Skip to main content

FuturePundit Asks a Question About Nuclear Energy

Randall Parker, the brains behind FuturePundit, has been reading an EPRI study about the prospect of the electric industry being able to constrain carbon emissions going forward, and asks a provocative question:
The study assumes only a two thirds increase in nuclear power.

[...]

But imagine instead that we no longer built new coal or natural gas burning electric plants and all new electric plants used energy sources that generate no carbon dioxide. Coal burning technology isn't ready for full carbon sequestration. So go with nuclear and wind instead.

Most drastically, we could halt all carbon dioxide emissions from electric generation (cutting out a third of US CO2 emissions) by switching to only non-fossil fuels for electric power generation. For example, in the United States we could switch to nuclear where we now use coal and natural gas. In 2005 nuclear power accounted for 19.3% of total electric power generated. The United States had 104 nuclear reactors operating in 2005 with a total capacity of 97 gigawatts (almost 1 gigawatt per plant). So as a rough first approximation if we built 400 nuclear power plants or 4 times as much as we already have we could shut down all the fossil-fuels burning plants. Though that would not provide enough electric power during the peak afternoon demand periods.

So here's my question for knowledgeable readers: What percentage of electric power is used for baseline demand and what percentage is used for above baseline usage? Would we have to build 6, 7, or even 8 times as many nuclear plants as we have now in order to eliminate all use of fossil fuels to generate electricity?
I've already sent a link to Randall's post to the interested parties here at NEI, though we're all scattered around the Washington area for the President's Day holiday. Then again, there's no reason why our readers can't participate. Drop by and be sure to comment where appropriate.

Comments

Doug said…
It looks like my buddy Gerry Wolfe has posted the nearly-identical text to FuturePundit that he's posted on dozens of other sites, such as:

http://indyhack.blogspot.com/2007/01/reject-nuclear-power-nuclear-energy-is.html

Wolfe seems to be going around putting his CSP pitch up anywhere that anyone mentions nuclear power as a possible way forward to combat global warming. Someone should call him on it. He could at least just post a link instead of copying the same drivel over and over. And he should admit he's an anti-nuclear activist.
Brian Mays said…
Yeah, but after you've seen his spiel a half dozen times (it doesn't take long), you tend to ignore it.

There is no point in calling him on it. He doesn't stick around to read the other comments.

The best that you can do is to point out to the other readers (and perhaps the moderators) that his drivel is spam.
Joffan said…
He actually tracks where the spam goes at a dedicated page on the TREC-UK website, but there's no associated discussion page that I can see.
Brian Mays said…
Wow! A spamlog! Now that's dedication.
Regarding the post itself, I've had a similar idea: no new fossil fuel power plants and a phaseout of coal-fired power plants, in exchange for no carbon tax and starting a national CTL initiative to prevent a collapse of the coal industry. All new power plants would have to use non-fossil-fuel processes, with no prejudice toward either renewables or nuclear (the exception being a cap on spent fuel production to encourage better use of uranium). The net result is independence from foreign oil, a positive impact on the economy, and a 30% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Longer-term, plug-in hybrids can then start backing out coal until the necessary advances in battery technology are made.

I am confident enough in the (currently rather feeble) business case for reactor technology that I think such a system would result in about 85% nuclear (meaning about 25% light water, 20% heavy water, and 40% LMFBR), but if wind/solar/magic wiffle dust is as good as certain unnamed parties think it is, it would have just as much of an opportunity to succeed if not more.

What do you think?

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …