Skip to main content

A Shout Out Over the Fence

Our neighbor here are Blogspot, Rod Adams of Atomic Insights - tops on our blog roll - is currently debating nuclear energy as a viable solution for climate change with Matt, a sustainability consultant who writes regularly for TalkClimateChange. The conversation is happening over at Green Options and promises to be exceptionally broad ranging.

Here's a taster of Rod's opening:

We can build nuclear plants safely and rapidly enough to make a real different in resource availability. During the ten year period between 1975 and 1985, the amount of new energy production from nuclear plants was roughly equivalent to adding about 6 million barrels of oil per day to the world's available energy supply. Note - that is not nameplate "capacity" like you find with wind turbines that are often idle, it is actual production.

And Matt's:

The Royal Academy of Engineering in 2003 ("The Cost of GeneratingElectricity") put gas-fired combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) at 2.2 units of cost, and nuclear at 2.3 units of cost. This does not take into account the savings from district heating. We have at our disposal the knowledge, tools and labour to connect CCGT to district heating today, we just need the political will to do so.

In addition, nuclear requires serious subsidy - the free market would not go near it with a barge pole.

That last sentence is a bit of an eyebrow-raiser.

We'd say, "May the best man win," but that would sound a little tinny coming from this corner. We know who will win.

PS: If you get the right ad at the top on the Green Option page, you'll learn that Clorox has a new cleaner called Green Works. Not sure it isn't bleach in a bottle with leaves on it, but it certainly suggests the commercial possibilities that have emerged around "greeniness" over the last year or so.

Comments

rad_sci_health said…
While increased production is a reasonable measure of the rate and ability of the nuclear industry to develop in the future, it doesn't directly address the applicable history of nuclear power development as to the industry's ability to build adequate capacity in the future. U.S. and world nuclear power construction of operating capacity in the '70s-'80s (with various numbers) are typically used to make this case.

However, we should have a better comparison to include the plants that were manufactured in the relevant period. (15-20 years? also starting with a whole new technology! taking less time to build a plant than it now takes NRC to count the pages in an application based on known/proven technology.)

But plant development must include plants that were ordered (with major long-lead components manufactured/stored) but with construction not completed (e.g., Pilgrim 2 not started) because of reduced power growth rates affecting the need for baseload power, and extreme interest rates/carrying costs due to poorly managed construction. (It wasn't plant concrete and steel constraints that caused the ordered/partially constructed plants to be terminated.) It also needs to include all plants that have been closed.

Last year I couldn't find relevant data on the web (e.g., the gray books), but I would guesstimate that the U.S. manufactured and partially completed roughly twice our operating capacity. The rest of the world also cancelled many such plants (more after Chernobyl than TMI, e.g. Italy, vs. the US).

NEI or WNA should get some industry support to summarize that data (and make it readily available as a "nuclear debate" resource).

Industry and government communications people should have such specific data (and enter comments, and propose changes, as new data and info is identified).

Such specific data/info summaries (without the background data) should be directly accessible to the media for issues in major media communications and policy issues.

Jim Muckerheide
Rod Adams said…
Jim:

As I understand your comment, you are pointing out that the actual production increases underestimate the rate that nuclear power could grow if we put our collective minds and marketing skills to the task.

I fully agree. I point to the completed plant record as an easy to understand metric and know that we can do far better. BTW - we never had an overcapacity issue - we just never got around to realizing that we should be shuttering coal fired power plants as quickly as we built new nuclear plant capacity.

I do not really care what the established energy industry thinks - those plants are hazardous to human health and to the beauty of some wonderful areas of the planet.

Popular posts from this blog

Knowing What You’ve Got Before It’s Gone in Nuclear Energy

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior director of policy analysis and strategic planning at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

Nuclear energy is by far the largest source of carbon prevention in the United States, but this is a rough time to be in the business of selling electricity due to cheap natural gas and a flood of subsidized renewable energy. Some nuclear plants have closed prematurely, and others likely will follow.
In recent weeks, Exelon and the Omaha Public Power District said that they might close the Clinton, Quad Cities and Fort Calhoun nuclear reactors. As Joni Mitchell’s famous song says, “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.”
More than 100 energy and policy experts will gather in a U.S. Senate meeting room on May 19 to talk about how to improve the viability of existing nuclear plants. The event will be webcast, and a link will be available here.
Unlike other energy sources, nuclear power plants get no specia…

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…