Nuclear is facing a desperate situation: the world could lose up to two times more nuclear than it gains by 2030, writes Michael Shellenberger, founder and president of the pro-nuclear citizens movement Environmental Progress (EP). According to Shellenberger, the nuclear crisis is caused purely by cultural, ideological and political factors. There are no technological and economic barriers to expanding nuclear power: existing designs are safe and competitive. EP, which has just opened offices in California, is now mobilizing people across the world to take action to save nuclear power. Courtesy Environmental Progress.
In 2016, pro-nuclear advocates won our first victories against the anti-nuclear Goliath, saving nuclear plants from closure in Switzerland, Illinois, New York and Sweden.
But the anti-nuclear establishment quickly struck back with a series of victories resulting in announced nuclear plant closures and cancellations in New York and Taiwan, adding to the heavy losses pro-nuclear advocates have sustained in California, Germany and Japan.
Now, in the wake of a financial crisis resulting from construction delays and cost overruns at two U.S. nuclear plants, the American nuclear giant Westinghouse has announced it might go bankrupt.
And South Korea, one of the great hopes for a global nuclear renaissance, appears poised to elect as president a man who is campaigning to shutter all of that nation’s nuclear power plants.
After I described just how desperate the situation facing nuclear is, a friend last week replied, “Knowledge is the antidote to fear.”
He told me a story about the operator of Fukushima Daiini — a nuclear plant down the road from Fukushima Daiichi, where three reactors melted down.
Daiini faced similar problems as Daiichi, but its operator responded differently. “He gathered everyone together and started putting information up on a white board,” my friend said.
“They got clear about what was going on. They kept the information flowing,” my friend explained. “And that allowed them to save the plant.”
Last year, Environmental Progress (EP) was the first to note that the share of global electricity coming from clean [i.e. low-carbon] energy had — against the hype — actually declined, in part due to the closure and cancellation of nuclear plants.
And in recent months, EP’s quantitative analyses of the impact of closing nuclear plants on air pollution in California and Germany were picked up by news media from around the world.
Even so, if you listen to some within the industry and government, nuclear’s doing okay. They note that there are more plants under construction than at any time in the last two decades, and that there has been a proliferation of nuclear start-ups.
My colleagues and I wanted to get an accurate account of nuclear status based on a nation-by-nation, plant-by-plant assessment, and so over the last three months we researched and have now rated for the likelihood of opening and closing:
- Every operating nuclear plant in the world;
- Every nuclear plant being built;
- Every nuclear plant being proposed.
We conclude that if nothing changes, more nuclear plants are likely to close than open between now and 2030.
If our forecast is correct, it would be a continuation of nuclear’s absolute decline since 2006, and an acceleration of its relative decline (as a share of total global electricity) since 1996.
When nuclear plants are cancelled or closed, they are replaced almost entirely with fossil fuels, and so this is bad news for clean air and the climate.
Energy progress tracker
We are calling our ongoing assessment of progress being made toward meeting the goals of universal prosperity and environmental protection the “Energy Progress Tracker” (EPT).
This is not an academic exercise for us. EP is doing this because we want to prevent nuclear plants from closing and increase the number of plants opening.
As advocates for nuclear, EP could have a bias. Consciously or unconsciously, we might want to show that the situation is worse than it is, or better than it is, in order to raise fears or hopes, and money, or to motivate some other kind of action.
At the same time, we have an incentive to maintain our reputation for accurate, honest and cutting-edge analyses.
Whatever the case, in service of accuracy, honesty and transparency, we are publishing our national and plant-specific assessments, and inviting comments, particularly from those with local or national knowledge.
Going forward, EP will adjust our rankings in real-time according to real-world events and keep track of how our rankings changed over time, with accompanying explanations for why they changed.
For example, if presidential front-runner Moon Jae-in is defeated on May 9, we would likely change our assessment of South Korean nuclear.
No nukes? No climate
Over the last decade and a half I have been critical of those who claim the world will end imminently if we don’t drastically downscale our lives to save the climate. That’s bad religion and politics — authoritarian and demotivating.
Now, with my recent focus on nuclear power for ending poverty and mitigating climate change, a few friends have asked whether my views on climate have changed. Am I more worried about climate than I was before?
The short answer is yes. If nuclear plants were being scaled up globally at the rate France and Sweden did in the 1970s and 1980s, then I would probably be a “lukewarmer” — somebody who believes that humans are causing global warming, but that it probably won’t get too hot, or be that bad.
But given nuclear’s rapidly accelerating decline, I am now a “climate alarmist” — somebody who believes that if the situation doesn’t change, we are headed in a dangerous direction.
