Nuclear industry may be running out of steam

[jpak]

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/mg19626313.300-nuclear-industry-may-be-running-out-of-steam.html

Rumours of a nuclear power renaissance have been greatly exaggerated. So says an audit of the nuclear power industry released on Wednesday.

The report, commissioned by The Greens, a European parliamentary group, points out that many ageing reactors are due to close before 2030, and that 338 new ones would have to be built just to replace them.

"The world has five fewer nuclear reactors operating today than it did in 2002"

The Paris-based nuclear consultants who compiled the report argue that the industry is growing too slowly to meet this target, and may even be shrinking. The world has five fewer reactors operating today than it did in 2002, they say. Only 91 reactors are now being planned, and a further 32 are under construction, mostly in Asia and eastern Europe. Construction work on 11 of those has been under way for 20 years or more.

<not much more>

[Auggie]

1. Nice pun (And one would hope so).

[patricia92243]

2. I can't get the link to work. I want to send it to a friend.

[GliderGuider]

3. This graph shows the effect they're talking about

The model takes a generous interpretation of the available data. It assumes we will build all the reactors shown in the UIC data referenced above: six plants per year for the next five years, nine plants per year for the subsequent ten years, and ten plants per year until 2050. The model further assumes that all reactors will be granted life extensions to 50 years from their current 40, and that no plants will be prematurely decommissioned.

The drop in output between 2020 and 2037 is the result of new construction not keeping pace with the decommissioning of old reactors. The argument for a peak and subsequent decline in nuclear capacity is very similar to the logistical considerations behind Peak Oil - the big pool of reactors we currently use will start to become exhausted, and we're not building quite enough replacements. The rise after 2037 comes from my estimate that we will then be building 10 reactors per year compared to 6 per year today. The net outcome is that in 2050 nuclear power will be supplying about the same amount of energy that it is today.

The graph and text are from my article World Energy to 2050.

[gasperc]

4. there also isn't as much Uranium out there as you think

nuclear can but only should make up a small portion of the future of energy. But more to the point, nuclear power can't make up what coal and oil provide now and for the future. Solar power will be the future of humanity, coal and oil need to be used as a bridge to build the industrial capacity to supply solar technology. Sadly, the coal and oil companies are insanely selfish, greedy, myopic and gluttonous.

[Tikki]

5. Nuclear, in reality, is NOT....

the cheap, safe energy form they tried to sell us in the 50's.


Tikki

[NickB79]

6. I, for one, welcome our new coal-king overlords

And their natural-gas enforcers.

[Nihil]

7. Natural selection or ... *intelligent design*?

All those people with fast-growing nostril-hair will have the last laugh
as they filter out more particulates from the air and so survive with
fewer lung diseases!

Take *THAT* you unbelievers! :P