Can Any Country Achieve Net Zero Without Nuclear?

[DaveE]

Myxomatosis has done a good job.

Really? Maybe, sort of...

Figure 3.
Rabbit population size in relation to rabbit resistance to myxomatosis.
The build-up of resistance to myxomatosis in wild rabbits in Australia (solid black line) explains the partial recovery of the rabbit population (grey line) following the initial introduction of the myxoma virus and the subsequent introduction of European rabbit fleas before the introduction of rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus (RHDV) again reduced rabbit abundance.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10644057/#:~:text=Resistance increased in association with,resistance became common after 1975.

 

[DaveE]

Yikes, way off topic now...

 

[PeroK]

Yikes, way off topic now...

... anything to avoid facing up to climate change! Let's talk about cane toads and rabbits instead.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Myxomatosis has done a good job.

For now. Unfortunately, after a while you will only have immune rabbits.

Yikes, way off topic now...

Mentors can always move it. However, I think there are commonalities between this and the subject. Both are products of "This is a simple problem...all we gotta do..." thinking.

 

[bhobba]

... anything to avoid facing up to climate change! Let's talk about cane toads and rabbits instead.

Agreed.

The issue seems to be one of cost. The report the Australian government is relying on claims renewables are 30% cheaper than nuclear energy ever will be. However, it claims the life of a nuclear reactor is 25 years, which looks incorrect. The question is, is it true? Experts here doubt that and are appearing on discussion shows. I am watching one right now; discussed it at the show's start.

Regarding climate change in Australia, survey after survey has shown virtually every Australian supports reducing emissions. The issue is cost. I believe engineers can design a system to meet the two goals, but everything needs to be on the table, including nuclear. The report the current policy is based on seems riddled with holes.

The problem with climate change is if the solution is more expensive than necessary, it may lose public support. It was promised to cut power bills by an average of $250. Of course, everyone supported that. Already, there are grumblings that prices are increasing, not decreasing. Many are like me and think nuclear should be on the table.

The good news is that nearly everyone is on board with reducing emissions. The government is serious about meeting its goal of zero emissions by 2050 and nearly 50% by 2030. The debate is the most efficient, cost-effective way to get there.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Do you have a link to the video and/or can you paraphrase the argument?

See: https://www.skynews.com.au/australi...d/news-story/92cdf6875a3a84c113a824b95ecb4d03

Thanks
Bill

 

[DaveE]

I think there are commonalities between this and the subject. Both are products of "This is a simple problem...all we gotta do..." thinking.

Yes, "shooting from the hip". If you have a problem, try a quick easy technological solution that hasn't really been studied. Plus, since it's obviously such a great idea and easy to do, let's roll it out on a big scale. What could go wrong?

 

[Vanadium 50]

However, it claims the life of a nuclear reactor is 25 years, which looks incorrect.

There are reactors in operation for more than 50 years. But of course, the government can always make it true by refusing toi license a plant for longer.

It's clear there was a "correct" answer, and they got it. People want to hear that they can use all the power they want, cheaply, and with no environmental impact. So that's what they are told.

 

[bhobba]

It's clear there was a "correct" answer, and they got it. People want to hear that they can use all the power they want, cheaply, and with no environmental impact. So that's what they are told.

Your understanding of how the public service works is uncanny. They always want to placate their political masters - understandably.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

That's why I don't like it and from a practical standpoint there are limits to how far you can economically transport power.

Indeed.

https://www.afr.com/companies/energ...ts-as-transition-worries-grow-20230417-p5d0z9

Unfortunately, for some, it may be behind a paywall, so a precis follows:

'New electricity transmission projects needed to support the transition to renewable energy in Australia may cost as much as 40 per cent more than currently estimated, the Australian Energy Market Operator has been advised.

