Can We Combat Climate Change Without Nuclear Power?
A colleague in Oklahoma writes: Thought you might find this Ted Talk on nuclear power interesting. It’s introduced as follows:
Joe Lassiter is a deep thinker and straight talker focused on developing clean, secure and carbon-neutral supplies of reliable, low-cost energy. His analysis of the world’s energy realities puts a powerful lens on the stubbornly touchy issue of nuclear power, including new designs for plants that can compete economically with fossil fuels.
We have the potential to make nuclear safer and cheaper than it’s been in the past, Lassiter says. Now we have to make the choice to pursue it.
Thanks very much. Yes, there are a lot of people who agree with him; there is no doubt that climate mitigation will be a huge challenge without nuclear. Yet there are numerous controversies that make this issue anything but black and white. In particular, here are some things that militate towards nuclear:
- The advent of new nuclear technologies, including aneutronic fusion
- The fission of benign elements like thorium
- CHP (combines heat and power)
- Nuclear, even in its current incarnation, is historically by far the safest form of energy generation
- Manufacturing, installation operation, and decommissioning of renewables (solar, wind, etc.) have dozens of their own contributions to eco-footprint
And these that militate away from nuclear:
- The disposal of nuclear waste
- The proliferation of nuclear weapons
- The rapidly improving cost-effectiveness of solar, wind, geothermal, hydrokinetics, biomass, energy storage, efficiency, smart grid, energy transmission over long distances, electric transportation, etc.
- Demand response
- Load-shifting
- The fact that dispatchable power at this point is more important than baseload
As I’m sure you’re aware, environmentalists generally are anti-nuke, which is almost 100% due to their ignorance of the issues named above. It’s a shame. and I’m on a mission to correct some of these misunderstandings. Thanks again!
In earlier times, one way to get fissionable material for nuclear weapons was by using nuclear reactors to produce plutonium. That no longer makes much sense because with centrifuges, it is more economical to use centrifuges to enrich natural uranium to 90% U235. Thus, the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons has been greatly reduced; there is no longer a need to have nuclear weapons to get nuclear grade fissionable material. And, shifting to a nuclear technology which does not require enriched uranium would break the connection between nuclear power and weapons.
With metallic salt reactors, such as the liquid fluoride thorium reactor, it should not be difficult to use our present nuclear waste as fuel. The reason we have so much nuclear waste is that our current pressurized water thermal reactors utilize only about 1% of the available energy in the nuclear fuel after which the rest is discarded as if it were waste.
Load shifting is practically ancient; it is not new. It does work to some extent to change when peak loads occur, but there is a limit to what it can do.
I see no sense in committing ourselves exclusively to renewables with no plan “B” that could be quickly implemented if renewables are shown to be incapable of doing the job.
There is an error in my third sentence above. The second part of the sentence should read, “…there is no longer a need to have nuclear reactors to get weapon grade fissionable material.”.
Craig,
I’m sure you don’t need me to point out that most the items on your anti-nuclear list are either irrelevant, or don’t exist with more advanced nuclear technologies. (Sort of like condemning modern cars for hood ornaments and running boards ! )
There’s no doubt that Wind and Solar ( particularly solar)can play a useful role as future energy providers. The problem begins when advocates try to restructure society to suit the deficiencies of any particular technology.
Modern industrial societies require large scale, 24 hour, 365 days “power on demand”. History has shown that human societies dislike restrictions and limitations.
Technologies that can’t compete(rightly or wrongly)become obsolete and disappear. Unfortunately, these technologies are often so entrenched (Coal, Ethanol etc) with powerful vested interests, that their demise comes with considerable disruption and anguish.
Advanced Nuclear technologies can’t manufacture weapons, creates only tiny amounts of easily disposable waste, while being vastly more efficient, environmentally beneficial, versatile, reliable and economic.
History has proved humans will support the most convenient technologies, in preference to the most idealistic.
@Craig.
Quoting you
“As I’m sure you’re aware, environmentalists generally are anti-nuke, which is almost 100% due to their ignorance of the issues named above. It’s a shame. and I’m on a mission to correct some of these misunderstandings. Thanks again!”
If you actually coined the above – then finally you have turned an important corner it seems Craig.
And that indicates a very positive change in your thinking which is helpful because now, going forward you can start to make amends for your thouroghly inadequate, disingenuous, and damaging commentary on this critical subject thru 2016; which was a very important year for accurate analysis and information to be presented to ordinary global citizens, but you didnt demonstrate the skills or interest in them to assemble that relevant and meaningful commentary.
