Skip to main content

FuturePundit Asks a Question About Nuclear Energy

By Eric McErlain
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.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous 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.
February 19, 2007 at 2:07 PM
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.
February 20, 2007 at 9:39 AM
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.
February 20, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Brian Mays said…
Wow! A spamlog! Now that's dedication.
February 21, 2007 at 1:45 AM
Stewart Peterson said…
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?
February 22, 2007 at 6:10 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more