The warning adds to mounting worries about the cost to consumers of the move to low-carbon energy. The KPMG estimates factors in supply chain pressures hitting the delivery of materials and equipment, which may also cause “damaging delays” to transmission projects, of which about $12.8 billion worth have been deemed priority projects by AEMO. It may result in the “indefinite postponement” of planned transmission infrastructure.

KPMG first made the 40 per cent blowout estimate in a report it prepared last year. AEMO is now citing the figure in a consultation paper for the next blueprint for the electricity grid, due to be released in 2024. Since then, fears about spiralling costs have been confirmed by the massive blowout in other parts of the new grid.

The surge is adding to concerns among large energy users about the overall financial burden on consumers from the energy transition. This is also fuelled by the looming closure of coal power plants – starting with AGL Energy’s Liddell this month.

Meanwhile, new transmission projects also face increasing hostility among communities in regional Victoria and elsewhere. Emma Germano, president of the Victorian Farmers’ Federation, said the state government has “completely dropped the ball and failed to prepare for the transition to renewable energy properly”.'

One advantage of nuclear is it can be put near where the power will be used. It has even been suggested large users like the Alcoa Aluminium smelter have their modular reactor on site.

Thanks
Bill

 

[gmax137]

One advantage of nuclear is it can be put near where the power will be used.

Well, yes and no. See for example, the Ravenswood power plant in New York City. Back in the 1960s the power company wanted to build two 500 MW nuclear units in Queens (basically in the middle of NYC); they ended up instead with a number of boilers burning Bunker C "oil." On the same site, in the middle of the city.

The later Indian Point nuclear units built outside the city (~35 miles north) ran for a long time but even these were eventually deemed by the public as dangerous, and were closed in 2021. They provided 2000 smoke-free MW, about one-quarter of the electricity to the city.

I'm a proponent of nuclear power - I spent over 40 years working for US based reactor vendors. But I don't think the public really accepts it. And I think the regulations have strangled it to the point where it is unnecessarily uncompetitive on cost. Too bad. Sorry for the rant, I could talk about this for hours.

 

[bhobba]

Sorry for the rant, I could talk about this for hours.

Not a rant, lust practicalities.

I firmly believe we can transition to low emissions, and the electricity cost likely will not be a concern to consumers.

However, there is a tendency for the public to want everything that makes them feel warm and fuzzy. For example, I just saw a story of a council that declared themselves nuclear-free (whatever that means - does it mean a hospital can't use nuclear therapies, for example). It's plain dumb. As I mentioned, Sydney's 5th most desirable green suburb has a nuclear reactor. I think most residents don't even know it.

Eventually, a choice must be made - do we want to feel warm and fuzzy? Or do we want to tackle problems most people say they care about, e.g., Climate Change? I strongly suspect we can't have it all; some decisions many will not like will need to be made. I suppose that is why we have democracy.

Here is another example. Where I am in Brisbane, everyone is putting solar on their roof. I have, and it has reduced my energy bill from about $300-$400 to under $100. No wonder everyone is doing it. Plus, people feel warm and fuzzy because they are helping with emissions. I think the emissions part is true - but the cost saving is unsustainable. I have read that 50% of the electricity cost is the power lines to connect you to the grid. Since we only pay for the electricity we use, the cost of electricity delivery relative to what the grid supplies will keep increasing - that 50% will rise significantly. The only real out is going off the grid entirely with battery storage - which some have done - but at a whopping cost. Battery prices will come down, and more will do it. The thing is, those who have gone entirely off the grid have had to alter their usage patterns - they do as much as possible while the sun is shining and as little as possible when it is not. I wonder if people are willing to make changes like that. I am because I use very little electricity at night (I eat out during the day, for example), but that is just me. The family with five children is in a different situation. Maybe use a charcoal/bottled-gas-fired barbecue, which also is very popular to cook at night - but that has associated emissions. Or perhaps have early dinners while the sun is shining.

Thanks
Bill

 

[russ_watters]

The later Indian Point nuclear units built outside the city (~35 miles north) ran for a long time but even these were eventually deemed by the public as dangerous, and were closed in 2021. They provided 2000 smoke-free MW, about one-quarter of the electricity to the city.

