Nuclear industry too big to fail?

Something that has confused me about Fukushima is the public’s reaction. When the banks screwed up there was a massive backlash. When Fukushima went tits up the general consensus seemed to be, oh well no one died and we need energy.

But this view point is missing the glaringly obvious conclusion we should be drawing from Fukushima. The nuclear industry has a big straw man it can attack. Health, they are more than happy for the media to concentrate on this as it’s not a real issue.

What Fukushima shows us is the fact that nuclear isn't commercially viable without government funding and insurance. Fukushima will cost the Japanese government billions upon billions to clean up after they had already ploughed millions into it to get it up and running and eventually decommissioned. So why are we not as disgusted with the nuclear industry as we are with the banks?

It’s not like we have another option with the banks, but with nuclear we do and what’s more nuclear is a dead end. It’s not the answer to our energy requirements, it will never be commercially viable, it’s becoming less and less so and it’s a finite resource.

So why are we so happy to plough money into a failed industry?

Nuclear isn't a dead industry. Nuclear is self-sustaining and financially viable with modern reactor designs. In the UK, the aim is for the Private Sector to operate the forthcoming new fleet of reactors without investment from the Government. The technology has substantially matured enough since we started pissing about with the old, relatively "dirty" (and thus costly to decommission) Magnox and AGR reactors that decommissioning costs are far far lower with modern designs, so there's not this costly multi-decade legacy.

We shouldn't criticise TEPCO, or the Japanese Authorities for a natural disaster that substantially exceeded the designed endurance limits for the plant.

In fact, it's a testament to the designs of these reactors that they're still largely intact.

Uranium is a finite resource, sure, but with a resource lifetime in excess of a millennium based on it's consumption rate by inefficient last-generation reactors it's not our problem, our children's problem, their children's problem, their children's children's problem and so on. Not only that, but it can be largely reprocessed into more fuel after it's been spent. Then there's alternative reactor designs coming to the fore like Thorium reactors; Thorium is considerably more abundant than Uranium and produces substantially less nuclear waste..

The Government may not be providing investment for the new fleet of reactors to be constructed but will always be responsible for the insurance in the event of another Fukushima.



Yes we should, it was entirely forseable and the designed endurance limits for the plant not up to scatch.



They are far from intact and its going to cost billions.

So why are we so happy to plough money into a failed industry?

Except Nuclear is not a failed industry.

Which will vastly increase prices and make it even less commercially viable.

Thanks to subsidies.

Well if you can predict Tsunamis you may want to share that with the Japanese government.

If the general public were not so ignorant of nuclear power then you would not be referring to a future nuclear accident as another Fukushima. The fact that people were expecting a nuclear explosion or another Chernobyl proves this.

The Government may not be providing investment for the new fleet of reactors to be constructed but will always be responsible for the insurance in the event of another Fukushima.

As opposed to the completely independent, self-sustaining renewables sector!?

The Government may not be providing investment for the new fleet of reactors to be constructed but will always be responsible for the insurance in the event of another Fukushima.

I wonder, when was the last time we got hit by a tsunami in England?

There have been THREE yes count it THREE major nuclear failures in history. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima.

The cost of nuclear plants isn't in the fuel - you can buy a kilo of uranium for bugger all. The cost is in hiring and training nuclear specialists, safety procedures, waste reprocessing and building the reactor vessel. The $:MW ratio of investment in nuclear schemes actually suggests that you get more bang for your buck in building nuclear plants than renewables, it's just that wind and wave schemes are widely distributed and each scheme contributes less than any nuclear plant so it's hard to compare the two; nuclear power is also obviously more reliable than most renewable sources, because you can have it on all the time. That's a factor often forgotten in comparing renewable and nuclear power.

Renewables are either too inconsistent (wind), too hard to harness (wave) or too ecologically damaging (tidal barrages, biomass) to be anything more than a false economy if we employed them on their own. Obviously fossil fuels aren't really an option. Fission is a necessity, but some diversity in energy supply is needed so I support renewables being the other half of our energy future alongside nuclear.

The fact that you've just breezed in here on your first day to criticise nuclear power somewhat betrays your true intentions, it has to be said.

It was designed for tsunamis in mind they foresaw this happening, they underestimated it. This maybe acceptable if it weren't for Japans history of tsunamis and recent events such as the Boxing Day tsunami. With decommissioning factored in the chances were Fukushima would have been there in some capacity for many number years to come making the likelihood of it being hit by such an event all the more likely.

Government Insurance Liability? [Citation Needed]


I was under the impression that you can't insure a Nuclear Power Plant, and the operator takes out 3rd party insurance to protect itself should an accident happen.

You are aware that the buildings that have been destroyed are little more than sheds? This is superficial damage. The actual reactors themselves are intact. They have not melted down. The Reactor Pressure Vessels appear to have not been breached. The reactors were coming to the end of their life anyway, so decommissioning was inevitable and the authorities may simply decide to de-fuel the reactors and mothball them, as in Three Mile Island unit 2.

Well that’s just plain wrong, there’s Windscale for a start.

The 1953 floods were comparable to a tsunami.



Well that’s just plain wrong, there’s Windscale for a start.