Skip to main content

A Civil Debate on Nuclear Energy and Renewables

Click here for a pointed, but civil, debate on nuclear energy and renewables between Dave Erickson and James Aach over at Re/Action on Climate Protection. Here's an excerpt from one of Erickson's comments:
Re: Nuclear/fossil fuel and numbers. First of all, we want to get rid of the fossil fuel plants. That's the whole reason for this discussion. In particular, we're discussing the replacement of the coal plants that generate over 50% of the power in the US as a first step. This amounts to 0.3 TW total capacity. If you figure 1000MW for a nuclear power plant, that amounts to 314 new nuclear plants. As you know, it takes 10 years to build a nuclear power plant. As you also know, it is an enormous project to build one nuclear plant, not to mention find the site.
Later, Aach responds to a number of the assumptions built into this model, but there is one point I'd like to address.

Coal powers 50% of U.S. electric generation because it is abundant and the least expensive option available. And despite the technology risk that coal represents (concerns not only about GHG emissions, but also mercury) coal is not going away anytime soon.

In other words, we won't be building 314 nuclear plants in the U.S. in the near future (whether the infrastructure to build that many plants in such a short period of time is another question entirely). NEI's best estimate is that by 2025, 30,000 MWe of new nuclear capacity will be in operation, with at least that much more under construction. According to current averages, that's about 60 plants.

And as Tim Worstall and Matt Schor have pointed out, when you keep nuclear energy as an option, reducing greenhouse gas emissions gets a whole lot easier.

Putting all our eggs in one energy basket doesn't make sense, as we discovered in 2005 when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita disrupted oil and natural gas supplies in the Gulf of Mexico. Significant fractions of that production capacity remain offline today, and some of that capacity, according to reports in the trade press, may never return to production ever again.

So we shouldn't take anything off the table. We need coal. We need IGCC. We need natural gas. We need renewables. And we need nuclear energy too.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

David Bradish said…
It should be noted that you won't have to build as much GW of nuclear to match the same generation of coal. Coal is mostly a baseload fuel source; however, many coal plants operate as peakers and many are shutdown occasionally to meet air standards. Nuclear plants are all baseload and you don't have to worry about emissions.
Jim Hopf said…
One small correction. 30,000 MWe of nuclear capacity would correspond to ~20-25 new plants, not 60. The rated capacities of the AP-1000, the ESBWR, and the EPR are 1,000, ~1,500 , and 1,600 MWe, respectively. All of the new plants will be one of these three designs.
Eric McErlain said…
Thanks Jim. I was using the average capacity of one of today's plants in my example. We try to be conservative when we make estimates.
Rod Adams said…
Eric:
It is interesting to note that America managed to build the 103 plants (plus some that have been shut down) in about 20 years. That feat occurred when most engineers were still using slide rules and with a significant amount of opposition.

I am a bit more optimistic about our ability to build a large number of plants in a reasonable period of time than are most of the members of NEI. Then again, my company has no competing divisions that use fossil fuel energy sources. :-)

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…