Also in benefits of centralized vs. distributed power I think transmission benefits are overstated at least in case where power still goes into the grid. That is because the capital cost of distribution, and medium distance transmission outweigh long distance transmission by at least two to one. When it comes to maintenance and lost power due to outages, I think that local distribution and short to intermediate transmission (less than 50 miles) outweighs long distance by an even greater factor. And in most cases micropower still incurs those costs.

Thanks to the Find feature I was able to ascertain some facts about The Nuclear Illusion without having to suffer through the entire screed. Lovins' polemic purports to prove why nuclear power is impossible to justify on economic or any other grounds. Yet he makes absolutely no mention of Generation IV reactors, no mention of fast reactors, no mention of pyroprocessing, not even any mention of lightwater reactors (like the AP1000) that use passive safety systems. In short, Lovins completely ignores state-of-the-art nuclear power systems and the reactors that numerous countries are developing (India is building a commercial fast reactor right now, as is China, with other countries planning them).

I can see only two possible explanation for this. Either Lovins is ignorant of these systems and their great advantages (in which case he has no business pretending to be an expert on anything nuclear) or else he is being unconscionably deceitful by omitting evidence that would completely undermine his argument. Or I suppose it could be a little of each, both intellectual dishonesty AND ignorance. Altogether, it makes the rest of his points pretty moot, since any comparison he makes with any other types of energy systems aren't worth the electrons wasted downloading his blather.

Can you direct our attention to some of these Phase IV reactors? I'd particularly like to hear more about the ones that have been built on time and within budget, financed by private capital, and are now up and running.

grist.org

There was one that was built in the Soviet Union in what is now Kazakhstan back in the day that was used half for electricity and half for desalination. Worked like a charm for years. Russia has one with two more on the drawing board. India is building one, as is China. The problem, of course, is that they're all first of a kind, so of course they don't benefit from standardization yet. But the systems can be simplified, modular units similar to Westinghouse's new AP-1000 that employs passive safety systems similar to what the IFRs will have. It allows a radically simpler design and thus lower costs, building in factories instead of on-site. You can scoff if you like, but if you're into scoffing try saving it for Lovins, who simply pretends that this technology doesn't exist. He's comparing one-off Seventies plants that had stratospheric costs in no small part due to the activities of people just like him. It's simply not valid, because nobody with a brain would ever build a plant like that anymore.

Of course if you have a better way to get rid of spent fuel and use it to generate prodigious amounts of clean energy, I'm sure we'd all love to hear about it.

In the form of experimental waste recycling reactors.  It's just that simple to deal with this issue for the next 10 years.  

Let them build three different designs.  At the very least maybe they can treat the waste they already created?

Get the nuclear lobby out of the way of this renewable/conservation energy revolution.  Let the nuclear priesthood cloister in their remote monasteries, in yucca mountain like environs maybe.

Will they emerge with a fine wine, or (radioactive) vinegar to show for the billions of tax dollars spent on research.  We'll see.

I think they are incompetent and delusional and are used to having every huge error they make overlooked.  but that's just my opinion.  Let them take a decade to prove it, hehehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Actually they did cloister in rather spartan environs, working up in Idaho for ten years or so. The IFR is the fine wine they came up with which can quite readily dispose of all the nuclear waste on the planet and provide all the energy humanity needs for the next several hundred years without mining any more uranium to fuel them.

Your analogy of high priests is probably apt, though. Like deep spiritual mysteries, the vast majority of people know not a whit about nuclear fission, and must get their information from those who do (or claim to), and from that they form their opinions, often fanatical ones. So you've got the real nuclear physicists and engineers who could be compared to the mystics, few in number but steeped in the most intimate knowledge of the mysteries. Then you've got the regular clergy, in this case personified by the private utility companies who understand it all pretty well but whose main interest is in keeping the hierarchy stable and making some bucks while they do it. Then you've got the tent show revivalists, TV evangelists, and street corner nutjobs who rant and rave about something they know little or nothing about but who know they can make a buck off the fear and ignorance of the public.

You're free to listen to whoever you like. But I say we should get all the people who are trying to make a buck off it--private utilities and scaremongers alike--out of the picture. Let's take the best of the mystics' knowledge and harness it for the good of humankind. Energy should be a human right just like health care, and neither should have to be profit centers.

Energy should be a human right just like health care, and neither should have to be profit centers.

Spoken like a man whose favored technology private investors won't touch with a ten foot pole!

grist.org

Spoken like a man whose favored technology private investors won't touch with a ten foot pole!

Precisely. Did you know that 26% of the electricity people consume in the USA is provided by nonprofit organizations? Who's to say we couldn't make it 100%? Getting the private investors out of it is exactly my point. That 26% get their electricity more reliably and at a discount of about 18%.