For Some Reason, Pro-Nuke People Often Eschew Renewable Energy
Here’s a fascinating video on nuclear energy as it applies to climate change mitigation, forwarded to me by a member of the “pro-nuke” group of which I’m a part. I hope you’ll enjoy it.
There are a few things that stood out in my mind:
• The three prototypes of advanced nuclear (three different types) are being built in China, Indonesia, and Canada—not in the U.S., where our energy policy can essentially be summed up in two words: fossil fuels.
• The molten salt reactor, e.g., the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (as discussed in Bullish on Renewable Energy) is the only technology that can scale to address the world’s energy demand.
• Though I think the video is important, it lost a bit of credibility with me when it failed to even mention renewable energy. Good sir: wind energy is 5% of the U.S. grid-mix. That’s not trivial, and it’s growing year after year.
Yes, it is true that wind energy is growing every year, but what does that really mean? Suppose that we multiplied wind generation capacity by 100. If we did that, there would be times when we would have so much power we could not use it all whereas at other times, the amount of power generated would fall far short of needs.
Although wind generation has a capacity factor of about 30%, which is higher than solar, there are still times when over very large areas the output is a small fraction of rated power. Having enough capacity to get adequate power when the wind velocity is low over large areas would require overbuilding capacity to an impractical degree with current technology.
Wind and solar power are INTERMITTENT. The time has come to speak of many things …. ; including storage systems, more transmission lines, and AC to DC to AC convertors; and temporarily forget about intermittent generating systems since without adequate ancillary equipment, wind and solar power have only niche applications. And, instead of talking about the cost of wind and solar power, at this time we should be talking about the cost and practicality of energy storage systems.
In addition to talking about the cost of storage per megawatt hour, we should be discussing how much storage is required. Strong supporters of renewables often assert that 24 hours of storage is sufficient; it is not. Exactly how much storage would be required is not completely clear, but considering that wind generation systems can fail to produce much output for weeks at a time, they would require storage for at least several weeks. Solar systems would probably require less storage, even though they have lower capacity factor.
When discussing the cost of battery storage, the cost of the electronics to convert from AC to DC and back and the cost of additional power lines to accept power from the renewable systems must also be discussed.
It is unclear why we here over and over and over again the cost per KWH for renewables but we here nothing about the cost of the ancillary equipment without which it cannot work!
Frank for this question we seem to repeatedly return to, I try to add new material to the discussion rather than just repeat the same arguments.
Here is the first line of an article I read just a few days ago: “A new model developed by Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT) shows how an electricity system mainly based on solar and wind works in all regions of the world.” and the cite: https://solarthermalmagazine.com/2016/11/09/simulation-global-100-percent-renewable-electricity/
Within the body of the article is this bold statement: “According to the researchers the model debunks myths about what renewables can and cannot achieve. One of the myths is that a fully renewable energy system cannot possibly run stable for all hours of the year, due to the intermittent character of solar and wind energy.”
I have not yet had the opportunity to get into the study which seems to be available online.
You can say you don’t “believe” in the information. There may be reasons why the study is flawed, but absent finding such a flaw a “belief” is going to hold less weight than the study.
After reading the entire article, I remain unconvinced. Note the first (or nearly first) sentence: “A new model developed by Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT) shows how an electricity system mainly based on solar and wind works in all regions of the world.”
The word “mainly” is subject to considerable interpretation, yet the article made no attempt to quantify “mainly”. It may well be that solar and wind system could produce perhaps 70% of the reliable power required with the remainder of 30% provided by fossil fuel systems running in spinning reserve mode much of the time. If they defined “mainly” as 70%, then they could probably achieve the goal. But is 70% sufficient, considering that global demand for power will probably increase by about FOUR TIMES as poor countries strive to lift their people out of poverty? Of course we cannot be certain exactly how much global demand for power will increase, but if it does increase by four times, getting 70% of power from wind and solar would still result in INCREASING CO2 emissions to greater than the present level.
What is presented in the article is not information, but rather opinion. It’s odd that it does not provide a link to the actual study on which it is based.
There is a way to determine whether wind and solar power could do the job, and it is the ONLY way that I would find acceptable. That would require installing wind and solar sensors in many of the places where wind and solar systems would be practical to instal. Then, the data collected would be analyzed to determine whether, if actual systems were installed, there would be periods of inadequate power. So far as I know, that has never been done. Of course doing it would be very expensive, but if it determined that wind and solar systems cannot do the required job for most countries, the study would save far more money than it would cost.
All the studies of which I am aware simply use weather data which is inadequate to determine how wind and solar systems interconnected would actually perform. The weather data does not indicate whether wind would drop to a low value for limited periods of time at more than one location simultaneously, yet that could cause a loss of adequate power for a limited period of time, very possibly for a few days or longer. It is likely that the result would be an extremely huge overproduction of power at times followed by greatly insufficient power at other times.