So your backflip is a very welcome one and important step forward for yourself Craig and finally; 2greenenergy now has a renewed breath of life, and also new opportunities to engage with the best qualified global commentators who speak without fear or favour on the important subject of greenhouse gas reversal energy generation technology for our future needs.
Bravo.
On a personal note I am very pleased for you, but your hypocracy of breathtaking proportions, has finally been exposed by your own hand without as much as a whiff of contrition or explanation.
Your loyal network of commercial renewable energy vested interests may also be a bit confused by your “coming out”.
But after all that I welcome all of the relevant and meaningful commentary you are now emboldened to discuss.
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence,
I think you are being a little unfair to Craig.
It’s true Craig has always been an zealous advocate for both Wind and Solar, but Craig always proffered some measure of open-mindedness about advanced nuclear technology.
I don’t think Craig has any personal “vested interest’ in promoting Wind and Solar. His passion for these technologies is ideological, not one of personal gain.
While it’s true raig may be overly defensive of those his considers on the ‘side of the Angels’, while less than objective about their agenda, again I don’t believe this indicates anything more than excessive loyalty to those he regards as fellow comrades in a common crusade.
I believe Craig to be absolutely sincere and genuine.
Craig,
Rod Adams , reporting in Forbes Magazine concerning the results of the Green initiated referendum to retire Swiss Nuclear Plants, provides an interesting and insightful assessment of the dynamics involved.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2016/11/29/swiss-voters-save-their-nukes/#582b16403b59
I would also suggest reading this link from the same magazine:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/#3d8a993f31c7
The article considers the possibility that the fossil fuel industry may be opposing nuclear power because it believes that nuclear power, but not renewables, could replace fossil fuels.
Nice Post and Topic Craig
You have delivered early Happy Holidays surprises for some of your most consistent and thoughtful commentators.
At a minimum you gave such a shocking stocking Stuffer of information that Lawrence in Shock made claims of change in your positions which seems unfair. You outlined things fairly well.
I am confused as I thought Folks would be more celebrative in learning perhaps that more nuclear postings and discussions may follow going forward.
Lawrence perhaps you should be more Gracious in receiving rather than make broad brushed negative charges against Craig track record. Poor Santa has to work so hard to please so many sectors.
Craig actually pointed out one of the serious flaws in many Environmentalists line of singular thinking. So don’t accuse him of that trap –
He is giving you a Forum and you keep coming back Lawrence SO HIS BIASED INFORMATION must not be so Biased as you Allege. ???
You and Marco are right about that pattern of Intellectual dishonesty within some hard core more emotive oriented Environmentalists. They dont want to be confused by Facts and you both are right that they apply that to nuclear. – I deal with similar extreme elements within the solar community as far too many have drunk too much Solar Koolaid. Lose their Technical / Integration Economics objectivity etc.
Frank thanks as always for stating some good technical facts. The separation of the new nuclear format from weapons will help the new designs gain more public acceptance perhaps.
My Mate Marco whose has most recently engaged me in exchanges that have Bordered on Parliamentary Excesses , Charges and Counter claims that would make good Prime Time political debate! or Broken Discourse – take your pick!
Your acceptance and acknowledgement that RE especially solar has a strong future and role in energy delivery is my Early Holiday gift. Thank you Mate for including solar into the viable Portfolio of Resources.
More Cheer for your Holiday Stuffer,
Lawrence , Marco and Frank, Craig
TVA announced in their recent IRP filing that while there is no more coal in their future they do have SMR nuclear in their sights and plans.
NU Scale SMR is now running Full Page Ads in Power Engineering trade journal that highlight their SMR design and capabilities .
Frank get that Sept or October edition its the inside cover.
They call it the NU 34.5 as it only takes 34.5 acres for Siting!
So Craig maybe you could get one of their Executives to write a guest post for discussion 2 Green Energy. They appear more ready to tell their story .
Lawrence is awaiting more Commentary of this type and New Years
is just around the Corner!
Good Will To All
Silent,
I think part of the problem is the sense urgency that creates a great deal of frustration and poor judgement.
Environmentalists can be so focused on the urgency of the problems, and the righteousness of the need for solutions and immediate action, they buy into the most bizarre and unworkable proposed remedies.
In their haste and caught up in the passion of the ‘crusade’ perspective and reality get lost (certainly rational objectivity). This how conspiracy theories begin. Once most of the hastily conceived projects fail, or don’t deliver, the blame must be apportioned on opponents, real or invented.
In truth creating a low carbon future for a planet as complex and diverse as ours will be a long, and vastly complex process covering meany decades.
