on nuclear technology, and for sure, there is no profit in it without subsidies.

Meanwhile, solar and wind endlessly march on with massive investment around the world, constantly reducing price, increasing efficiency.

It's a false hope to count on nuclear power to save us. Elon is right, there is a massive fusion reactor beaming wireless energy directly at our rooftops, and we can collect it with panels and batteries. It is only a matter of time and investment, and it's clear that both are on the side of solar.

Meanwhile, here in Ontario the nuclear plants need a refit, and are going to charge us a minimum of 9c/kWh for the production of that newly refurbished power. That is for a refit, imagine the cost of new! The 9c doesn't cover transmission and local charges that would effectively double that to 18c! Solar is so close to that already, it's only a few years more before producing power on your roof with no transmission or delivery charges is cheaper than nuclear, and that is in Ontario, who produces more nuclear power as a percentage of production than practically any place outside of France in the world!!

 

[beeeerock]

Nuclear has no such possibility, I don't see non-government working on nuclear technology, and for sure, there is no profit in it without subsidies.

It's a false hope to count on nuclear power to save us. Elon is right, there is a massive fusion reactor beaming wireless energy directly at our rooftops, and we can collect it with panels and batteries. It is only a matter of time and investment, and it's clear that both are on the side of solar.

While I agree that the cheapest fusion reactor is the sun and champion that idea myself, you should have a look at what Lightbridge has been doing for many years (previously as Thorium Power) with nuclear technology. Forget the Fluoride/Thorium stuff, what they're working on can be used in a retrofitted typical pressurized water reactor.

 

[mspohr]

Another article in Forbes today by the same author:
Why Tesla Batteries Are Cheap Enough To Prevent New Power Plants - Forbes
This expands on the "batteries Kill Nukes" to say that batteries are now cheap enough to replace ANY new power plant.

"Last year, analysts hired by Oncor Electric Delivery Company were toiling away on a study of the costs and benefits of installing enormous batteries on Oncor’s grid in Texas. The benefits would surpass the costs, they calculated, if Oncor could buy batteries for $350 per kilowatt hour of capacity—or less. That was the break-even point.At the time, the cheapest utility-scale batteries cost twice that much, the analysts noted, and some cost nearly ten times that much. But prices were falling, and the analysts predicted batteries might reach the $350 point in 2020.
They didn’t have to wait nearly so long.
Tesla’s Powerwall home battery, unveiled late Thursday night, dominated energy news all weekend, but the real news was the price tag on its utility-scale big sister, the Powerpack: $250/kWh."

Apparently the magic price point is 2 cents/kwh... if you can store power for 2 cents/kwh then you don't need to build a new power plant because you can store cheap power from wind, solar, etc. and you don't need to buy or build expensive peak power.

 

[Johan]

Yup Elon knows it all to well, this is the first nail in the coffin for all peak power plants regardless of if it's nat. gas, coal or even nuclear (never heard of nuclear used as peak supply though).

In the words of the man himself, $250/kWh is "the real kicker".

 

[constraint]

There is no doubt in my mind that Nuclear is the end power game. The issue is the Light Water Reactor designs of today along with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are killing any innovation in the field. While yes there is a large project for the Tokamak (which may go commercial in 40 years) all other idea's around nuclear have minimal to no funding. For example during the 60's Throrium reactors actually had a lot of promise (and still do), but ultimately funding was pulled because you couldn't make bombs out of the stuff as easy (think about that for a moment).

Solar and Batteries (and charge controllers and inverters) are a nice option, but a really really expensive option. They are great for remote area's, off grid remote locations. The Powerwall also makes economic sense in states like California where the day electrical rates are much higher in the day then lower at night. Unfortunately states like mine (Minnesota), Solar Panels are less then ideal, electricity rates are stable throughout the day and relatively cheap. I may one day purchase the setup but the payback for such a long time that economic reasons is not the primary driver.

 

[VolkerP]

I believe what is really stopping nuclear is lack of education.

Denmark is powered mostly by coal and it is killing thousands every year. We are in one of the most geologically stable places on the planet. We have a metric ton of isolated islands that are suitable for nuclear power stations. But if you mention nuclear out comes the torches and the pitchforks.

So people are too dumb to understand nuclear, but bright enough to run it safely? I don't buy that. Human error and misjudgement is the cause of all nuclear disasters ever.

At the current prices nuclear is very expensive, the next generation reactors might be cheaper and easier to build. Or maybe we could do what France did. Standardize the reactor and build them on an assembly line.

The french EPR is an example par excellence for cost overrun. The EPR in Olkiluoto, Finland, is years behind schedule and serveral billion Euros above budget. The EPR in Flamanville, France, is a disaster, too.

We need a safe and clean base-load provider.