The consequences spending many billions of dollars followed by finding that the system is inadequate should not be underestimated. It looks as though there is not even a “plan B” to fall back upon if failure occurs. It looks like reckless optimism with insufficient consideration for the consequences of failure.
Well finally.
I detect some genuine mental rigor being applied to the subject at last.
It has taken all year for the “same suspects” to put a bit more effort into their comnentary including the boss Craig.
I am very pleased about this “turn of events” it seems.
Now that we seem to have some clear air lets get this debate really cranked up.
Lawrence Coomber
Frank, with respect, I should think I have made it clear with my analysis of your “railroads vs pipelines” question that I consider such articles, only a gateway to the study behind them. So there is really no sense in trying to quote the article which is a journalist’s interpretation of a study. I could and would also take issue with some of the phrases in that article. For-most of which seems to be his not citing the original study.
But not to be stopped by that a little search reveals that the original study seems to be an update that is part of a collection of studies and papers. You find the collection through a search on one of the study authors: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pasi_Vainikka/publications And a good place to start with the study is here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281463891_Complementarity_of_hydro_wind_and_solar_power_as_a_base_for_a_100_RE_energy_supply_South_America_as_an_example
With respect to your objection to the use of the term “mainly” in the gateway article cited previously, the study does not include any use of fossil fuels, not 70%, not 30% none. There are 9 forms of RE considered and 8 forms of energy storage. The analysis focuses on cost with the conclusion in the summary that “100% RE system is more cost competitive than a nuclear-fossil option!” This is not some island nation, not just for a day or a season and it is not centuries from now. The projected date is 2030 and is 24/7/365.
So please, while what you “believe” may be very interesting, what is needed is a peer review article that undertakes a critical review of this study.
@ Lawrence As the China Man says One should always be Careful what One Asks For as they may get More than they asked for- some witty thing like that.
The original article that Craig referenced leads to an excellent piece in Forbes magazine. the info is ranges from 2 to 4 years old but the Jewels are in the quality of the com-mentors.
Several executives from 3 of the Advanced designs for SMR’s laid out their case with some good technical citations. Make a strong case for accelerating the regulatory process and getting more rapid deployment so that we can reduce effectively GHG and CO 2 – the world can’t make it long if CO2 levels are not seriously and rapidly reduced.
I had a quantum leap in finally learning why the development of the Thorium reactors at Oak Ridge Labs in early 1960’s was stopped.
In 1965 one of the scientists worked with the Smart Researched who had a Thorium reactor run for 20,000 hours or so with no issues. Explained that the key scientist was fired for his success ful work.
The program stopped. Some of my colleagues and myself always wondered about this .
Why was this technology not accepted and integrated into the growing planning cycle for nuclear power that saw LWR plants built in 1970’s in sizable numbers. ???
The OIL and COAL LOBBY bought off the Government to stop the disruptive power of this form of nuclear energy. Many in the research community have often stated that the Grand Conspiracy of the Fossil fuel Conglomerates have exercised Political / economic restrictions on many forms of end use or energy fuel that were seen as Disruptive to their revenue models!!.
I have always believed this and greater confirmation set in the longer time I spent in the energy arena – more Treasure Troves of Inconvenient Truths from Both sides of the Coin were discovered.
So Larry , Frank and others who are strong proponents of some form of nuclear power for good intentions Now we know who the Boogeymen is – those Carbon heads Fossil Fuel players and their government Stooges who went along with this.
Many of these same scientists still fear that needed reforms at the NRC etc may be delayed by same Fossil fuel players.
so that is a challenge! Now the Trumper factor must be confronted as he claims to Love Coal and Coal Miners and he wants them mining and working ! So this is a new Wild Card variable to deal with!
So it is quite plausible that Trumpism and its political coat tails present renewed market barriers.
Just maybe some folks asked to hard ala the Chinese Parable?
So for now the Foreign Development seems like the critical path forwards.
There are good technical reads in the com mentors section.
@ Frank
I repeat myself in stating my respect for your consistent support and Vision for more nuclear future to over come some limitations of solar and wind.
But you need to get current on the continued increase in capabilities , decreasing costs and the new designs in the solar and wind pipeline.
Wind w molten salt storage that generates 20 megawatts on 1 pole , Solar CPS at below $ 10 cents per KWHR with Capacity factors rivaling Gas and Nukes, Coal . Once natural gas prices hit $ 6 per MMBtu many things change.
One other point to factor in Frank is that all these advanced nuclear designs are Modular designed to be deployed in module units so that they can align and integrate with the vast saturation of solar and wind that will be serving the market. Modular is because the ERA of big base load is Over. DOA The Roses need to be Smelled as the SMR nuclear developers have made the same determination going Forward.