That doesn’t mean making everyone poor or even slowing growth. On the contrary: France enjoys some of the cheapest, and cleanest, electricity in Europe. And the right to cheap electricity is, for all of us at EP, a fundamental human right.
But if nuclear’s fortunes are not reversed, then the chances of preventing very large temperature increases — without using extreme measures, like deliberately trying to cool the planet — drop close to zero.
The truth about nuclear is quite simple. Only nuclear power can lift all humans out of poverty without cooking the planet, or keeping cities like Delhi and Beijing caked in deadly particulate matter.
Coal and fossil fuels can lift people out of poverty, but at the cost of hammering the environment.
Solar and wind barely made up half of nuclear’s seven percent decline as a share of global electricity. They will make up even less over the next 10 years. Solar and wind are too diffuse and not reliable enough to power factories and cities, and thus cannot lift people out of poverty nor reduce emissions from fossil fuel-powered electrical systems more than only modestly.
Hydro can lift people out of poverty and is low-carbon, but it’s limited — most rich world rivers are over-dammed.
Bluntly, renewables are no substitute for either nuclear or fossil fuels.
Spraying sulfur particles into the atmosphere can temporarily cool the earth but not reduce humankind’s negative environmental impact or lift all people out of poverty. (Plus, it could result in world war, so there’s that to worry about.)
By contrast, everything is in place to just build more nuclear plants. The nuclear plants we have are more than fine — they are great. They are the safest way to make reliable electricity. They use the least amount of natural resources and produce the least amount of waste. And they are long-term investments that can last for 60, 80 and maybe 100 years.
Yes, they require a lot of up-front capital. But that’s what World Bank loans are for.
Yes, they can take many years to build. But at the end of the project you have power to provide for millions — not thousands.
Could future nuclear plants be cheaper and better? Sure — the key is standardization, which allows workers to gain experience building and operating plants.
Why then aren’t we doing it?
Why nuclear is in crisis
Outside a few parts of the United States, nuclear plants are threatened with closure for underlying cultural, ideological, and political reasons — not technological or economic ones.
Low natural gas prices have hurt nuclear plants in the Midwest and some of the Northeast but not in the South, thanks to its regulated utilities and largely pro-nuclear culture.
In California and New York, nuclear plants are being shut down by anti-nuclear groups NRDC, Sierra Club and EDF, which are funded by financial interests that stand to benefit from closing nuclear plants.
Anti-nukes are working hand in glove with Governors Jerry Brown and Andrew Cuomo — both of whom have close associates under federal criminal investigation for their roles in killing nuclear plants.
And fear-mongering, not poor economics, is similarly behind attempted nuclear plant closures in Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Germany, Switzerland and Sweden.
Moreover, in Japan, Korea, Taiwan and many other nations, nuclear is not only cheaper than natural gas and petroleum but cheaper even than coal.
And even in the American Midwest and Northeast, nuclear plants have been at very high risk of closure because they’ve been forced to pay an economic penalty, and an oversupplied market, resulting from federal subsidies — now a quarter century old — to wind developers, and from their exclusion from state clean energy mandates.
Nor is the economics of nuclear much of an obstacle when it comes to building new nuclear plants.
Korea’s national utility is building cheap nuclear power plants in the United Arab Emirates thanks to its strong experience building standardized plants back in Korea.
The same is true in China where new nuclear plants are often cheaper than new coal plants.
In Vietnam and South Africa, nuclear could be as cheap as coal, without even factoring in the tens of thousands of additional deaths that will result from coal pollution.
One big problem is inadequate financing. International development banks like the World Bank are headed by people who fear nuclear power, and believe the world can be powered on solar panels and wind turbines.
Lack of financing for nuclear also forces nations to do the opposite of what works to make nuclear cheap. Both the UK and India — two nations that couldn’t be more different — are seeking to build multiple nuclear plants with totally different designs.
That could change, and should. It will require pro-nuclear advocates in those countries to speak out with clarity about what matters.
It’s understandable that some pro-nuclear advocates are so discouraged by the current crisis that they wish for technological breakthroughs that will somehow reduce public fear, or significantly lower costs.
But the record is clear. The only way we know how to significantly reduce nuclear costs, and improve safety, is through the experience of building, operating and regulating the same standard design.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t test new designs. We should. New nuclear plants may prove, after a decade or so of operating, to be even better than today’s plants.
But for either deployment or demonstration, we are going to need to confront — and overcome — the real reason that nuclear energy is in crisis.
Witches in the reactor
Two weeks ago, I received an invitation to travel to Taiwan from a group of pro-nuclear environmentalists and students to speak out in defense of that nation’s nuclear plants.
The situation sounded desperate. A famous political activist had successfully demonized nuclear after the Fukushima accident, and pro-nuclear forces were demoralized.
