Nuclear power

[Jeff Miller]

Younicos runs a demonstration project to switch over the electric grid of La Graciosa to 100% renewables. The solution is to overbuild generation capacity, amend it with storage, and to transform the Diesel generator plant from base load duty to standby backup using Biodiesel.
Younicos: Younicos - The island test bay Autonomous supply of a complete island grid from renewable energy sources
Renewables with storage will be economically viable in locations where fossil fuels are expensive, as in shipping Diesel fuel to an island and burning it in an ICE. The question is are we willing to work from there, or go nuclear.

If we are serious about phasing out the vast majority of fossil fuels from our energy supply (and not just from our electricity supply) by 2050, as the IPCC says we must to have any hope of keep global temperature change at less than 2C, we have to look at what is feasible not just for extraordinarily wealthy and environmentally committed countries like Germany, but also for poor countries which care much less about the global commons.

So it's instructive to look at the experience of Germany.Germany, with its Energiewende, is the best possible large scale test case for all renewables and no nukes. Unfortunately, despite Germany's massive and continuing investments in renewables and in storage, that experiment is not going all that well. Carbon emissions are going up and nuclear is being replaced by lignite and imported coal:

Renewable power: Germany’s energy gamble : Nature News Comment

Germany is a cautionary tale of how energy polices can harm the economy - Telegraph

If super efficient and environmentally dedicated Germany is having a hard time going renewable without nuclear, do we seriously believe that the rest of the world, much poorer, and much less environmentally dedicated, is going to succeed in the very short window we have between now and 2050? It's inconceivable.

So we need to ask ourselves, where, in practice, has a country drastically reduced its carbon emissions for sustained periods and how did they do it? The answer isn't far to seek - it's right across Germany's western border. France succeeded because they built a lots of nukes as did Sweden. And they did this with old style nuclear technology. And they did it in a fairly short period of time. And they didn't bankrupt their economies. So there's the proof on the positive side - that nukes will work on a large scale, in a short time frame, at affordable costs, if there is the political will to make it happen like there was in France and Sweden. I know of no other large carbon emission scale success stories.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

If we are serious about phasing out the vast majority of fossil fuels from our energy supply (and not just from our electricity supply) by 2050, as the IPCC says we must to have any hope of keep global temperature change at less than 2C, we have to look at what is feasible not just for extraordinarily wealthy and environmentally committed countries like Germany, but also for poor countries which care much less about the global commons.

So it's instructive to look at the experience of Germany.Germany, with its Energiewende, is the best possible large scale test case for all renewables and no nukes. Unfortunately, despite Germany's massive and continuing investments in renewables and in storage, that experiment is not going all that well. Carbon emissions are going up and nuclear is being replaced by lignite and imported coal:

The increase in coal use has nothing to do with the Energiewende. It was caused by the political reaction to Fukushima.

 

[Jeff Miller]

The increase in coal use has nothing to do with the Energiewende. It was caused by the political reaction to Fukushima.

Sorry if what I wrote gives the impression that increased coal use in Germany is part of their Energiewende. It's obviously not. My point was that without nukes, even Germany is not succeeding in making large reductions in their CO2 emissions.

 

[VolkerP]

Things are a bit more complex. The Energiewende is severely hampered by the dysfunctional EU CO2 trading scheme. If carbon prices were at the predicted level, and not 5x less, producing power from coal and exporting it at dumping prices to neighbor countries wouldn't be viable.

On the subject of the french nuclear fleet: France is happy to import surplus solar power from Germany during the day and to export nuclear baseload power back at nighttime.

On the subject of going full nuclear on a national scheme: due to worsening precipitation patterns in Europe, many thermal power plants must cut back production because of lacking supply with cooling water. Especially in summer time, increasing the water temperature would have devastating effect on oxygen content, hence fish life. This will cause big trouble in France and other countries.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Sorry if what I wrote gives the impression that increased coal use in Germany is part of their Energiewende. It's obviously not. My point was that without nukes, even Germany is not succeeding in making large reductions in their CO2 emissions.

Except that they really are, because the increase is specifically due to replacement of nuclear with the worst possible alternative, instead of having a natural process that would have wound down coal. In effect, they just increased the point they started from. Plus, not only did Germany dump nuclear, they, along with the rest of the EU are trying to cut their dependency on Russian NG.