...and replaced it with natural gas plants killing roughly 45 New Yorkers per year, not including the potential global warming impacts to a city with a network of road and subway tunnels a hundred feet below sea level.

 

[votingmachine]

Google says that Australians use about the energy equivalent of about 5500 kg of oil per year. It also tells me that oil is about 12 kWhr per kg. So an Australian needs roughly 66,000 kWhr of energy per year.

If you were strictly relying on solar and storage, and make the assumption of 3000 hours of sunlight per year, then it takes 22 kW of solar panels per Australian. A typical solar panel is 15% efficient, and the solar constant is about 1.3 kW/m^2, so one Australian needs about 110 square meters of solar panels.

Call it 26 million Aussies. That is then 2,860,000,000 m^2. or about 3000 square kilometers of solar panels. Australia is 7.7 million square kilometers in area. So less than 0.4% of Australia would need solar panels. Then of course storage.

I would say that it is not a pipe dream. The use of other renewable sources such as wind, tide, geothermal, and hydroelectric also add to the potential energy sourcing.

Obviously storage is required if you have production asynchronous with use.

 

[votingmachine]

The only real out is going off the grid entirely with battery storage - which some have done - but at a whopping cost. Battery prices will come down, and more will do it.

Thanks
Bill

There are alternatives to batteries. I recall a project from the 70's where the TVA was planning to pump water to a reservoir on a mountain top, with energy recovery via hydroelectric generation. The efficiency is quite good, but the energy density is not great.

Back of the envelope, say a large swimming pool size tank, about 100,000 liters, 1000 meters in elevation. That is about 10^9 joules in stored energy. If 100% efficiency, about 280 kWhr.

So it takes a fairly large reservoir to hold a decent amount of energy. The cost is pretty low though. Some concrete reservoir construction on a mountain, and some pipes and pumps/generators.

Here is a link to DOE on pumped hydro energy storage:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/pumped-storage-hydropower

 

[bhobba]

...and replaced it with natural gas plants killing roughly 45 New Yorkers per year, not including the potential global warming impacts to a city with a network of road and subway tunnels a hundred feet below sea level.

Yes. I think gas generator backup (or nuclear) is necessary to ensure the grid is 100% reliable, but it is rarely used. Of course, nuclear could be used all the time. As you said, 99.5% is as good as 100%, but people don't like blackouts even .5% of the time. Every time we have one, the shite hits the fan.

Thanks
Bill

 

[gmax137]

Google says that Australians use about the energy equivalent of about 5500 kg of oil per year. It also tells me that oil is about 12 kWhr per kg. So an Australian needs roughly 66,000 kWhr of energy per year.

Can you provide a link or source for this? It is not clear to me what is included here. 66,000 kW-hr per year is an average of about 7.5 kW (66000/365/24) per Aussie. US home electric use is ~0.75 kW per dwelling. So there's a lot more in that 66,000 than just that. What's included and what conversion efficiency is assumed?

So it takes a fairly large reservoir to hold a decent amount of energy. The cost is pretty low though. Some concrete reservoir construction on a mountain, and some pipes and pumps/generators.

I think you are trivializing the effort required. Take a look at TVA's Raccoon Mt facility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raccoon_Mountain_Pumped-Storage_Plant
Completed in 1978 at a cost of $310 million (USD). That's around $1.5 billion today. Not a low cost project, considering it is a "battery," it doesn't generate power.

TVA is looking to build another similar facility. You can't put these things just anywhere, the topography is key to success.

 

[votingmachine]

Can you provide a link or source for this? It is not clear to me what is included here. 66,000 kW-hr per year is an average of about 7.5 kW (66000/365/24) per Aussie. US home electric use is ~0.75 kW per dwelling. So there's a lot more in that 66,000 than just that. What's included and what conversion efficiency is assumed?I think you are trivializing the effort required. Take a look at TVA's Raccoon Mt facility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raccoon_Mountain_Pumped-Storage_Plant
Completed in 1978 at a cost of $310 million (USD). That's around $1.5 billion today. Not a low cost project, considering it is a "battery," it doesn't generate power.