Taiwan has a new, large and almost fully-built nuclear plant that the government refuses to open. “They are going to burn coal instead,” the Taiwanese activists told me. “But the politicians say they won’t burn coal or use nuclear.”
I told them that in California, the Governor and his men are killing our nuclear plants by misleading people into believing nuclear is something it’s not. “Like it’s witches,” I complained.
“That’s what people here say!” one of them said. “That it’s witches!”
I laughed. Fear of nuclear is the same everywhere.
I was blunt. “I can go to Taiwan but I can’t save Taiwan’s nuclear plants,” I told them. “But you guys can.”
I invited them to attend a “Futures of Nuclear” meeting in our new headquarters in Berkeley next month to plot strategy with other pro-nuclear leaders. They agreed.
Our new Taiwanese colleagues will be joining pro-nuclear rebels and allies from Germany, Japan, China, Switzerland, Britain, India, the United States, and, I hope, from Belgium, France and South Africa.
There is hunger for hope — and change. My article last month was translated into French and Chinese and circulated among industry leaders, many of whom will also be joining us in Berkeley.
But if we are to make a comeback, we have to confront reality. Almost all of nuclear’s problems — including the ones that have been self-inflicted — come from anti-nuclear advocates who lie to journalists, policymakers and the public, and manipulate their fears.
I know from experience. I was made to fear nuclear, and then I scared others into fearing it.
But knowledge was the antidote to my fears. For me, it was learning more about nuclear accidents that finally convinced me nuclear was the best way to make electricity.
Over the last year, EP and our allies, many of whom also used to be anti-nuclear, have dramatically weakened the grip of anti-nuclear forces over the discourse.
It has become increasingly unacceptable for supposed climate activists to attack nuclear power — which is why Bill McKibben, Al Gore, Mike Brune, Ralph Cavanagh, Fred Krupp and Hal Harvey aggressively duck the issue when someone confronts them about it.
And the idea that we can replace fossil fuels and nuclear with solar, wind and dams is increasingly viewed as about as credible as replacing vaccines and antibiotics with homeopathy and acupuncture.
My Taiwanese friends asked me who they should send to our meeting in Berkeley.
“Send somebody who has the guts to stand up to the fear mongers,” I said. “Send people who aren’t afraid to debate with powerful people.”
“We have two people!” they said.
One is an environmentalist from the Left, they explained, and the other is a national security expert from the Right.
Perfect, I said. If history’s any guide, that could be a winning combination.
EP is open!
With this post I am excited to announce the opening of EP’s headquarters, which include a gallery, gift shop and event space.
We created EP to be base camp for the global pro-nuclear movement. All are invited to visit us — including our opponents.
I am also happy to introduce EP’s new staff and fellows: Minshu Deng, Mark Nelson, Jenny Woo, Cindy Chou, Jemin Desai, Kylie Feger, John Lindberg, Grace Pratt, Arun Ramamurthy, Pavel Velkovsky, and Daphne Wilson.
When we founded EP last year we settled on two core values: caring and fairness.
EP is now adding openness as our third core value because we believe that achieving our mission requires it.
There is a paradox here because advocacy also requires certainty. When one acts, or advocates that others act, one must have a significant amount of certainty that one is right.
But I know from experience of having been wrong (more than once, and in more than one way) about nuclear, that EP needs to make a practice of challenging our own assumptions.
When I offered the job to Mark, a former Breakthrough Generation Fellow, last summer, I told him that if he ever discovered that solar and batteries were cheaper, cleaner or otherwise better than nuclear power, he had to tell me at once, or I would fire him.
Later Mark told me that it was at that moment he decided to take the job. He went on to take the lead in creating the Energy Progress Tracker.
There is another reason for choosing openness as a core value: it signifies EP’s commitment to (relatively) open borders for both people and things.
I say relatively because nations have a right to decide who comes in and out, and developing nations often must protect what Alexander Hamilton called their “infant industries” from developed global competitors.
But for the most part, EP believes a positive future requires we keep our doors open to foreigners without regard for race or religion. We believe that rising global economic growth and trade is, on balance, positive.
Of course, we could be wrong. If so, we hope to be the first to know it.
More often than not, we will need to gain comfort acknowledging and acting within some amount of uncertainty.
Some of the best analyses of nuclear’s fortunes over the last year came from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That was a surprise for me because I have criticized them in the past for their misleading depictions of the growth of solar and wind — namely, not factoring their unreliable and low frequency of generation into calculations of their cost.
But Bloomberg has now produced a graph that makes the seemingly opposite mistake of industry and government analysts by suggesting that nuclear will definitely decline in the United States.
It is misleading because it suggests false certainty about the future, and in that way it is making the same mistake as those presenting a rosy picture of nuclear’s future.