 

[Jeff Miller]

I agree that things are complex and that hard problems defy easy solutions and I don't know anyone who thinks all our problems would be solved by putting all our eggs in the nuclear basket. That would be folly. But problems like potential lack of cooling water not withstanding (shouldn't be a problem near the coast), it's very hard to make the numbers work on a global scale in the relevant time frame without nuclear playing a big role. At least, I haven't seen a good analysis for how it can be done at a price that the majority of the world's population will be able to afford.

@itsnotaboutthemoney. Without going into the minutia, the overall sense one gets from reading about Germany's attempt to go all renewables without nuclear is that it is proving to be very difficult and very expensive. I hope they succeed, but I am not seeing this as a blueprint for the rest of the world which lacks both Germany's wealth and environmental dedication. For the rest of the world, we need carbon free solutions that are scalable, affordable, proven, and can be done right now - over the next two or three decades. I just don't see how to do that if we take nuclear off the table. If you know of some good studies that suggest the opposite, please give me the references - I'd like to read them.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Planners have to be open to the idea that there are many potential solutions, and the best solution for one country may not apply elsewhere. In a small island, current nuclear technologies would be too large, but the cost of imported diesel is very high; therefore an "all-renewables + storage + demand-side management" may be cost-effective. Barbados is going this route, too. But other countries have different realities: fossil fuel may be cheap (or, even worse, politically protected because it produces so many jobs), wind and/or solar resources may be poor, etc.

Planners also need to think about the potential paths of technological progress. In the UK and Ireland, there's a lot of attention given to ocean-based renewables -- which seems sensible enough, given the fact that these are island nations on the edge of a highly energetic North Atlantic. Are ocean-based renewables cost-effective? No, not even close with today's technology. But there's not intrinsic reason that ocean-based technology couldn't make some great strides.

The challenge is, how do you build a sensible strategy for a long-run energy investment program when faced with so many uncertainties? And I think this is where nuclear can come into the mix. Nuclear technology is well understood. There are some new advances that make it safer and more flexible. It has a high capital cost but the operating costs are unlinked from other power markets (oil, coal, gas). It's not surprising, therefore, to see the UK exploring the nuclear option even while it is very actively promoting technology development on the ocean, partly as a hedge against the risk that renewables can't meet the whole future demand.

 

[macpacheco]

Younicos runs a demonstration project to switch over the electric grid of La Graciosa to 100% renewables. The solution is to overbuild generation capacity, amend it with storage, and to transform the Diesel generator plant from base load duty to standby backup using Biodiesel.
Younicos: Younicos - The island test bay Autonomous supply of a complete island grid from renewable energy sources
Renewables with storage will be economically viable in locations where fossil fuels are expensive, as in shipping Diesel fuel to an island and burning it in an ICE. The question is are we willing to work from there, or go nuclear.

La Graciosa Population: 700 !
I believe this has already been done on a Pacific island with population about 20000.
But I said, I want to see it on a million people population.
And this project uses large scale chemical battery storage which I have said makes it work, but at what cost.

 

[nwdiver]

La Graciosa Population: 700 !
I believe this has already been done on a Pacific island with population about 20000.
But I said, I want to see it on a million people population.
And this project uses large scale chemical battery storage which I have said makes it work, but at what cost.

Why wouldn't it scale? Larger systems should be EASIER and CHEAPER per capita since there is more of a buffer. "Micro-grids" are the way many energy experts want to see our system develop into. That's really just thousands of 700 person islands connected together. That way no single failure can take down the entire system.

 

[Robert.Boston]

The key fact about La Graciosa is that the "price to beat" was set by diesel that has to be transported to the island. That's probably about $0.40/kWh (just for power, leaving aside wires and other costs). In California, that same "price to beat" is about $0.05/kWh.

It's also been my experience in developing island-based systems that the resource itself is more predictable than we find in most mainland locations. Wind and solar is simply more reliable there than, say, California. When you have major businesses (e.g. Google, Tesla Motors) reliant on a stable flow of power, you need to take extra steps to ensure reliability. Those extra steps are costly, particularly if you're not going to use fossil-fired generation.

 

[macpacheco]

Why wouldn't it scale? Larger systems should be EASIER and CHEAPER per capita since there is more of a buffer. "Micro-grids" are the way many energy experts want to see our system develop into. That's really just thousands of 700 person islands connected together. That way no single failure can take down the entire system.

