Can Any Country Achieve Net Zero Without Nuclear?

[gleem]

The Institute of Progress (IFP) has a report discussing the reasons for the great cost escalation of nuclear power plant construction. It is a bit long but informative. Interestingly it offers the US navy as a model for reducing/controlling costs.

 

[Vanadium 50]

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

The US has 10% nuclear, 12% renewables and the remainder fossils. Half of the renewables are from hydroelectric, which is largely tapped out. So the 6% non-hydro renewables needs to grow to 39% in six years. That's 37% relative growth every year.

That's just not going to happen.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The so-called 'green energy' is perhaps not so green when one considers the entire supply chain.

While I agree that the only proper comparison is full life cycle costs, this is not so easy.

The number of fatalities in coal mining (which vastly exceeds the number of fatalities from nuclear) is about 100x higher per kwhr in China than in the US. In the US, there are strict safety regulations and workers can always quit if they feel things are unsafe - in China, the CCP has decreed that mining is safe enough, and anyone who complains will meet with an unfortunate end. So how do you compare?

 

[russ_watters]

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.

Yeah, by comparison the US spent about $5T in 2 years on COVID stimulus. We could do it if we wanted to.

 

[gleem]

The public is going to have to make some hard choices in the upcoming years/decades as the continued use of fossil fuels becomes untenable. It seems the electric power storage problem will be as problematic as ever and power rationing might be required if nuclear power is not made available. Public concern for radiation exposure has been exacerbated by the NRC's ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) program which stresses the importance of reducing radiation exposure. Maybe a little more radiation is OK if we can have electric power on demand.

 

[Rive]

They certainly do and pumped hydro is often used. There are a number planned for the Australian grid when it is completed.

Just checked on the 'under construction' list of wiki about pumped hydro
Tells a tale

Once I had a session around the economy of pumped hydro. The basis is simple: arbitrating between low and high price periods of available electricity.
Sadly, only the basis is simple. As an investment, it's just as tricky as nuclear (in general).

 

[bhobba]

The public is going to have to make some hard choices in the upcoming years/decades as the continued use of fossil fuels becomes untenable.

Yes, they are. I believe net zero is possible at a cost the public will accept. The only issue is the technology mix. We will see how it plays out. I posted the Australian government's plan. For an alternative plan, see:



It will be interesting to see what happens.

Thanks
Bill

 

[gleem]

It will be interesting to see what happens.

This sounds as if we are observing what will happen from the moon. I think it will be the greatest S#!& show the world has ever seen and we will all be in it. The question is, is there anything the average person can or should do now or will it not make any difference? At best it will be miserable for decades and at worst well...
Sorry about the gloomy outlook but can anybody see a rainbow?

 

[Rive]

Sorry about the gloomy outlook but can anybody see a rainbow?

No. The 'average person' is stuck between the apparently insufficient activity of insincere politics and established dogmas of 'green', with already feeling the hot breath of climate change on the neck.

I expect to see a decade of confusion till both expires, and I see no way for this to be nice.

 

[gmax137]

anybody see a rainbow?

No. But I think most people will muddle along. Low-lying islands and some coastal regions will feel the brunt. Until we hit a tipping point where the Gulf Steam flow stops, or something like that.

 

[Astronuc]

While I agree that the only proper comparison is full life cycle costs, this is not so easy.

No, it isn't.

So how do you compare?

It would have to be done on a country-by-country basis, and in each case, one would need details (raw data) from the corresponding government, industry or corporations, and that information/data would probably be considered state secret or trade secret/proprietary, since is likely no interest by the parties as to their practices.

Back when I tracked nuclear fuel performance on behalf of industry in as many LWRs as possible, I'd ask utility contacts about number of fuel assemblies discharged and when (at shutdown (SD) for refueling). On utility manager claimed he could not provide that information, since it would tip off other utilities when their unit(s) would be offline, and other utilities (competitors) could raise wholesale prices for electricity needed as 'replacement power'. I found alternative sources for the information, or I could guess based on the beginning of cycle date. Ultimately, I could find that through the NRC since utilities eventually report it. I only used the SD date to bin the fuel assemblies in use over a trailing two year period. We had a compilation of fuel failures by cause (either confirmed through inspection or by best estimate), and those numbers would be divided by the total number of fuel assemblies operating in the two year period ending at the point when we did the calculation; this was a fuel reliability number, in terms of fraction of failures per fuel rods (and assemblies) operated and operating. Confirmation of failures would usually occur after shutdown during a poolside inspection (offgas sipping (for Xe,Kr)) and/or ultrasonic inspection (and possibly visual inspection). Some utilities were reluctant to provide details, and sometime deferred to the fuel suppliers (manufacturers), who would provide their own statistics. The information that I collected was only shared with participant utilities and EPRI.

