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

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

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 …