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

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 …