Buffer, what buffer ? The only buffer there is today is the load following fossil fuel plants. Exactly the component that is maxed out. In Germany's case the component that is being extended to all of its neighbors load following plants. In the case of USA environmentalists want to build pumped hydro in Canada to provide such a buffer for solar in CA, are you nuts or what ?
nwdiver you can't see something that you are blind to. Even if it's the elephant in the room. That's the problem of this discussion.
I have explained this relevant detail many times but you don't want to get it, because the people that is feeding you the cool aid has stated there's no issue, but there is.
Solar + Wind induces much higher electricity transients to the grid than consumers, it's not just a matter of adding more wind turbines and solar panels.
The generating assets of a grid must load follow demand, their load following capacity is quickly overpowered when you add significant volumes of solar + wind. CSP Solar is good, cause it's a partial baseload source (it accepts wasting solar energy when the sun shines all day in exchange for having a buffer for clouds and sunset).
But CSP can't work 24x7. The buffer lasts for no more than 2 hours.
Nuclear is the only green house free total solution for climate change. The only total solution.
Even with large battery packs at US$ 100 / kWh, billions of USD worth of battery packs will be required to buffer electricity against low wind nights.
Again, make it happen in Hawaii, I'm sure it wont work without billions worth of battery packs. Then we can do the real math and compare notes. Of how cheap solar and wind really is, when it's competing against moderately expensive oil thermal plants.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

The key fact about La Graciosa is that the "price to beat" was set by diesel that has to be transported to the island. That's probably about $0.40/kWh (just for power, leaving aside wires and other costs). In California, that same "price to beat" is about $0.05/kWh.

It's also been my experience in developing island-based systems that the resource itself is more predictable than we find in most mainland locations. Wind and solar is simply more reliable there than, say, California. When you have major businesses (e.g. Google, Tesla Motors) reliant on a stable flow of power, you need to take extra steps to ensure reliability. Those extra steps are costly, particularly if you're not going to use fossil-fired generation.

It made me think of Aruba, which is aiming for independence by 2020. Plenty of potential for wind, solar and wave (and tidal?). They're at 20% wind and adding more. They've signed an MOU with BYD for electric buses. On top of being independent themselves, they want to become a testing-ground since they have such steady and plentiful resources. And I'm sure not many people would complain about having to spend time there.

 

[Dave EV]

In California, that same "price to beat" is about $0.05/kWh.

Check this out:

Solar Less Than 5¢/kWh In Austin, Texas! (Cheaper Than Natural Gas, Coal, Nuclear) | CleanTechnica

Price of solar PV has dropped drastically. It won't be long before it's the cheapest daytime energy source in all sunny states.

CAISO connected solar is peaking over 4 GW daily now in California. That doesn't count the ~2GW of net metered solar which shows up as a reduction in demand.

Solar is currently providing about 20% of daytime demand in California and there's quite a few GW of utility scale solar in the works.

http://www.caiso.com/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx

A couple hours of storage for the morning and evening peaks are what's needed to fill in the gaps.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Check this out:

Solar Less Than 5¢/kWh In Austin, Texas! (Cheaper Than Natural Gas, Coal, Nuclear) | CleanTechnica

From the article you quote:

If you removed the ITC (a federal tax credit for solar), the cost would probably be about 8¢/kWh. Still, that’s not bad. Austin Energy’s 30-year LCOE estimate for natural gas was 7¢/kWh, while the estimate for coal clocked in at 10¢/kWh and the estimate for nuclear at 13¢/kWh.

So solar really isn't at grid-parity before subsidies. I'm not saying that solar isn't cost-effective in some areas -- fossil-fired plants get implicit subsidies and don't incur any carbon tax (outside of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative states), so the $0.05 mark is arguably artificially low. But solar can only be part of the overall solution for a near-zero-carbon grid unless there is a major breakthrough in storage.

 

[Dave EV]

So solar really isn't at grid-parity before subsidies.

How can you say that with a straight face when it's cheaper than coal and nuclear - and by substantial margins? Sure, it's 1c/kWh more expensive than natural gas (right now), but simply because it's not the cheapest (but cheaper than two major contributors of electricity to the grid including "too cheap to meter" nuclear) you are now making the leap in saying it hasn't reached grid parity?

 

[Jeff Miller]

How can you say that with a straight face when it's cheaper than coal and nuclear - and by substantial margins? Sure, it's 1c/kWh more expensive than natural gas (right now), but simply because it's not the cheapest (but cheaper than two major contributors of electricity to the grid including "too cheap to meter" nuclear) you are now making the leap in saying it hasn't reached grid parity?

The very low cost for this apparently unsubsidized large solar PV facility is certainly great news. I'm sure no one one doubts that. Many more such facilities should be built in places like Texas where they have lots of sun.