One of the largest problems is adaptability. It’s not easy maintaining strong economic growth, while making fundamental changes.
It might surprise you to learn I’m a very early adopter (and investor) in environmentally friendly technology. I’ve learned from painful experience the worst enemies of practical adoption are overly enthusiastic “greenies”. These folk demand vast projects requiring massive social, economic and political disruption, but offer only vague details of how their visions can be made to work!
Unfortunately, they distract attention and support away from smaller, more humble environmental projects. Projects that do work on a practical level.
But I realise it’s hard, especially when young and full of passion and enthusiasm, to grasp the reality that environmental progress and low carbon energy will be a long, slow “evolutionary”, not “revolutionary” process.
Marcopolo,
I especially like the following sentence in your post:
“These folk demand vast projects requiring massive social, economic and political disruption, but offer only vague details of how their visions can be made to work!”
Too often “solutions”, without sufficient proof of effectiveness or practicality, are implemented on a huge scale with disastrous results. This applies to social problems as well as technical problems. Here is an example of a social program which was disastrous.
Here in the U.S., a program was implemented to help families which were facing serious financial problems. It was well intended, but did considerable damage. The idea was to provide payments to families which could not afford to feed their children adequately. However, the family could not receive the payments if an adult man was living in the household. That caused the breakup of families because in too many cases, the man, usually a husband, was unable to earn enough money to provide for the family, so he had to move out to make it possible for his family to receive adequate support. That set in motion problems which lasted for generations. If the program had been implemented on a small scale, then the problems would have been discovered and not been a large scale disaster.
Now environmentalists who eschew nuclear power insist that wind and solar systems can provide all the power we need. When it is pointed out that wind and solar systems are intermittent, that problem is brushed aside with the statement that either adequate energy storage systems exist or will exist and will solve the intermittency problem in conjunction with incentives to get power users to demand power only when it is available. They even advocate that existing nuclear power plants be shut down even though doing so requires the building of more fossil fueled plants. That has occurred in Germany.
Renewables do have a place. In areas where hydro power is available but falls somewhat short of being adequate because of a limited water supply, wind and solar systems can provide power when possible thereby reducing the demand for water for the hydro systems. That may be a reasonable approach.
Also, in places where connecting to a grid is not practical, even the intermittent power provided by wind and solar systems is far better than now power. At the very least, under those circumstances, wind and solar systems can greatly reduce the use of small Diesel power systems.
If there were a country which had actually succeeded in getting 100% of its power from wind and solar systems alone, I would accept wind and solar systems as being practical. But so far, they have always had to be backed up with other sources of power and have got no where near 100%.
Hi Frank,
“Castles in the air – they are so easy to take refuge in. And so easy to build too.”
Henrik Ibsen (1828-1906)
@All
I am not being unfair to Craig by leveling this sort of criticism. I believe it to be (creatively accurate) and I know that Craig is big enough and mentally capable enough to cop any nasty stuff like this on the chin occasionally.
I cop it every day from within my profession (the renewable energy industry) left right and centre. It is a healthy sign that the industry demonstrates to be adequately represented by passionate hard-hitters.
I am currently working in India with some local renewable solutions entrepreneurs (fairly new to the sector) and providing them with some advice on undertaking Micro Grid projects. Generally they are not at all enamoured to what I have been advising (yet) and several of them look close to dismembering my body and throwing me in the Ganges. But I know that tonight just like last night, we will eat vindaloo and cheese naan in ridiculous quantities together around the tandoor and turn the subject to cricket for some light relief. Tomorrow is another day.
The subject of greenhouse gasses demands ‘professional detachment’ from commentators, and hard hitting committed commentary to boot. Above all it must be frank and fearless and not pissing in somebodies pocket just to maintain soft alliances and relationships and the status quo.
Rough and tumble is always worlds best practice. I recall the best days spent with my brother were those when we were roughing each other up racing dirt bikes, not pissing in each other’s pockets.
Craig would probably scoff at this suggestion and that’s perfectly OK, but I believe that I have needled him this year to becoming a more thoughtful commentator. He is choosing his words more deliberately and with more precision and focus these later days. Importantly he has made the transition (permanently it seems and I hope) from using the word Renewable to Clean. And good on him.
Merry Xmas merry men.
Lawrence Coomber
Hi Framk,
Did you see [ http://phys.org/news/2016-11-sun-japan-solar-energy-boom.html%5D ?
This article illustrates the inadequacy of Solar and Wind.
Marcopolo,
No, I haven’t seen the article and your link is not working.
Because of the problems I’ve had with links not working, after entering a link into a post, before sending the post, I copy the link and try it out to make sure that it does work. Of course doing that is a nuisance, but it sometimes enables me to find and correct an error before sending the post.
That does look like a useful web site though.
Hi Frank,
That’s odd because Silent accessed exactly the same link on another thread.
However, the article appeared on what I consider to be the most useful of all websites :- http://www.realclearenergy.org
RealClear Energy provides a very balanced round up of articles selected from a wide range of publication covering Energy , Politics etc.
Very useful site to google.
Both Marco and Frank make some good points that apply to many things movements, groups and political solutions that leave out reality or disregard it because they need to keep people fooled awhile longer , maybe just to stay in office.,
We have un economical and questionable environmental corn ethanol industry now because certain people convinced some needy politicians to push for it and call it Green Fuel and good for everyone.
The hard engineering/ physics / agro-economics were not clearly analyzed.
Now we have what we have that is an example in energy where the mass movement missed or disregarded the facts.
Marco I like that Castles in the Air line rings true too !
I could not open the link you included got a not available message?
I posted some projections on what Shell Oil co predicts will be the worlds energy Mix in 2100. It is in the coal or peak oil topic that Craig posted. Like to hear Franks or Marco, others take on those Shell numbers .
take care
Yes sir Frank , Marco is monitoring my every move .
Will have to also become Invisible as well as silent. HAHAHA
That Japan article is damn good and as I said I stand by it . Japan is going backwards those guys are supposed to be Smart so they could come up with a better plan.
Import some Aussie or US gas and run CHP w Tri generation and use Efficiency to over come price of gas. Bridge strategy till they can fix all their nukes or try out some SMR s or do wave energy but Japan is going to go with coal WEAK
Marco you gave me good material for a Jap bashing at a upcoming Holiday party. I get together with some politically loud folks who get louder after some Libations.
Frank go to the other discussion the link works there.
Marco or Lawrence what do you think about Shell Oil co projections for 2100 ?
They will get bashed. Most of these folks have solar homes that are rel energy tight.
Silent,
1) Shell is no better at prophesy than any other organization.
2) Shell has recognized that advanced nuclear is the most disruptive technology to the oil business model.
3) This is only one of a number of scenarios proposed by Shell that “may” occur. Other ‘scenarios’ do not concur. By just picking one speculation the article’s author is deliberately distorting the information.
In the meantime, Shell, like Exxon and Chevron continue investing in oil extraction and exploitation technology.
Marco thanks for Shell Oil feedback .
Yes they and other carbon co used undue influence with our Government to retard the development of nuclear power back in 1965. Per Oak Ridge National lab nuclear researchers.
I just wanted to hear what your thoughts were. They call them selves the Mountains and they claim to have both the Knowledge and they have the market Power to manage the transition better than all the other enterprise businesses out there.
Sounds sorta Arrogant to me.
Silent,
The Oil industry certainly isn’t a business for the fainthearted or timid !
Western oil companies compete with not only each other, but some of the most corrupt, ruthless governments and government backed enterprises in history.
Over the last few decades they have held their own in a business otherwise dominated by absolutely ruthless power brokers wielding the backing of national governments.
Many of these governments are prepared to place the organs of state at the disposal of their national oil concerns, including intelligence and espionage services.
Like I say, a rough business !
The Western Oil companies represent the very best capitalized, resourced and experienced commercial enterprises in the Western world. They hire the best employees, including scientists, economists and engineers.
Like icebreakers they have deep reserves and resilience to survive storms.
Like all organizations, the Six sisters have their strengths and weaknesses. So far, they are the only major western enterprise still beating it’s opposition.
Arrogant ? probably ! But maybe not without some cause.
Illinois legislature votes not to close nuclear plants prematurely and governor signs bill:
http://www.environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2016/12/1/big-illinois-nuclear-victory-shows-why-both-pro-anti-nuclear-groups-must-change
This link has charts and graphs which show the consequences of closing nuclear plants. It also shows that the percentage of clean power generated in California has DECREASED from 51% to 46% since 1990 and that emissions have INCREASED:
http://www.environmentalprogress.org/clean-energy-crisis
This link is to an article about conservation scientists who favor nuclear power:
http://www.environmentalprogress.org/conservation-scientists-for-nuclear/
Here is a quotation from the article:
“Conservation scientists first spoke out in 2015, when 75 leading scientists issued an open letter to environmental groups, urging them to reverse their opposition to nuclear energy.”