Can Any Country Achieve Net Zero Without Nuclear?

[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...

 

[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?