TVA is looking to build another similar facility. You can't put these things just anywhere, the topography is key to success.

I assume the per capita energy use includes industrial and commercial use, which dwarf home use.
I googled: australia per capita energy consumption
The "answer" in my search results is putatively from the World Bank. (5,483.82 kg of oil equivalent (2015)).

Commercial power use HAS to be included in any National energy consideration. I also assume transportation is included. Anyone driving knows they use a LOT of liters of refined gasoline per year.

I don't know the efficiency ... I simply googled. Here is a new google result: https://www.unitconverters.net/energy/fuel-oil-equivalent-kiloliter-to-kilowatt-hour.htm

I'm not trivializing the effort or cost. I am simply mentioning that energy storage alternatives to batteries exist. I do recognize there are many limits on pumped hydro energy storage. I did not mean to imply it was free and perfect.

Energy infrastructure is expensive in almost any form. The Raccoon Mountain Facility you point to has a 1.6 megawatt capacity for 22 hours. It is economically viable energy storage ... but not trivial.

My back-of-the-envelope calculations were to determine if it was a pipe dream or not. The simple calculation is that there is adequate solar energy potential to meet Australian energy demand in aggregate. If there is a factor missing to get more accurate calculation ... definitely include that.

The "US per capita energy consumption" search result is 6804 kg of oil equivalent.

 

[gmax137]

I assume the per capita energy use includes industrial and commercial use, which dwarf home use.
I googled: australia per capita energy consumption
The "answer" in my search results is putatively from the World Bank. (5,483.82 kg of oil equivalent (2015)).

Commercial power use HAS to be included in any National energy consideration. I also assume transportation is included. Anyone driving knows they use a LOT of liters of refined gasoline per year.

Yes, of course these have to be considered. I just don't like the "oil equivalent" units. We have perfectly good units for power: watts, BTU/hr, ft-pounds/sec, etc. To me the "oil equiv" is like giving a height as "thirteen statue of liberties tall" or "social distancing - keep one cow apart!"

 

[votingmachine]

Yes, of course these have to be considered. I just don't like the "oil equivalent" units. We have perfectly good units for power: watts, BTU/hr, ft-pounds/sec, etc. To me the "oil equiv" is like giving a height as "thirteen statue of liberties tall" or "social distancing - keep one cow apart!"

Fair enough. I saw the question "can Australia remove fire from their energy mix, if they've eliminated nuclear from the non-fire options?" and did not think it was being answered. I compared their aggregate energy demand to a single energy resource and that single resource appears far in excess.

I did not bother with finding the best answer to aggregate energy demand ... I could back-of-the-envelope get to a reasonable approximation.

The question is adequately answered to me. They have abundant energy resources that they could develop infrastructure to exploit, and meet their needs without nuclear power plants.

I'm not Australian and it is not my group project. They should be applauded for the goal of eliminating combustible fuels. I personally think the risks of nuclear power plants and spent fuel storage are manageable, but again, it isn't my National project.

Fire is a wonderful energy. Finding combustible fuel in the ground was a wonderful thing. But the greenhouse gas emissions have to be eliminated. The costs of that energy replacement are definitely non-trivial.

Reducing the heat retention of the earth's atmospheric blanket is a planetary group project that we need to all take whatever bite we can from. It never helps to micromanage someone else's plan. Australia may have a bad plan, but it is theirs, and they are working towards the right goal.

It is lamentable how poorly humans work together in group projects. It gets even worse when outsiders tell you how to "fix" your plan.

 

[russ_watters]

As you said, 99.5% is as good as 100%, but people don't like blackouts even .5% of the time.

