|
It's a mix of economics, technical issues, politcs, and safety concerns. The economics of building or even operating nuclear power plants continues to be unfavourable relative to either wind/solar, or natural gas (for peaking plants). Nuclear has, of course, a smaller carbon footprint than gas, but until that is built into economics (through emissions costs or higher costs for natural gas fuel), that doesn't translate into a financial benefit. Long-term costs of nuclear have been rising whilst those of alternative renewable and low-carbon sources (notably solar and wind) have been falling for well over half a century. If you're hiring^Wbuying based on slope rather than intercept, nuclear is not attractive. Technically, nuclear power is poorly suited to peak-power loads. It doesn't ramp easily or quickly, and performs most economically when operated at constant power outputs. Gas (and hydroelectric or pumped-hydro storage) by contrast can follow demand-side changes rapidly, in a matter of minutes. For pairing with a variable-input solar-and-wind capability, something other than nuclear would be a better supply-side match. Pumped hydro, compressed-air energy storage (CAES), thermal-electric storage (e.g., molton salt), electric battery, load-banking (e.g., as thermal energy) or demand-side shaping (adjusting heavy loads to maximum generation) would be better fits. For now, natural gas turbine peaking plants fit the bill, though those also need phasing out. Politically nuclear power is a challenge for numerous reasons, spanning those I'm raising and with others. The economics make for challenging financing and popularity, with very long lead and pay-off times. Cancellations of plants during construction or operation means that potentially-realised benefits are lost with major costs. In many ways, nuclear solves the wrong power problems (though it does solve the right emissions problem). Nuclear continues to carry risks, and very-long-tailed ones, despite the claims of supporters. Many of those are not technical in nature, but operational, organisational, or reflect global threats outside the purvue of a utility itself. Nuclear plants typically have a paramilitary security presence armed, trained, and authorised to use lethal force. Relative to coal and oil plants, the net safety record is better, but one of the characteristics of nuclear power is the capability for things to go from operating very well to behaving exceeding poorly in a matter of minutes. This has happened repeatedly, across a wide range of designs, despite assertions of safety. Once things go poorly, then tend to remain that way for centuries or millennia. Long-term environmental consequences of fossil fuels notwithstanding, other power options don't have this specific handicap. |