Nuclear power plants take 10+ years to commission (Watts Bar in TN took nearly 36 years to complete), $1 billion USD to start (frequently approaching $2-4 billion), and have no permanent waste storage. Newer reactor designs that can burn up waste products instead of a once-through system haven't been tested in over 60 years (since first tested at Oak Ridge during the Manhattan Project in the late 50s; Thorium in a breeder blanket configuration).

There simply is no time to further entertain the notion that nuclear is a solution. It currently makes up only ~4% of US generating capacity, and it continues to be phased out, as its not cost competitive with wind (unsubsidized) and natural gas.

Oak Ridge is working in tandem with a Canadian company to build a Molten Salt Reactor [1], and China is trying to build them as well. Seems pretty dumb to completely give up on a nearly-unlimited, potentially very clean/safe form of energy production.

[1]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/01/07/nuclear-po...

Are there any financial penalties if they don't meet their turnup date?

Seems pretty dumb to bet the fate of the world's climate on a technology that has consistently failed to be successful both from a time and cost perspective.

There's simply no time to do it right, I love that argument. It's usually the reason for all the problems I wrestle.

Keep in mind, it's your opinion that nuclear is right. Can I store concrete casks of spent fuel with a half life into the tens of thousands of years in your backyard? Because everyone else has said no, including the Nevada government.

Nuclear is "the right choice" up until someone needs to pay for it, or be liable for it, or responsible for it. Then the hand waving starts about how its all a "solved problem".

I personally volunteer my backyard. My neighbors will probably disagree with me, but all I require is $100 per household-year of high level waste generated. Since nuclear power generates approximately 1 coke can worth of waste per year of powering a household, a 55 gallon concrete cask will hold 586 households worth of waste for a year.

My disposal plan will add approximately half a cent per kilowatt hour to the price of electricity, and I have a minimum order size of 10000 casks, or the waste of 5,860,000 households. My half billion dollars will be primarily invested in: 1) storing the casks in my backyard as a depot while I load them onto a container ship. 2) A single container ship which I'll float over deep ocean trenches, dodge hurricanes, and run fuel and supply ships out to. 3) Approximately 1/4th of a presidential campaign ($250 million) worth of advertising, marketing, and education about the safety of 3rd generation nuclear reactors.

I will then sell the "waste" back to the resulting 3rd generation reactors for $100,000 per cask (for around 5000 household-years worth of energy per cask). I figure I should net a profit on the scheme of around a billion dollars per iteration of this scheme, once I factor in my expenses.

Seriously. The "waste" problem is not a problem. It's a massive profit opportunity waiting for an entrepreneur.

You forget the part where you need NRC, EPA, and local/state government approval to store highly radioactive waste.

That may change when there is a real crisis and the environmental solutions are considered objectively.

"Right" was referring to developing better reactors & fuel cycles. You were the one saying we don't have enough time to employ anything other than the reactor designs from thirty years ago.

Are you volunteering to fund better reactors and fuel cycles? Because no one has stepped forward to fund them, not even governments that supposedly are pro-fuel reuse and safer reactor design.

Do I want some of my tax dollars going towards them? Yes.

Do I possess enough capital to personally fund an entire nuclear program? No.

Does that invalidate my opinion? No.

People have used that excuse for decades...and here we are.

By "here", do you mean solar already cheaper than utility power in 36 states [1], it estimated to reach grid parity in all 50 states next year [2], and US solar generation capacity surging to almost 40GW by the end of 2016? [3]

Because that is where "here" is.

[1] http://news.investors.com/technology/061515-757277-tesla-see...

[2] http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/deutsche-bank-sees-50-us-sta...

[3] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-26/solar-as-f...

EDIT: Want to save the world? Build out solar and wind as quickly as possible. We have a lot of coal, natural gas, and nuclear generation to replace quickly (in that order).

Solar and wind are decent, and I agree that we should build more, and reaching carbon neutrality is a great goal.

However, since you care about this subject, I feel compelled to point out that:

- Neither produce power all the time (i.e. at night for solar), and can be transiently unreliable (i.e. weather). This is OK if all you care about is moving water around from one large reservoir to another, but less so for anything else.

- Both are (currently, granted) much more expensive than nuclear if you care about generating large amounts of power.

- They both kill about 5x more people than nuclear (deaths/injuries per tWh), even taking into account nuclear waste disposal.

Subsidizing rooftop solar is one of the stupider things we have done as a society. Subsidizing large plants makes a lot more sense, since at least large scale solar plants are somewhat safe.

> Neither produce power all the time (i.e. at night for solar), and can be transiently unreliable (i.e. weather). This is OK if all you care about is moving water around from one large reservoir to another, but less so for anything else.

As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, utility scale battery storage, or home storage if you prefer (Tesla PowerWall).

> Both are (currently, granted) much more expensive than nuclear if you care about generating large amounts of power.

Both are already cheaper than nuclear without subsidies, to the point where Exelon (who operates the largest US fleet of commercial nuclear generators has to pay consumers to take their power 10-20% of the time due to wind generation).

> They both kill about 5x more people than nuclear (deaths/injuries per tWh), even taking into account nuclear waste disposal.

I concede that utility solar and wind are safer than rooftop solar. I'd argue you can make installing solar on roofs pretty damn safe if you follow OSHA guidelines.

Energy storage (battery, flywheel, etc) would solve the transient energy problem, you are correct. Something like the Tesla PowerWall could potentially be scaled up to commercial energy production, but honestly we probably still have 30 years to go there.

As for cheaper, it's still slightly more (30%) for PV solar than for nuclear (as far as I can tell). That will continue to come down, which is great. The cheapest clean energy is actually geothermal, but there are only so many places where the plate tectonics work with our current drilling technology. Ironically, drilling advancements for fracking and deep wells will open up the field for geothermal in many more places.

As for safety, the 5x number was for plant solar, not rooftop. Production of silicon PV panels is not clean, nor is it safe shipping millions of them around the world. However, the safety is so much higher than coal that I shouldn't really be complaining.

Yes, solar is cheaper than the retail with massive subsidies, not having to pay for storage (they don't supply power in the evening nor at night), and not paying for grid (hence cheaper than retail).

From your third link: "New York State’s Public Service Commission is overhauling its rate system to keep transmission owners profitable as more consumers produce their own power". So the rest of us are subsidizing solar owners through income taxes (federal) and the rates we pay for electricity.

> Yes, solar is cheaper than the retail with massive subsidies

The numbers I quote are without subsidies. Wind is already cheaper than nuclear without subsidies, even taking into account nuclear power plants receive enormous liability waivers that wind doesn't require (they're only liable for the first $13 billion USD in damages from an accident; the US government picks up the rest).

> So the rest of us are subsidizing solar owners through income taxes (federal) and the rates we pay for electricity.

And the rest of us our subsidizing cheap coal by not paying for the damage it does through carbon dioxide and radioactive material release. Your point?