Skip to main content

Who Doesn’t Love the Wind?

vladimir-putin-polar-bears Russian President Vladimir Putin, that’s who.

"You couldn't transfer large electric power stations to wind energy, however much you wanted to. In the next few decades, it will be impossible," Putin said, adding that consumption patterns would only undergo minor changes.

He said the only "real and powerful alternative" to oil and gas is nuclear energy. He rejected other approaches as "claptrap."

Russian has a word for “claptrap?”

---

Even though we’ve run a lot of stories about international activities, it’s actually rather hard to keep up with every country that wants to (re)join the nuclear family. So I thought it might be worthwhile to catalog a few countries that haven’t had a post yet – get them on the radar so we can take a better look at their ambitions going forward.

--

Argentina has revived its nuclear energy industry, joining its neighbor Brazil.

President Cristina Fernandez's government is finishing construction on the South American country's long-stalled third nuclear power plant, and plans to build another two by 2025.

Lithuania, replacing its Soviet-era plant that it had to shutter as a precursor to joining the European Union.

Lithuania invited investors to bid on building a nuclear power plant to reduce the Baltic country’s dependency on energy imports from Russia.

It wants to get it running by 2019.

Jordan:

Jordan signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with Japan, paving the way for Areva SA and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. to sell reactors to the Middle East country.

2019 is again the target. That might be tougher where there hasn’t been an industrial or regulatory regime in place. Argentina and Lithuania do have prior experience with nuclear plants.

Kuwait:

Kuwait, the fifth-biggest oil producer among OPEC members, plans to build four nuclear power reactors by 2022, joining a drive for atomic energy among Gulf countries seeking alternative sources of electricity.

Apparently, the UAE has started a trend in the Middle East, with perhaps a dollop of neighborly trepidation over Iran’s activities. The Bloomberg story tries out a different explanation:

Arab countries including Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil exporter, and the United Arab Emirates are turning to atomic energy to save oil reserves for overseas sales. They need to allay U.S. concerns the technology may get diverted to weapons programs in a region that has experienced three major wars since the 1980s.

I’ve never really seen such concern expressed except about Iran. The evidence suggests that these countries want to open nuclear trade with the U.S. (and other countries) and are working as they should with the IAEA.

Kuwait ratified a protocol giving International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors access to future nuclear facilities to ease American concerns, said Tomoko Murakami, a nuclear analyst at the Institute of Energy Economics in Tokyo.

No offense to Murakami, but this would carry more weight from an American official.

---

With all this international activity, I found this quote from Alternate Energy Holding’s Don Gillispie unusually germane:

"America still is the largest producer of nuclear power," stated Gillispie, "with about 31% of the total worldwide nuclear generation. And with all of the political pressures to legislate so-called green environmental standards, more and more nations are now considering nuclear power as a safe alternative energy source. The future is bright for nuclear power."

More and more nations indeed.

Vladimir Putin. Can’t know for sure, of course, but I sincerely doubt an American politician could win an election who photographs like this.

Comments

DocForesight said…
I don't know much Russian, but I might wager that "claptrap" sounds like 'vodka' with the proper amount of attitude-adjustment-hour input.
David DeAngelo said…
25% isn't bad - for wind. The inflated claims of wind advocates have led to higher expectations, which (no surprise) are not being met. Spain's wind network definitely operated at 24% in a couple of the yearly supply summaries that I looked at - 2007 and 2008 I think. A Daily Mail article? With no quotes or stats to back up these claims? Really?
Anonymous said…
Let's assume for the sake of argument that 25% is attainable by wind. OK, so, where does the other 75% come from? Looks like we've left out three quarters of the complete picture.

My guess is that 25% is about the best that we're going to do on the "renewables" side, and in that I include wind, solar, biomass, conservation, "micropower", and the like. You want to minimize carbon emissions on the other 75% still needed? Sounds like you're going to have to go with nukes.
Meredith Angwin said…
Capacity factor for wind depends both on location and the turbine design. When we (Coalition for Energy Solutions) were doing our estimates for wind in Vermont, we battled this out within the group. If we said "less than 25%" we could be accused of using old-time technologies for our capacity factors. If we went up to 35%, we were in the range of very new turbines in off-shore areas.

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...