[cknight]

While the parent comment essentially reflects my view over the last few years, your points above are what I have come to understand more recently, so I am a bit conflicted about what the best way forward is.

In addition, I think that pragmatism requires us to acknowledge that nuclear has too much of an image problem for it to be a serious contender for new investment in many countries. That investment will come up against all sorts of political and social pushback. Such pushback could blow out the time to build a new plant yet again, compounding your point about renewables/storage progress that occurs in the meantime. Germany is shutting down its few nuclear plants in favour of new coal ones. If that doesn't demonstrate an image problem, I don't know what does. It sucks, but it's the reality of the situation.

I think those countries that have succeeded with nuclear power over the last few decades have done well, and should continue. Electricity prices in France are very cheap compared to Germany (I've lived in both places recently), and their emissions from power generation are tiny compared to their neighbours: http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/el... . I wish my country, Australia, had jumped on board with nuclear decades ago. We have the uranium, we have the space, and we have a horrid attachment to coal that we need to be rid of.

But for countries like Australia without an existing nuclear apparatus, its difficult to justify the investment when there are much more politically acceptable places for that money to go, with much quicker results. Places which are rapidly decreasing in cost, and are part of an industry currently undergoing massive research and investment across the world, guaranteeing further improvements.

The flip side for me, though, is that even 50 years from now when renewables and storage are prevalent and fantastic, we will still need some form of base load power. We don't want it to be coal. But then, how many governments bother planning for the long term future these days? Mine sure as hell doesn't.

[JumpCrisscross]

> pragmatism requires us to acknowledge that nuclear has too much of an image problem

That's a cop out or a serious mark against democracy. Energy is fundamental to civilization. Making the wrong move in this domain can put a society at a permanent disadvantage to others. If nuclear is indeed a better option, the pragmatic path is to pitch the evidence.

[cknight]

Representative democracy is all about the acknowledgement of different views, so policies are often compromises or cop-outs. So not only is it both, it is an acknowledgement of recent history and current attitudes in various countries around the world.

More broadly, I can think of two notable examples from the past twelve months where strong democracies made insanely bad decisions despite strong evidence suggesting they shouldn't.

From an Australian perspective, we've had multiple long-term initiatives implemented by a government only to have the opposition rail against them (and eventually, repeal them) for no real reason beyond party differentiation. Long term projects often can't survive election cycles.

With renewables and storage we seem to have an active industry with broad support across the populace, and the only real political differentiation involved is at what pace to set. Having something we can actually do right now seems wiser than trying to get something off the ground which has a strong chance of going nowhere.

Yes, our democracies are quite broken. We need to try and make progress regardless, because we can't sit and wait around until they're working better.

[pm90]

You make a good point. But one should add that:

A) Nuclear power is not available to all countries

B) No country operates in isolation. so e.g. if Australia decided to convert 100% to nuclear energy but other countries opposed it, they could impose sanctions (e.g.)

[wbl]

The NPT gives all countries the right to civilian nuclear power in exchange for an inspection regime.

[pm90]

Interesting point! I had not known that the NPT gave access to Nuclear energy to signatories.

[m12k]

Just a side thought: I wonder if the decommissioning of nuclear power plants might also partially be explained by an (at least perceived) increased risk of domestic terrorism? They're single points of failure, and they fail in spectacular fashion, making them excellent targets for someone wanting to cause havoc and terror.

[MagnumOpus]

They are also very well protected. The concrete reactor shields in Germany are designed to contain the core even if a figher jet flies into the reactor building at full speed (and have been designed that way for ages, way before 2001). The power plants and storage sites are more heavily guarded than just about any other areas in the country including military bases, so it's not possible to drive a truck with explosives up to the reactor building either.

It is way easier to commit attacks using chemical weapons or anthrax or conventional bombs, or to set off a dirty bomb with imported radioactive material than to breach a western European nuclear plant.

[kuschku]

> It is way easier to commit attacks using chemical weapons or anthrax or conventional bombs, or to set off a dirty bomb with imported radioactive material than to breach a western European nuclear plant.

Unless you happen to be one of the recent terrorists who committed attacks in Europe, and be employed in a nuclear powerplant.

Then things can quickly go wrong.

[thinkmilitant]

I would imagine the vetting process is rather extensive.

[kuschku]

Yet an IS terrorist worked at a nuclear powerplant. This wasn't hypothetical — this actually happened.