Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mchael Dodge Thomas's avatar

This presenttion squares with my anecdotal experience that fission stationary power generation has a strong attraction to a subset of commentators, usually male and often with a professional background in engineering, who frequently make the argument that it's irrational to be distrustful of such a statistically benign power source, especially as it's easy to demonstrate that most of the alternatives are inflicting significant harm.

I’ve never been entirely convinced by what I view as the common (and weak) form of the argument as presented above. And I’ve never seen anyone make the strong one: that the worst reasonably foreseeable accidents occurring at the with the highest likely foreseeable frequency still have a better cumulative result than “business as usual” outcomes from the alternatives.

I won’t argue the point, though, because the people making the weak form of the argument have generally convinced themselves that the reasonably foreseeable accidents serious enough to matter have a very low probability of occurring, and I can’t prove otherwise other than to point out that there have been several “near misses” and that, in general, highly complex technologies that depend on modulating unstable conditions are inherently prone to fail in unforeseen ways. (1)

And there’s also this: I’ve always suspected that technological complexity strongly attracts this sort of person and that the “rational” argument masks an “irrational” preference.

In the last few years, we have begun to put my suspicion to a helpful test: as the cost of reliable solar + wind + storage has reached near parity with alternatives in many cases and is already below their LCOEs in others, and the relative cost curves increasingly diverge, will the same people who are enamored of fission stationary power on the grounds of “rational analysis” now embrace a lower risk, lower cost alternative?

To paraphrase J.M. Keynes, “When the facts change, will they change their opinions?”

In my experience, the majority do not.

Now, I get this: for engineering minds that have spent a lifetime regarding instantaneously dispatchable capacity matched to peak demand as the basis for rational planning, a curve that says that if your feedstock is free, then your optimum peak generating capacity is 2- 5x times the average demand is DEEPLY counterintuitive.

(For a brief explanation of why such "overproduction" makes sense, jump to 7:33 here: https://www.rethinkx.com/energy/in-depth/swb-regional-analysis ).

But once you “get it”, it’s beautiful, elegant, and above all supremely practical, and they “logically” ought to embrace the concept.

Usually, they do not.

For example, you get arguments that intermittency is an insurmountable barrier or that “real soon now”, a new generation of fission technology is going to drive that pesky cost curve back down below that of the emerging alternatives—although even assuming only incremental progress, the cost of the best other options is going to decline a minimum of a further 25-30% by the end of the decade.

This attraction remains mysterious to me. It’s not like this is fusion power, which has a very good chance of eventually supplanting all other sources of utility-scale power generation based on cost and environmental considerations—this is FISSION power, which is to the 21st century what coal-fired power generation was to the 20th century.

And ultimately, I'm left with a strong suspicion that attraction to stationary fission power generation is some hubristic attachment to taming the elemental forces of nature, partnered with an innate love of deviously ingenious complexity in the service of doing the same.

_________________________

(1) It's seldom noted in such discussions that the judgment that nuclear power is statistically very “safe” (or not) should be made in the context of relative risks.

For example, the total cumulative operating hours for US commercial reactors without loss of life due to radiological release—(as best I've been able to determine, around 32 million hours, or roughly 3,500 "reactor years" )—might initially seem to demonstrate that such reactors are very safe.

However, that’s close to the cumulative hours commercial passenger aircraft fly worldwide every two weeks.

Even if we define “severe” events at US power plants as requiring at least a partial core meltdown, there have been two such accidents (Three Mile Island and Fermi 1).

Would we regard commercial aviation's safety record as “acceptable” if major structural airframe failure with the potential to cause an aircraft's loss occurred weekly?

I don’t think we would.

There’s also the other significant variable in the equation: the maximum potential damage from an incompletely contained meltdown is, very conservatively, at least three orders of magnitude greater than from a catastrophic airframe failure over a densely populated area.

So, at least to me, viewed in the context of relative risks, two partial core meltdowns in 32 million hours of operation are anything but reassuring.

Expand full comment
alan2102's avatar

Fantastic comment! Thanks!

Just one thing. Apart from "hubristic attachment to taming the elemental forces of nature, partnered with an innate love of deviously ingenious complexity", there's also $$$ for a select group. Nuclear can be viewed as a sort of jobs program for a small class of relevant engineers, a subset of the PMC. That's apart from corporate-level interest.

Expand full comment

No posts