Nope. With solar, wind, and batteries, we have all the means to power arbitrary electric load curves. There is an economic optimum between over building generation capacity, throwing away excesses, and over building battery storage to outlast any possible wind lull & foggy weather.

I agree that cheap batteries provide the means to make any fuel burning power plant uneconomical in the long run.

 

[Johan]

The time has come and gone for nuclear. It could have easily been the end game: safe, 4th generation reactors with no waste issues, uranium extracted from sea water.

But politics and nuclear weapons put a stop to it. The environmentalist movement was severely and very cleverly mislead to believe nuclear was bad for the environment. The coal and gas lobby were very successful in their forging of public perception in the 60s, 70s and 80s.

Global political instability and the unavoidable intertwinement between nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons didn't help either.

 

[beeeerock]

The french EPR is an example par excellence for cost overrun. The EPR in Olkiluoto, Finland, is years behind schedule and serveral billion Euros above budget. The EPR in Flamanville, France, is a disaster, too.

It would be interesting to see an analysis comparing costs and power output based on the dollars to first build, then actually run and maintain a typical fission reactor, to solar and batteries. It seems to me that PV panel (or even mirror/salt) installations on a large scale could be built out a long way before matching the construction cost of a reactor. The carbon cost would also be interesting, as would the long term reactor costs to operate/maintain/refuel/dispose weighed against the equivalent value spent on solar maintenance (and further expansion if any dollars are left over).

If you conservatively estimate a GW reactor at a billion dollars, that's a buck a watt. Operating costs will also be significant and if someone decided to put a dollar figure to the environmental cost of the waste... that number would sure jump. Panels are already less than a dollar a watt to purchase, and that's without serious adjustments for massive scale. Add in batteries and installation... it seems at first glance to be economically reasonable at large scale even today.

EDIT: This link http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Economics-of-Nuclear-Power/ suggests my off the cuff conservative estimate was *really* conservative... without financing costs accounted for, the price is apparently over $5/watt. Makes solar look even better.

 

[mspohr]

It would be interesting to see an analysis comparing costs and power output based on the dollars to first build, then actually run and maintain a typical fission reactor, to solar and batteries. It seems to me that PV panel (or even mirror/salt) installations on a large scale could be built out a long way before matching the construction cost of a reactor. The carbon cost would also be interesting, as would the long term reactor costs to operate/maintain/refuel/dispose weighed against the equivalent value spent on solar maintenance (and further expansion if any dollars are left over).

If you conservatively estimate a GW reactor at a billion dollars, that's a buck a watt. Operating costs will also be significant and if someone decided to put a dollar figure to the environmental cost of the waste... that number would sure jump. Panels are already less than a dollar a watt to purchase, and that's without serious adjustments for massive scale. Add in batteries and installation... it seems at first glance to be economically reasonable at large scale even today.

EDIT: This link http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Economics-of-Nuclear-Power/ suggests my off the cuff conservative estimate was *really* conservative... without financing costs accounted for, the price is apparently over $5/watt. Makes solar look even better.

Here's a good analysis of the high (and increasing) cost of nuclear compared to the low (and decreasing) cost of solar:
Does nuclear power have a negative learning curve? | ThinkProgress

They discuss the French experience of "standardization":
"Despite a most favorable setting, the French PWR program exhibited substantial real cost escalation…
… despite more moderate cost escalation [than the U.S.], the French experience nonetheless raises a number of fundamental issues worth considering in a climate-constrained world
First, while the nuclear industry is often quick to point at public opposition and regulatory uncertainty as reasons for real cost escalation, it may be more productive to start asking whether these trends are not intrinsic to the very nature of the technology itself: large-scale, lumpy, and requiring a formidable ability to manage complexity in both construction and operation. These intrinsic characteristics of the technology limit essentially all classical mechanisms of cost improvements””standardization, large series, and a large number of quasi-identical experiences that can lead to technological learning and ultimate cost reductions””except one: increases in unit size, i.e., economies of scale. In the history of steam electricity generation, these indeed led initially to substantial cost reductions, but after the late 1960s that option has failed invariably due to continued design changes (leading to higher material requirements per kW – the current EPR design being the most ”heavy”) and also increases in technological complexity."

New nukes have gone from too cheap to meter to too expensive to matter for the foreseeable future.

 

[SeminoleFSU]

People just needs to get on board with breeder reactors like molten salt reactors. But companies like GE are still scaring the public in regards to nuclear energy.

This should be the only type of nuclear power we use. Period. The other stuff is not safe when you look at the security risks and the enormous costs of safely storing and containing the waste.

 

[Ampster]

.........

Denmark is powered mostly by coal and it is killing thousands every year. >>>>

Denmark, according to Wikipedia in 2012 is only 46% coal. You have a majority of power generated by renewables. Lots of wind power. Since there is no nuclear in Denmark, I still think the original posters thesis is still relevant. With all the renewables in Denmark there is is good case for battery storage to shift loads and not rely on importing power during peaks.

 

[AustinPowers]

But there should be no nuclear plants shut down instead of coal and gas plants which are ACTUALLY harming the planet on a daily basis and killing people.

Sorry to say, but that is total BS. In what way are nuclear plants NOT harming the planet on a daily basis and killing people?
Do you live near a nuclear reactor? Do you live near a "final storage" facility for nuclear waste? Ever heard of the "Asse"? Don't think so.
Just do a bit of research before you call nuclear power harmless, or better for the environment than coal or gas.

I for one am glad that all German nuclear power stations are being shut down. Only problem is the rest of Europe, especially France, where they are extremely pro-nuclear. But then again, they're French, what should one expect ;-)

(And before you get ready for the stoning, that last sentence about the French was a JOKE, albeit a nasty one, I admit that...)

Anyway, I can't believe how many pro-nuclear people there are here.
I don't know who has indoctrinated all of you, but calling any kind of nuclear energy clean or even safe is like calling GWB an intellectual genius...

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. With solar, wind, and batteries, we have all the means to power arbitrary electric load curves. There is an economic optimum between over building generation capacity, throwing away excesses, and over building battery storage to outlast any possible wind lull & foggy weather.

Thanks, at least one sane person here in regards to nuclear power and future sustainable power generation/storage.

 

[Skotty]

Sorry to say, but that is total BS. In what way are nuclear plants NOT harming the planet on a daily basis and killing people?
Do you live near a nuclear reactor? Do you live near a "final storage" facility for nuclear waste? Ever heard of the "Asse"? Don't think so.
Just do a bit of research before you call nuclear power harmless, or better for the environment than coal or gas.

I for one am glad that all German nuclear power stations are being shut down. Only problem is the rest of Europe, especially France, where they are extremely pro-nuclear. But then again, they're French, what should one expect ;-)

(And before you get ready for the stoning, that last sentence about the French was a JOKE, albeit a nasty one, I admit that...)

Anyway, I can't believe how many pro-nuclear people there are here.
I don't know who has indoctrinated all of you, but calling any kind of nuclear energy clean or even safe is like calling GWB an intellectual genius...

- - - Updated - - -



Thanks, at least one sane person here in regards to nuclear power and future sustainable power generation/storage.

Maybe it is you that has been indoctrinated. I've researched nuclear extensively, and while the current operational fleet of reactors are far from ideal, nuclear undeniably holds great potential to be one of the best sources of power for the planet. Most of us pro-nuclear folks I think are starting to accept that there is perhaps too much public opposition, and with the help of companies like Tesla, renewables do hold the potential to do most if not all of the work. But shutting down existing nuclear power plants instead of coal, or worse to be replaced by coal, is just batsh*t crazy.

 

[nwdiver]

Most of us pro-nuclear folks I think are starting to accept that there is perhaps too much public opposition, and with the help of companies like Tesla, renewables do hold the potential to do most if not all of the work. But shutting down existing nuclear power plants instead of coal, or worse to be replaced by coal, is just batsh*t crazy.

I think most if not everyone here would prefer to shutdown a coal plant vs a nuclear plant... but building more nuclear is an entirely different argument. The four letter word that haunts the dreams of the nuclear industry is C.O.S.T.

$7B is better spent on Power Packs and PV than it is on an AP1000.

 

[AustinPowers]

I think most if not everyone here would prefer to shutdown a coal plant vs a nuclear plant... but building more nuclear is an entirely different argument. The four letter word that haunts the dreams of the nuclear industry is C.O.S.T.

$7B is better spent on Power Packs and PV than it is on an AP1000.

++1

- - - Updated - - -

I've researched nuclear extensively, and while the current operational fleet of reactors are far from ideal, nuclear undeniably holds great potential to be one of the best sources of power for the planet.

While I agree that replacing nuclear with coal is no sensible option, can you tell me where one of the reactors currently in use or under construction is of the type of "safe" reactor that you describe as having high potential?
A lot of things have high potential. But unless there is any realistic chance of any of them being turned into a functioning and above all economic reality, then what is the point?

So yes, there might be some kind of nuclear power that miraculously happens to be safe, doesn't produce any radioactive waste and doesn't cost more than harnessing renewable energy sources, but sorry to say I highly doubt that to be honest. There have been to many such propositions over the years. To my knowledge none of them has yet come to practical fruition.

 

[beeeerock]

I agree that renewables are becoming more cost-effective and are now at a point where they render new nuclear installations unaffordable or uneconomic.

If it comes to picking a poison (nuclear or coal), I'd take 'nuclear'... because coal WILL kill us... nuclear MIGHT kill us if we aren't incredibly careful. Nuclear buys time, although at an admittedly high risk and cost.