Naah, when it comes to reliability, that doesn't apply/it's inverted: tiny fractions of a percent matter. 1% is 10x worse than 0.1%.

 

[harborsparrow]

I opposed nuclear power for decades but have recently begun to hope countries would consider using some of the newer, smaller nuclear reactor designs that were designed from the ground up with more attention to safety, transport and disposal. However, so far, most increases in nuclear power generation have come from reopening older designs that are not very safe. Quite a lot of information about the newer design options (as yet unused in the U.S.) has been gathered at https://citizendium.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_reconsidered

My biggest beef with wind power is bird kill. There are things that can be done to minimize this but are not usually being done by its implementers, such as avoiding placement in migration corridors and tipping the third rotor with black paint.

Google, for all its foibles, has led the way in powering its server farms with solar by automatically closing down farms when the sun goes down and shifting traffic to a farm where there is sunlight. It's a kind of global cooperation that a big corporation might achieve but governments have more trouble achieving because, well, humanity. Neighbors don't always agree to cooperate even when everyone's survival is at stake.

 

[Vanadium 50]

...and replaced it with natural gas plants killing roughly 45 New Yorkers per year, not including the potential global warming impacts

Well, if you want an omelette you have to break a few eggs. This is simply the price we have to pay to avoid dangerous power plants.

I guess.

 

[bhobba]

I'm not trivializing the effort or cost. I am simply mentioning that energy storage alternatives to batteries exist. I do recognize there are many limits on pumped hydro energy storage. I did not mean to imply it was free and perfect.

They certainly do and pumped hydro is often used. There are a number planned for the Australian grid when it is completed. The best known one is Snowy 2. But it has run into construction problems:

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...billion-cost-blowout-kosciuszko-national-park

Interestingly, because they have such a long lifespan, even with the large overruns, it is still worthwhile, even without the transition to renewables. But it is vital for such a transition.

Australia in general does not have a lot of hydro except in one place - Tasmania. Part of the renewable plan is build a connection between Tasmania and the mainland to supply power when required. But there is, understandably, opposition from environmentalists to increasing the hydro in Tasmania. Again we will need to see how that plays out.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

I guess.

The trouble is of course, as people that frequent this site generally know, the dangers of modern nuclear power plants are wildly exaggerated by some. As I mentioned about the Lucas Heights reactor; likely most people do not even know it exists - for them it is a 'green' suburb.

I have to say one thing the discussion about nuclear here in Aus is it is starting to chip away at the irrational fear many Australians have about it. I was just speaking to my sister yesterday and she had no idea we even had a nuclear reactor in Australia. She asked me are they really that safe. My response was if we had one of the new modular ones in our backyard (we live on the mythical quarter acre block that is part of th Australian dream) I would have no issue with one being built here. Likely though if they were in widespread use it would be in the many parks we have in residential areas in a lot of Australia. There are a number near where I live. There were three close to where I grew up - and that was just in easy walking distance - there were many more if you wanted to travel further.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Vanadium 50]

When I was but a wee lad, an oil refinery 30 miles away blew up. Killed a bunch of people, and we lived in a plume of black smoke for almost a week. Which also killed a bunch of people.

This was generally viewed as a tragedy, but an unavoidable one. These things happen, and anyway the workers knew the risk. The others who died? Mostly the sick, and hey, they were on their way out anyway.

One could impose the same safety requirements on fossil energy as nuclear, including 100% sequestration of waste. The cost analysis will strongly favor nuclear.

 

[Astronuc]

disposal.

The ultimate disposition of spent fuel remains indeterminate, at least in the US. Reprocessing remains off the table; once-through is still the rule, yet there is no final repository for spent fuel, which accumulates in dry storage casks because plants were designed with limited spent fuel pools based on the assumption the federal government would recycle the fuel and dispose of the radioactive water (aka fission products). The US was supposed to be recycling Pu and unused U, but that is technically challenging and expensive. France, UK and Russia do have considerable experience with recycled Pu or reprocessed U. Germany and Japan have limited experience.