The big followup question is "do these competitive prices mean that we can go all solar+wind at affordable prices and get rid of nuclear and fossil fuels?". Eat our cake and have it too as it were.

Many people believe that the answer is yes. I've been corresponding for a while now with a very good guy who I admire a lot, a Sierra Club Board member, who holds this view (although he is rather vague on the specifics).

However, as you and everyone else on this thread knows, the ability to supply power at competitive prices to an existing grid when the sun is overhead and not obstructed by clouds, does not imply that the total price of an all solar+wind system would be cost competitive with fossil fuels and nuclear. The storage/intermittency problem has not been solved and is not close to being solved in a cost effective way. When you add the cost to build the extra peak capacity needed to gather enough energy to make it through the night and through cloudy periods, and then add the cost to build the infrastructure (eg pumping water up a big hill, perhaps car batteries some day) required to store this energy and to give grid operators the ability to quickly match power supply with power demand, and then add the cost to upgrade the grid so we can efficiently move power across very large distances, the total cost quickly becomes very large relative to the current grid.

Now one could say, "no big deal, we'll solve the storage problem someday, and then we'll be good. In the meanwhile lets just keep adding solar and wind to the existing grid, don't worry about storage, and keep using fossil and nuclear until we solve the storage problem". That would be a fine view if we were not under the gun in terms of our collective carbon emissions. But we are under the gun. The entire world has to wean itself off of fossil fuels in pretty short order or we're going to have an earth which is unrecognizable in one hundred years (one long human lifetime). Unfortunately, we're doing the opposite of weaning. Despite a lot of posturing, despite protocols and summits and political hand wringing, our global carbon emissions are going through the roof, at rates even faster than the worst scenario in previous IPCC reports.

What to conclude from all this? Given that we need to stop burning fossil fuels (soon, not in 50 or 100 years), given that people worldwide demand cheap reliable power, given that solar and wind cannot shoulder the entire burden at this point (or for the foreseeable future), given that there are nuclear designs that are safer than the already extremely safe existing plants, given that there are designs (in use right now in India) that use radioactive elements (throium) that cannot be turned into a bomb and which have minimal long term waste, it seems like we should all be pushing very hard for nuclear right now.

 

[jerry33]

The big followup question is "do these competitive prices mean that we can go all solar+wind at affordable prices and get rid of nuclear and fossil fuels?".

I can understand wanting to get rid of fossil fuels. I can't understand wanting to get rid of nuclear. Nuclear power has already saved around 1.8 million premature deaths.

 

[Dave EV]

TThe big followup question is "do these competitive prices mean that we can go all solar+wind at affordable prices and get rid of nuclear and fossil fuels?". Eat our cake and have it too as it were.

I am always confused when people all of a sudden make the jump from "a lot of solar/wind" to "only solar/wind" and think that's the ultimate goal. Saying "we need more wind/solar!" is a lot different than saying "we should eliminate all other forms of electricity production!".

given that there are designs (in use right now in India) that use radioactive elements (throium)

Pretty misleading to say that when none of those plants are online. There is one such plant under construction right now so far as I can tell.

Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option | Environment | theguardian.com

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I am always confused when people all of a sudden make the jump from "a lot of solar/wind" to "only solar/wind" and think that's the ultimate goal. Saying "we need more wind/solar!" is a lot different than saying "we should eliminate all other forms of electricity production!".


Pretty misleading to say that when none of those plants are online. There is one such plant under construction right now so far as I can tell.

Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option | Environment | theguardian.com

No LFTR reactors working yet, but there is also a very interesting 5-year Th-MOX test in Norway that began last year, which creates fuel rods for conventional nuclear reactors using a 90/10% Th/PuO mix, improving stability and using two current "waste" elements in place of uranium.

 

[Jeff Miller]

I am always confused when people all of a sudden make the jump from "a lot of solar/wind" to "only solar/wind" and think that's the ultimate goal. Saying "we need more wind/solar!" is a lot different than saying "we should eliminate all other forms of electricity production!".

I totally agree with you! It confuses me as well. Lots of people in fact think not only we "should eliminate all other forms of electricity production" but that we can do so and still have a reliable and affordable grid.

Pretty misleading to say that when none of those plants are online. There is one such plant under construction right now so far as I can tell.

India has been running the experimental KAMINI reactor, which uses U-233 derived from Thorium as its fuel since 1996:

KAMINI - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

India's first commercial thorium based reactor is supposed to go live later this year:

Thorium-based nuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia