EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green investment label: document

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...

"The data on nuclear power was taken from Lenzen (2008) and Warner and Heath (2012)."

"Photovoltaic power: Ranges are based largely on the reviews of Hsu et al. (2012) and Kim et al. (2012)."

"Wind power: The data is based on the review of Arvesen and Hert-wich (2012) and has been cross-checked with Dolan and Heath (2012) and Hertwich et al. (2013)"

Let's go back to the Hsu review cited for photovoltaic generation.

"Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Electricity Generation: Systematic Review and Harmonization"

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1530-9290....

If you look at tables 1 and 2, it's aggregating studies from the years 2000-2009. Most are from 2006 or earlier. Solar manufacturing has improved a lot and costs have fallen dramatically since 2006. At the same time, nuclear projects under development since 2006 in Europe or the USA have cost much more than originally planned.

China continues to build new reactors; it's an existence proof that new reactors can be built. But China also builds wind and solar farms cheaper than Europe or the USA. You can't get a Chinese energy project at Chinese domestic prices in either the USA or Europe.

And, more than 2/3 aboard at the time survived. Hard to say where this fits into any proposed analogy.

We have petawatt-hours worth of storage capacity.

There are many designs for nuclear reactors that are simpler, safer, and more suitable for smaller communities, but various government nuclear regulation agencies around the world have such a high bar for entry that those designs will never be put into practice.

In the US, if you want to operate a nuclear reactor, the design has to be vetted first. To vet the reactor, you have to convince the agency to let you build a full-scale test reactor and convince them that the design is likely safe before building the test reactor. If anything about the test reactor makes them uncomfortable, the design will be denied and the reactor won't be allowed to operate and cannot work as a template for future reactors.

This creates a very difficult and expensive bar for entry into the market. For a large reactor, a company would have to invest billions of dollars for a decade before they could even begin to hope to operate to pay back the loans, and even then there is no guarantee that they'll be allowed to operate the reactor to sell the electricity.

That is, unless they use one of the existing pre-approved reactor concepts that were designed in the 70's and have known flaws (albeit, with known ways to reduce the risks of those flaws)

Nuclear radiation might be damaging, but it's not really a big deal as long as the design prevents accidents and there are safeguards to prevent the uncontrolled release of radiation.

You are incorrect about the availability of uranium. There is a LOT of uranium available for use, and we could run entirely on it for thousands, or tens-of-thousands of years. Many mines are shut down simply because there is far more supply than demand.

Solar is an excellent source of energy, with long life spans of the equipment but it's only functional for anywhere from 6 to 16 hours a day, depending on your latitude and the weather. The ideal places for solar farms are often far from the highest concentrations of consumers.

Wind is also great, but it wears out fast because of the moving parts and friction, even the friction of the air moving across the blades wears them down. It's not uncommon for lifespans to just last a decade.

Both wind and solar suffer from risk because manufacturing predominately takes place over seas and trade wars, or real war, could interrupt supply. For solar, that's not as big of a deal for existing infrastructure, but for wind it could cause problems.

Our grid, in the US, is pretty interconnected. There are improvements that can be made, but it's pretty redundant in general.

The ideal solution would be small but safer nuclear reactors, no bigger than an office building, that can supply power to 50k or 100k homes. Place them within 20 miles of urban centers.

The problem is that it takes a lot of political will to build a nuclear power plant because everyone is afraid of that. Bigger plants are often desired because plant owners need to invest the decade and tens of millions of dollars getting not just approval from the NRC, but approval from the people and government within 20 miles of the plant.

Smaller and safer plants might be cheaper to build, but there is no savings when it comes to that approval and acceptance process.