Skip to main content

Samba Power: A Nuclear Re-Start in Brazil

It’s not often we consider nuclear energy in the Americas outside the U.S., but it’s time to take a peek at some interesting developments down in Brazil. America has the Superdome, Brazil has the Sambadrome.

Much has been made of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China) and their ascent (or return?) to becoming major players in the global economy. This all comes from a well-known 2001 paper by Goldman Sachs. Of course, there are jitters in the global economy now, but the overall trend has continued.

In our 2001 paper, we argued that the BRIC economies
would make up more than 10% of world GDP by the end of this decade. In fact, as we near the end of 2007, their combined weight is already 15% of the global economy.

And perhaps the number one thing all the BRICs need is energy. They need petroleum for cars, motorbikes and buses and electricity for offices, air conditioning and factories. In their national energy strategies Russia, India and China all have pretty robust plans for increasing nuclear capacity. Just imagine being an energy minister for one of these countries: you need round-the-clock electricity, and lots of it to keep growth humming. You also would like it to be low carbon. It’s not too surprising that these emerging economies are taking another look at nuclear.

But what about Brazil? It has just 2 nuclear reactors that have a combined capacity of roughly 2000 megawatts. The country has always seemed more focused on hydropower and biofuels than nuclear energy. Well, that may be changing.

Last week, Brazilian regulators gave the go ahead to start construction on Angra 3, a 1,350-megawatt reactor.

Plant owner Eletronuclear said this means it can now pour concrete for the reactor's foundation slab, which as 'first concrete' would mark the official start of construction.

Now, it appears Brazil may be joining the other BRICs in embracing nuclear. But what’s changed? Why now?

Maybe one of these imaginary energy ministers in Brasilia has seen that Brazil has gone “all in” with hydropower and wants something to hedge the bet. Brazil gets about 85 percent of its total electricity generation from hydropower. Don’t get me wrong, hydropower is a great renewable resource, but it has some issues: it gobbles up quite a bit of land and is usually generated far away from cities.

Many of Brazil's hydropower generating facilities are located far away from the main demand centers, resulting in high transmission and distribution losses. Brazil’s heavy reliance on hydroelectricity has caused some issues in the past, especially during periods of below-average rainfall.

Two recent events have highlighted some of these problems with hydropower. First, there are ongoing protests against the Belo Monte hydroelectric plant that saw James Cameron of Avatar-fame get involved.

With a proposed operating capacity of 11,200 megawatts, Belo Monte will be the third biggest dam project in the world behind China’s Three Gorges dam and the Itaipú dam Brazil currently runs with neighbor Paraguay.

However, it has caused huge controversy ever since the first feasibility studies were carried out in the 1970s. The 516 square kilometers due to be flooded are on the Xingu River and the amount of earth and rocks to be shifted will surpass that moved in the building of the Panama Canal.

In contrast, nuclear plants are quite compact for the energy they deliver compared to hydro and other renewable resources. That’s right, nuclear reactors could help preserve the global good that is the carbon-producing Amazon rainforest. 

There’s also the question of the 2009 blackout in Brazil. Now, this was not a failure of the massive Itaipú dam, but transmission lines leading to the dam which failed, creating a cascading effect.

…the failure of three transmission lines that deliver power from the plant created a domino effect, cutting off electricity to 18 of 26 states in Brazil, including the country’s two largest cities, São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.

Again, our pretend energy minister might think that instead of getting 20 percent of your entire country’s electricity from just one plant, it might be better to have relatively smaller and relatively more local nuclear plants supplying it. I bet it’s a lot less stressful for somebody monitoring the grid to see 1100 megawatts suddenly disappear due to a faulty transmission line than 11,000 megawatts. It must be quite a challenge to try to pull 11,000 megawatts out of your hat. In a phrase, diversify, diversify, diversify. 

And there may be more to follow Angra 3; Brazil’s national energy plan to 2030 has called for more nuclear energy.

  Even the most conservative case calls for the completion of Angra 3, and the construction of four 1000MW new nuclear power plants, two in the northeast, and two in the southeast.

Sounds like Brazil will be joining the rest of the BRICs in boosting its nuclear ambitions.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

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

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...