 

[bhobba]

“Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." Niels Bohr.

I am reasonably confident net zero can be achieved without the cost of energy being prohibitive, by which I mean most people will not say - forget this (rude word). I don't care about net zero - I want the life I had before.

As to how it plays out - pass the popcorn.

As to what we, as individuals, can do, I am sure people here will not fall for the trap of gluing themselves to the main road, etc. All that does is get the average person offside. For me, if I am asked or see a thread I think I should contribute to, etc, I will give my opinion, which, as you probably have guessed, is along the lines of the video I posted. That may change as things develop.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Vanadium 50]

Sorry about the gloomy outlook but can anybody see a rainbow?

I don't see objections to nuclear power being that firm. So long as people have light and heat and jobs, they are willing to complain about it. But faced with rolling brownouts and $1/kwhr electricity, you will see the resistance (no pun intended) evaporate.

 

[Vanadium 50]

And if there were any doubt of the degree of the public's understanding, there was a famous comment: "Why do we need nuclear power? Why can't we just use electricity?"

 

[gleem]

The problem is when will they realize( accept) that nuclear is the answer? Then how long will it take for that realization to be realized.? And when will industry magnates relent in their quest for the profits of fossil fuel?
Even now proponents of internal combustion engines are offering "solutions" in the form of opposing piston engines and electric turbochargers to offer hope of the viability of ICEs as a partial solution to global warming and we love ICEs. How long will it take for people to be weaned away from fossil fuels, "we want to cook with gas"? What about this apparent rejection of heat pumps in the UK and Germany?

 

[bhobba]

I don't see objections to nuclear power being that firm.

That is exactly what happened in Australia. A few years ago, most thought the idea was nutty. Now, 63% want it. It is not in the current government plan. But they promised a $250 reduction in people's power bills. Instead, some people report it increasing 400%. Countering this, the government is giving generous handouts for solar on the roof, and for those that take up the offer, it has dropped by much more than $250. In my case, it went from about $500 to the last bill of $100. Battery storage is getting cheaper, which will also lower costs. The big issue is manufacturing. That needs cheap power 24/7. I see modular reactors playing a role there. But the person in the video I posted is not so sure. He thinks large nuclear reactors are the way to go. We will see.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Astronuc]

He thinks large nuclear reactors are the way to go. We will see.

Or a mix. Small local (near consumer), and large base load regionally (in the outback, where there are few neighbors)..

 

[bhobba]

Or a mix. Small local (near consumer), and large base load regionally (in the outback, where there are few neighbors)..

Actually, that would be my prediction. We will end up with a mixture of all different technologies.

We just need to let engineers and engineering economists figure it out. That is not happening now, but hopefully eventually will.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't think the size of reactors is an issue. We don't have a single size with fossuls, or hydro, or geothermal or wind.

I have some reservations about "We just need to let engineers and engineering economists figure it out." First it has the word "just" which always raises a red flag with me. But it also says that political decisions should be made by technocracy, not democracy, and there has been a backlash against this in recent decades. (Pauline Hanson, anyone?). Indeed, one can argue this fuels (no pun intended) the anti-nuclear rules: "I have no say in this, other than the ability to stop it. So that's what I want."

While I think it is likely that the public will choose nuclear power over brownouts, it is not a foregone conclusion. There are those arguing "The only thing more dangerous than climate change is nuclear power" and that argument might well prevail.

One decision that I do not want to leave to the technocrats is "some day, it will be cheaper to reprocess existing waste than to refine fresh uranium. What do we do then?" I think that should be addressed sooner rather than later.

 

[gleem]

There were a lot of new regs when 9/11 occurred for new security requirements. While I am pro nuc I feel that hundreds of reactors spread out across the country do present significant security issues. You blow up a conventional power plant and you sweep up the rubble and build another. You blow up a reactor even a small one and you cordon off the surrounding area indefinitely. Many small reactors clustered in one area might be easier to protect even though they might take up a lot of real estate. Thoughts?