The wild Card Variable of political pressure by carbon heads to burn more coal again , we can’t let that happen not good. But America is ruled by GOMERS now and their energy thinking is influenced more by dark money rather than the desire to transform dirty skies into Blue Clean Skies ! Food for thought !
Reason says, if these new designs can perform as stated I say let’s do it fast to compliment and augment Solar and Wind as they are more benign technologies and can scale either small or large. The way of the world.
Frank
The EASTERN Electric Grid has completed integration studies for various levels of Renewable penetration and the ability of the Grid to handle it. These Cover almost 60 % of the US land Mass from Col / Kansas Line all the Way East to the Atlantic.
Minimal Grid enhancements are needed up to 30 % RE penetration levels of total generation mix. So 30 % is the break even number- levels above that begin to require more of the expenditures that you began citing. Also solar and wind could at times contribute 60 % of peak load at 30 % saturations due to the times of day they work etc. The complexities as well as the diversity of a large area holds some real plus suprises! So the issue is not that big as the Naysayers claim!
If Off shore Wind does reach its stated goals of $ 75 to $ 90 per Mwhr then increased Renewable generation penetration levels can be handled and less investment in T & D in the Western areas is required. This is because the Wind and the Load Centers up and down the Coast are close geographically. Redcues Transmission congestion etc. Also increased Hydro from Canada acts as a Balancing Plant for Northern Part of the Eastern Grid. A match made in RE Heaven perhaps!
The Eastern Grid Integration study factored in the private investment in Transmission lines ( some DC too) that are now being built from NM, OKl, Kansas, Neb, Iowa and the Dakotas to move 10,000 to 12,000 more Megs of Wind to East of Mississippi River.
Conclusion SMRs have a good future as RE will have created more need for them but SMR’s have some new and old political challenges.
Last I heard Jane Fonda is busy reading the Bible in the later stages of things. and is not expected to mount any revival of her earlier distractions that caused the Nuclear Genie great consternation’s that linger to this day!
More on China to follow their big nukes program stalling somewhat like all big nukes the PWR types are White Elephants not economic either. Relics of by gone ERA.
Go to Washington Lawrence , Frank and others and start Lobbying process to get NRC to join modern world. Advise you drop by the TRUMP HOTEL for your reservations, let him know the coal fellas are not the only game in Town!!!!
Parting Words – you should be thanking the Master Craig for allowing the topic to come back so that you can state your case- stop the complaining save it for Trumpster and the Legions of Coal carbon heads and their aggregated dependencies!
The Nexus of Good energy policy and carbon interests is a Vexing Clash but some one needs to step up to the Altar!
Enjoy
@Silent Running
My head is still spinning after reading all that SR.
You and I have something in common – we both seem to despise “short and to the point” commentary. Haha.
So I propose that we both encourage the worlds best and brightest young physicists; scientists, and engineers to thrash this issue out amongst themselves while we focus on knitting socks or something useful and productive like that perhaps.
Lawrence Coomber
Yes Lawrence we thought we would give you some Chinese Wisdom mixed in with the complexdity.
Looks like the Thorium SMr s are ready to deploy in foreign lands.
For the US it Will take lots of political enlightenment, reform of the NRC and related but the carbon industry has held back nuclear since 1965 as they dont want the competition.
So its uncertain what will happen here.
The time window may be late 2025 to 2030 right before the Fleet of Big nukes here start being retired , around 57 close down between 2030 to 2038 or so. The capacity gap need will be then.
Only time will tell, maybe Nu Scale will get that NRC ok for the Idaho National lab demonstration test of their 40 meg unit up there. The facility has a NRC nuclear license so I don’t see what the big deal is. However American Exceptionalism runs in ever changing colors Lawrence.
For those types of background reasons I place my money on R E , End use Efficiency and Advanced Gas turbines domestically till the politicians and agencies have Epiphany moments!!!
later yes there are some very bright and resourceful younger scientists who investing time and serious money with this type of technology – its a long serious climb. One would think Bill Gates would get a political audience ??!!?? he has to go to China w the technology, interesting.
Well perhaps you have summed up the subject quite elegantly SR.
It does not matter at all who globally leads the technology innovation race in new age generation science to solve greenhouse gas issues permanently.
What will become evident though is those who are the most nimble and creative in the bringing together of political will and commensurate policies plus the best and brightest scientists, phsicists and engineers moving a project forward together, will win the contest.
I see this as an amazing opportunity to seize the moment with equally amazing global commercial outcomes.
My estimation is China is best placed by a long margin on these points both politically and industrially to win the day.
But of course the challenge is still available for others to consider.
But the window of opportunity to do so is closing rapidly.
Lawrence Coomber