The issue of intermittency is a problem for most "renewable" types of energy as they call it, sometimes the sun doesn't shine for a while, and sometimes the wind doesn't blow. Even the hydro power runs into problems when the rain doesn't fall for a long time, as we are seeing now. I guess the only type that is pretty much consistent is geothermal like they have in Norway. Or maybe tidal power but I don't see that in place anywhere yet.
The solution is power storage, which didn't really exist (clumsy arrays of deep cell marine batteries ain't efficient to say the least). But that is where part of the breakthrough has been. Now we have the lithium batteries and larger scale wind / solar systems have other types as well. Storage is still a bit of a problem but it's decreasing, especially on the scale of the homeowner. Now it's just a matter of money.
I see two big issues with nuclear, aside from the waste issue which already gets a lot of discussion. One is the cost, cost per kw / hour has been going down dramatically for solar.
On a purely non ideological / pragmatic level, for the home, solar was a nice idea but
way too expensive when I was a kid. It just wasn't practical. Today, solar power generation is cheap and cost effective. On the storage side it's harder. The batteries are still expensive but they too are becoming more affordable. Tesla Powerwall is kind of the ultimate for convenience and 'hands-off' reliability, and if anything it has gone up in price. But I know a lot of people in the Gulf Coast region who live in hurricane prone areas where they get prolonged outages due to storms, and up in the northwest where they get outages because of forest fires. Places like Texas and parts of California where the grid is struggling.
In the last few years, many of these people and I myself have acquired or put together low cost solar backup systems with cheaper lithium battery systems, so as to have power to run a fan, run a modem, charge phones, lights, keep a freezer from thawing out, run a small AC unit for sleeping and so on. I use mine to keep my aquariums running during a long power outage. Solar is basically your go-to for that kind of thing now. You can even keep panels inside your home and put them out after a storm to generate needed power.
By contrast nuclear is expensive, and it's also fragile. And that's my second issue with it.
The nuclear plant can keep generating power, but the current types of plants don't generate their own
running power. This was the issue with Fukushima leading to the catastrophe there and is currently an issue with the Zaporizhzhia plant in Ukraine which has that facility under risk. I'll circle back to that one. The other issue is that the power still has to be transmitted. I have friends and family down in the Gulf Coast area where they have several nuclear power plants. It does them little good after a storm because the grid has to be put back together before they can get any power. And the plants themselves are highly vulnerable.
The Waterford 3 plant has had three serious events requiring shut downs in the last 20 years. In 2005 they shut it down after Katrina. The offsite power was knocked out for a long time, and there was a flood risk but because of the direction the storm took they were able to keep the plant from being flooded and were able to keep the generators supplied. In 2011 they had to shut it down again for almost a month due to the Mississippi river floods and had difficulty getting fuel in to the generators, but they again sorted it out. And then most recently last year after Hurricane Ida, they lost power and had to shut down again and declare an emergency. Basically the electrical network was knocked out in the area for several weeks, but they were able to truck in fuel for the generators.
If this plant or hundreds like it in areas where, as much of the region was after many recent storms, the power was out for a sustained period and the roads were impassible, they would not be able to keep the fuel rods cool and there would be a very serious incident. In Louisiana, after Katrina, Gustav, Rita, Nicholas, Claudette, and Ida there were extensive areas where the power was out for several weeks
and the roads were impassable, they just got lucky that it didn't hit right where the Waterford plant is or one of the other three plants in that area. If, god forbid, the plant got
flooded, as could also quite easily happen during a big hurricane or river flood event, they would basically have a meltdown ala Fukushima. And Waterford is just one plant. There are 54 nuclear power plants around the US. Waterford 3 is one of two on the Mississippi river in Louisiana, there is a big one (Grand Gulf) on the river in Mississippi, two on the coast in Alabama, two on the coast in Texas, and four on the coast in South Florida (thank god on the opposite side from where Ian just hit). All of these are vulnerable to hurricanes. Many of the others around the country are in areas which are exposed to the increasingly turbulent weather (floods, fires, storms). To me this is an issue.
If somebody's solar panels get flooded, or torn off their roof by the wind, it's a problem for them but not for all their neighbors. And after the storm passes by, if they are lucky enough that their house is intact, they will have power and they won't have to go out and buy fuel, or rely on the city gas system. It just works, so long as the sun shines.
www.abc.net.au