 

[Vanadium 50]

You blow up a reactor even a small one and you cordon off the surrounding area indefinitely.

Yes, but is this rational?

Bhopal killed many more people than Chernobyl. Bhopal is growing, and Chernobyl was evacuated.

 

[PeterDonis]

You blow up a reactor even a small one and you cordon off the surrounding area indefinitely.

If you're thinking of Chernobyl, that is not a good proxy for any possible accident with reactors now in service or planned. Chernobyl was, first, an insane design by an insane regime (the Soviet Union), and was operated in an insane way in order to cause the accident that happened there.

I think a better reasonable worst case would be Three Mile Island, which AFAIK did not harm any member of the general public, and which did not result in the surrounding area being cordoned off indefinitely. And even a TMI-style accident is basically impossible with newer reactor designs that have passive safety features that eliminate whole classes of operator errors like those that occurred at TMI.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If you're thinking of Chernobyl, that is not a good proxy for any possible accident with reactors now in service or planned. Chernobyl was, first, an insane design by an insane regime (the Soviet Union), and was operated in an insane way in order to cause the accident that happened there.

You could also add an insane response by the authorities.

Estimating Chernobyl fatalities is tricky, but to put in in some context, it's about the same as five months of coal mining in China alone.

 

[bhobba]

(Pauline Hanson, anyone?)

I am surprised anyone outside Australia knows about her. Those that dont might find reading about her on Wikipedia interesting.

Nice post, though.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Vanadium 50]

Just because I am a foreigner doesn't mean I am a barbarian.

 

[Astronuc]

There were a lot of new regs when 9/11 occurred for new security requirements. While I am pro nuc I feel that hundreds of reactors spread out across the country do present significant security issues.

Increased security preceded 9/11/2001 and actually began in the mid-90s after truck bombings in Africa and World Trade Center (NY City). I visited several plant sites in the mid to late 1990s, and we underwent screening. We had to arrange our visits in advance; cars were checked for bombs and weapons, and we got scanned for weapons. At one site, sitting down the road was a checkpoint with a guard holding an AR-15. Security was well armed, and we had to drive around multiple barriers to get near the reactor building. It was a lot more security than the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Safeguards also requires new reactor building to be resistant to commercial jet aircraft, notably the shaft of the jet engine. No penetration allowed.

 

[gleem]

Westinghouse is now developing a microreactor 5 MWe /13MWth that it calls eVinci. https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/canada/technology/evinci-microreactor



The first is going to Canada and the Saskatchewan Research Council to be completed in 2029.

https://info.westinghousenuclear.co...evinci-microreactor-targeted-for-saskatchewan

 

[Vanadium 50]

Interesting. 5 MW is tiny. I wonder what they are using to generate the electricity - presumably they don't use a full-sized turbine. That would be silly.

(And in a Saskatchewan winter 5 MW might be needed just to keep your house warm!)

 

[gmax137]

There were a lot of new regs when 9/11 occurred for new security requirements.

There were a lot of changes beyond security, much of which was not really made public. One chabge that was widely known is the "aircraft impact rule" (10CFR50.150). The NRC imposed this rule on the Westinghouse AP1000 design, which is why the Vogtle 3 & 4 and Summer 2 & 3 shield buildings look different than the Sanmen and Haiyang units in China. The re-design of the shield building was one (of many) contributors to the construction delay and failure of the Summer project.

On security, the US plants all have large security departments typically run by contractors such as Pinkerton or Wackenhut (G4S). When I first worked in the plants (1980s) the security guys were Barney Fifes with revolvers; today they look like SWAT. I've been told the security department is by far the biggest fraction of the plant payroll.

While I am pro nuc I feel that hundreds of reactors spread out across the country do present significant security issues. You blow up a conventional power plant and you sweep up the rubble and build another. You blow up a reactor even a small one and you cordon off the surrounding area indefinitely. Many small reactors clustered in one area might be easier to protect even though they might take up a lot of real estate. Thoughts?

Thoughts: If you assign the responsibility for protecting the plant against acts of war to the power company, you may as well kiss nuclear power goodbye. Do we do that to any other industry/facility?

As to clustering the units, I used to think this was a great idea:

Since the earthquake/tsunami at Fukushima, I think distributing the plants in different locations is a wiser choice.

