The 7 problems of Nuclear Power

Well said.  Curiously enough, an eighth problem is described in this same newsletter, i.e. consumption of water for cooling.  The lack of sufficient cooling water has caused the shut down of nuclear plants temporarily or, in one case, permanently.

David - unfortunately this is a one-sided analysis, some points are valid; some are comparisons to things that don't exist.  In my opinion both technologies are required, but here are some of the weaknesses:

1.  Solar and wind apparently use no materials in their contruction nor do they have any waste impacts - only nuclear plants have this issue.  Of course this is not correct. Just the process of mining and processes silica.  Then there is metal and other materials in both wind and solar plants.

2.  There has never been any connection between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons - civilian nuclear reactors have a very very low concentration of uranium in their fuel and processing this radioactive waste is very expensive and difficult, the average terriorist cannot do this.  Advanced nuclear weapons can be made from special reactors but this process does not start with light water reactors which all new reactor being built today are.  

3.  Stopping all new plant development to "wait for" nuclear plants and "letting" people die from air pollution is not being proposed by anyone.  Since the world is still growing its use of coal, any electricity from nuclear is displacing some coal and as such is saving lives.    

4.  The volume of high level nuclear waste is minor - several football fields, much much less than the dangerous chemical wastes produced by the silca manufacturing processes:  mining, arc-furnances, doping, acid etching, etc..  The storage is less safe than it should be in the US due to politics - the Federal government has an obligation which rate payers are funding for long term storage and they are not providing simple safe storage.  Even with the Federal government failures there have been no cases of the current storage solution failing and impacting the environment.  Also remember in the US all reactors are required to have a fund to decommission and dismantle the plant, no other technology has this requirement, so when all of the solar and winds plants are shut down, there is no assurance they will be removed.  

5.  Comparing the installed costs of plants without evaluating their capacity factors does not provide an accurate comparison.  Onshore Wind plants have a capacity factor of 30-40%, offshore Wind is higher, but costs are 3-4X higher.  Solar has a capacity factor of <20% to over 30%.  Nuclear plants have a capacity factor of 95% - so they can justify a 3-6 X higher first cost just due to their ability generate more energy.  

Things that are missed:

1. Land use - wind and solar have a tremendous footprint - so we have to level land, eliminate trees and other vegetation.  Wind can co-exist with ranching and farming, solar cannot.

2.  The cost of electricity storage needs to be included, as well as the environmental impact of its manufacture, operations and disposal. 

As with most energy issues, there are many differences and layers, China added 4 GW of nuclear generation last year, over 50 GW of fossil generation - lots of coal.  So nuclear can be built and it will reduce carbon.  Smaller nuclear footprints can mitigate some of the issues vs. larger sites, but even these sites will take time to develop and build, these new plants can be air cooled vs. water cooled.   

I think you mean "2. Cost - based on LCOE - is too high, way too high."

Living in Japan and having experienced the effects of the Fukushima incident firsthand, no argument will ever convince me to accept nuclear power as a solution for our energy woes. As no private cars were allowed yet, I was 3 weeks after the incident with a government car in Minami Soma, which is 20 miles north of Fukushima No 1. Observing the effects on the lives of people strengthen my already pre-existing opposition to nuclear power. I have 2 points that will never be overcome.

1. The human factor: we all remember Chernobyl, which was quite obviously a human error. But also Fukushima was one. To save money for pumping cooling water uphill, the existing hill was cut down and its height lowered. It was already known that huge tsunamis with up to 30 m height had happened in the past. So for me, it's incomprehensible to lower the height. The 2nd major error was to install the emergency generators on the ground level. On the upper floors, they would have survived this tsunami and continued cooling the reactor. And anybody remembering the accident in Tokai Mura, where workers were cutting corners and mixed nuclear material in a bucket instead of following the procedures? It's always the human factor.

2. The nuclear waste problem: we have nuclear energy for over 50 years now and nowhere in the world is a safe place to store the waste. In Finland is the most probable solution in preparation, but it is very expensive. In 2018 Japan Nuclear Fuel Limited has announced a further three-year delay in the schedule for completing the Rokkasho reprocessing plant. Construction of the plant began in 1993! The target was reprocessing nuclear waste and produce MOX fuel for fast breeder reactors. That is plutonium mixed with uranium.

Preventing proliferation? Arrgh.... There is always someone, who needs money. And who says that a full-fledged atomic bomb with enriched uranium is necessary to cause severe damage? A dirty bomb is enough. In Fukushima, millions of black bags with low-level contaminated soil are sitting unprotected outside. I am very sure that if someone seriously looks for stronger "stuff", he will find it.