Ilosar said:
I'm interested in what you said, Johnny. It seems the problem stems from several sources, after all. Do you think nuclear is a viable long-term solution to replace coal or other fossil fuels? Having experience in the domain certainly makes your opinion more worthwhile than anybody else's in the thread.
Also, ''euro arrogance''? Man, you do that on purpose don't you. You don't actually want to be taken seriously.
First, some disclaimers. I have been out of the nuclear power game for well over a decade, and my direct experience was confined to ship-board military reactors. Technology has changed quite a bit in the ensuing decades. Not that it matters much in the US, because most of our reactors were designed in the 70s.
Second, I don't claim to be an expert on US domestic energy policy, so my opinions are strictly my own.
With that said, no, I do not think nuclear will replace fossil fuels any time in the near future. US regulatory policy is unlikely to change considerably without substantial political pressure. To generate that pressure, we would need a prolonged period of very expensive oil. Think somewhere in the neighborhood of at least $150 - $200 per barrel, coupled with significant declines in supply, and sustained over the course of a year or more.
However, we aren't likely to get there for a variety of reasons. One is that in a sustained market of $150 a barrel for oil, other fossil fuel technology starts becoming economically viable. The two most likely sources are some variation of the Fisher Tropsch process for coal liquification, and oil shale extraction. These processes can both produce significant quantities of fossil fuel, so quantity is not an issue. They aren't cheap, but they are cheaper than converting our entire infrastructure to an alternative system.
The next easiest change to make would be a conversion to some sort of LNG. Again, price determines feasibility. This was very politically popular about three years ago in the US, the last time we faced severe shortages and high prices for gasoline. However, the political momentum fizzled in the face of the world-wide economic crisis, crude prices returned to historic levels.
The third obstacle relates to politics as well. It is in the vested interest of the oil exporting countries to see that oil stays 'cheap' compared to the alternatives. The turmoil in the Middle East stays reflective of that fact. Speculation drives oil prices up, OPEC members start to panic and make promises to adjust for any production gaps, oil starts falling again. Still higher than it was, but always low enough to ensure that it is still the cheapest energy transport medium available.
Which brings us to the fourth obstacle: energy storage. We still do not have a medium of energy transport that is as dense, as stable, and as cheap as fossil fuels. Battery technology has come a long way in the last ten years, but it still fails in terms of expense and energy density. Wind energy is great while it is windy. Solar is great while it is sunny. However, we are severely lacking in an efficient storage medium for keeping any excess energy for when it is dark and still.
For me, it all comes down to money. Nuclear is wonderful in terms of low emissions energy source, but the waste management issue will keep it from being a truly long term solution until it is resolved. Lack of a cheap, efficient storage medium limits the effectiveness of any alternative means of production. Politics and the comparatively low price of oil don't make radical changes very likely. So short of a technological breakthrough I cannot predict, I don't see things changing beyond the incremental approach for the next 30 years, much as has been over the previous 30 years.