 

[russ_watters]

Estimating Chernobyl fatalities is tricky, but to put in in some context, it's about the same as five months of coal mining in China alone.

More direct: Every coal power plant* is Chernobyling about 6x a year, based on the initial death toll for Chernobyl.

Or if we use the long-term death projection of about 4,000 people for Chernobyl we can simply say that every coal power plant* is Chernobyl.

And that's just the air pollution deaths - it doesn't include the impact of global warming.

*of similar power output to Chernobyl

 

[Vanadium 50]

Since the earthquake/tsunami at Fukushima, I think distributing the plants in different locations is a wiser choice.

Why? It increases the probability of a disaster in any one.

 

[gmax137]

I will have to think about that. But, the Fukushima event shows that the siting process is not always perfect.

 

[Algr]

There are geothermal plans that can work anywhere now. You just dig a pair of deep holes and connect them together. No fracking, so no earthquakes or environmental contamination. And these plants can be turned on and off quickly to balance irregular output from wind and solar.

A lot of the figures for the cost of wind and solar include the cost of storage. Be sure not to double count. The cost of energy storage is falling dramatically, much like the cost of renewables themselves. A forecast based on current prices is not reasonable.

That question about how much wind exists was asking about the environmental impact of renewables. In that context it is reasonable to include the entire atmosphere out into space. And wind energy originates with the sun, so making any noticeable dent in how the earth works is rather unlikely. Mountain ranges consume far more wind than any amount of turbines ever could.

=============================================
In the past the public has been injured by industry saying "This quantity is safe." Leaded gasoline, various food additives, toxic waste, medications, ect. To criticize the public's lack of understanding now denies the fact that the "experts" have been wrong, or brazenly dishonest, before. If we decide that "a little bit" of radiation is okay, we'll never know when a little bit becomes a lot, because the people in charge of measuring that will be highly influenced by industry. I've no doubt that we can do nuclear safely. What we can't do is choose to do nuclear safely. Someone somewhere is always going to get lazy, or greedy, or selfish. It is a human problem, not a technological one.

Solar and wind don't have the same long term risks. If you build a hundred wind turbines and one of them falls apart, it is unlikely to kill more than one or two people. It won't spread "safe" levels of poison around the globe. The danger of a fallen turbine will be over the instant the shrapnel stops moving. Compare that to Chernobyl, which will still be able to kill people a thousand years from now. If we keep building plants in our chaotic, war torn world, how many exclusion zones will we have in a thousand years? What will the sum total of all those atmospheric leaks be?

 

[bhobba]

And that's just the air pollution deaths - it doesn't include the impact of global warming.

My father was an electrical engineer who worked as an estimator for a major contracting company.

Although far from all he did, he has quoted for several coal power plants and knew their design intimately.

Where I grew up, we were near the Tennyson power plant in Brisbane (now the Queensland Tennis Centre), and I don't know why, but as a kid, I asked Dad what dangers were there near a power plant. He said it was very well engineered, had regular maintenance, and was unlikely to happen, but if the bearing on the turbine broke, watch out; he couldn't see much of anything withstanding its path of destruction. Knowledge makes you a bit paranoid, but he wasn't unhappy when we moved further away.

It happened at the Calide Power Station (investigators are still not 100% sure of the cause but Turbine failure is a leading contender) - please take a look at the attachment.

The general public doesn't know the dangers or, if they did, how to put it in context using stats. The following course examines why this is, amongst other things like why some believe in Astrology, Homeopathy, etc. Its quite interesting:

https://www.edx.org/learn/thinking/the-university-of-queensland-the-science-of-everyday-thinking

A book by a Nobel Prize winner I am reading now examines it in even more detail:
https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0385676514?tag=pfamazon01-20

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

What will the sum total of all those atmospheric leaks be?

This is something that makes this whole thing hard. We have climate change deniers here in Aus, just like everywhere. I am in the Tim Palmer camp, which says the best we can do is predict probabilities. His models show a probability of 90% that it will be between 1.5 degrees and 4.5 degrees celsius by 2100 - a mean of 2.5 degrees. It may be catastrophic - or it may not. Then, some believe we are heading for catastrophic change - some as early as 2030. The thing that has brought the three groups together is many now think zero emissions can be done without economic issues. If the technology is too expensive, then consensus may not be achievable.

Thanks
Bill