There are downsides to any energy system. The so-called 'green energy' is perhaps not so green when one considers the entire supply chain. One still needs to convert minerals to alloys or some organic composite, i.e., some structural material the will survive long enough in sometimes aggressive environments, as it is used to convert mechanical energy into electricity.

I was reading the following article on a large 16 MW wind turbine.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/t...ding-amount-of-power-amid-typhoon/ar-AA1hQi1C

I wonder how long that turbine will survive, and how often it will achieve full capacity.

I was reading some other articles on the mining of rare earth elements, and the challenges associated with extracting the minerals (no one wants a mine in the neighborhood, especially where mine tailings are dumped in piles upstream) or processing the minerals (separation can be a dirty business, but there is a lot of R&D on a clean processes). However, those are separate topics for another thread.
A recent and ongoing effort in Montana (Sheep Creek, US Critical Materials) - https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/bitterroot/news-events/?cid=FSEPRD1111076. Similarly, with battery technology.

Back to nuclear, it is interesting that the Australian public has what appears to be an irrational bias toward nuclear considering Australia has supplied a lot of uranium and zirconium to the global nuclear market. On the other hand, I suspect the legacy of Maralinga and Montebello Islands, and the accidents such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima are unnerving to some/many.

Folks are finding that any new power plant (including nuclear) is quite expensive to construct, and many folks do not want a power plant in their neighborhood, nor do they necessarily want wind turbines.

 

[gmax137]

I assume the per capita energy use includes industrial and commercial use, which dwarf home use.
I googled: australia per capita energy consumption
The "answer" in my search results is putatively from the World Bank. (5,483.82 kg of oil equivalent (2015)).

Commercial power use HAS to be included in any National energy consideration. I also assume transportation is included. Anyone driving knows they use a LOT of liters of refined gasoline per year.

I like to see the data on energy production and use, and I find this format to be very interesting. It's worth studying, IMO. And the units (Quads) are 10E15 BTU (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quad_(unit)). Using heat units (BTU) is informative since this encompasses the thermodynamic losses associated with electricity generation (note the "Rejected Energy" in grey).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quad_(unit)

 

[gleem]

There is no way that the world can achieve the 2030 goal of a 50% reduction in the use of fossil fuels. The result of this failure will probably become evident in a few years. The petroleum industry employs over 10 M persons. On top of the money to be made in this industry, it is not surprising that it is taking so long for decisions to be made to decrease the use of fossil fuels. It is not clear how many of these people can be absorbed by the nuclear industry when it is revitalized as it must but I suspect many will be lost.

The US will need about 300 additional 1100 MW reactors to replace the current fossil-fueled power plants costing about $3T at the current cost. I don't think cost will be the problem, the construction timeline will be. The transition to nuclear power must begin immediately since dozens of reactors will have to go online yearly.

 

[gmax137]

Here's the 2022 chart
https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/

 

[gleem]

Some good news is that 18.6 GW from coal-fired and older steam generator gas plants are being shut down this year. They will be replaced by 16 (8.4GW) combined cycle gas plants which are supposedly 50% more efficient. A projected number to produce another 32.3 GW is expected by 2026 The better news is that about 32 GW of solar is expected to have been added this year up 50% from last year. This still leaves the issues associated with storage and distribution.

 

[gmax137]

@gleem are those GW changes in Aussie, US, or world-wide?

 

[gleem]

US

 

[Vanadium 50]

There is no way that the world can achieve the 2030 goal of a 50% reduction in the use of fossil fuels.

While I agree with that, I don't agree the problem is displacing 10M workers. Whole industries have collapsed: when was the last time you saw a telephone operator? A lamplighter? A milkman? A punch-card operator?

No, I think the real reason these targets will not be met by 2030 is that it's 2024 (almost) now.

 

[gmax137]

It's not the 10 million workers, it's the 200 million customers...