The problem isn’t that Bloomberg is showing nuclear’s potential decline, but that it’s not alsoshowing nuclear’s potential increase, masking the reality that multiple “futures” are possible.
Not only are they possible, they are creatable. We can grow and shrink the bars in our chart of nuclear at risk.
This is not an idle claim. Having gone nation-by-nation, and plant-by-plant, it’s clear to all of us at EP that the future of nuclear power is open.
The future of nuclear
Last June, Pacific Gas and Electric announced it would close California’s last nuclear power plant, a decision that will increase air pollution for poor communities near fossil fuel power plants, and increase global warming.
In response, I announced I would commit civil disobedience and, following the tradition started by Henry David Thoreau, I announced I would do so publicly.
It turned out to be a lot harder to get arrested in San Francisco for civil disobedience than I thought.
Even so, we had a great time sitting in in front of Greenpeace and NRDC headquarters.
A few months later, in October, Environmental Progress, Mothers for Nuclear, and the Illinois chapter of the American Nuclear Society co-hosted a “Save the Nukes” meeting in Chicago to plot strategy.
This time, 18 people agreed to get arrested with me — that’s 17 more than had agreed to join me in San Francisco. Momentum was growing. I was inspired.
But after being lectured by EP’s general counsel about how different Chicago laws (and police) are from the ones in San Francisco, I canceled it.
At least the getting arrested part. In both Chicago and San Francisco, everybody wanted to sit down. And they wanted to do it together.
And we’re just getting started.
On June 12, I will have the great honor of giving a keynote lecture to the American Nuclear Society annual conference in San Francisco, where I will describe what must be done to save nuclear power, and the planet along with it.
A few days after, we will host another international gathering in our Berkeley headquarters.
And we will host another one in October, and as many more as it takes.
Nuclear energy is an area where there is has been far too much talk and far too little action. The subject has been analyzed to death.
The bottom line is that nuclear plants around the world that are being killed can be saved.
It won’t be easy or immediate, and there are no shortcuts. No technical fix or lobbying effort can overcome nuclear energy’s well-financed and well-organized opponents and the fears they sow.
Rather, anti-nuclear fear must be confronted directly, and exposed. This can and should be done in a truly civil way, backed by evidence, and with dignity. But it must be done if we are to save the only technology capable of ending poverty and reversing humankind’s negative impact on the environment.
These are dark times for pro-nuclear forces, but we are starting to see pinpoints of light. Pro-nuclear rebels are finding their courage, from California to Taiwan to Australia to Germany.
In three weeks many of us will meet for the first time, and learn about each other’s struggles. We will find ways to help each other in ways we can’t currently imagine.
We will discover that what we are seeking is truly universal — and beautiful: a world of nature and prosperity for all.
Editor’s Note
Michael Shellenberger is founder and president of Environmental Progress, a pro-nuclear citizens movement founded late 2015 to address climate change and wood-burning in developing countries. This article was first published on the website of Environmental Progress and is republished here with permission.
[adrotate group=”9″]
Csaba Urbaniczky says
Some facts to the Alternative Facts above:
In Sweden the reactors 01, R1 and R2 will be closed due to economical factors; they are unprofitable according to the owners.
Reactor O2 is already closed already after a so called upgrade that did not work; closed due to technical reason.
Luke says
I like the name “environmental progress” does not sound like an organisation that only cares about nuclear and nothing else…
also on theyr homepage the graphic “germanys emission on the rise” from 902 to 916 mio. tonnes (3 data points) and below the same graph over 7 years from 906 to 916 mio. tonnes (but only 2 data points…) and of course the y-axis starts at 900 so it looks steep…
my prof calls such things: lying with statistics
It is also [censored, rewritten] [misleading to suggest] that wind, solar, biomass, etc. have no future. It is one thing to be pro nuke, but against the other? And then call yourself EP…
The other thing: did you ever the math how many reactors would need tobe build? We have around 400 at the moment. If they where new ones and all where running they would provide around 10 %.
If the world would want to go full France we needed to build around 3000 reactors (100 or so are planned at the moment and it is not clear if all of them will be build).
We simply dont have the capacity to do so and it would take a long time to build this up. Until then something else would need to provide the electricity. Or short: renewables are faster.
On another note: where shall we put all the nuclear waste?
And who wants to finance nuclear? It seems to be more expensive than alternatives…
At least the British do not get cheap electricity from theyr to be build reactors…
one.second says
[censored] It has been studied and shown in depth and time after time how the world, different continents, different countries, different regions, islands and even different cities can be powered reliably by 100% renewable electricity. To claim otherwise is [incorrect].
Nuclear’s real problem is, that it is not competitive at all without massive direct and indirect subsidies and after sixty years people are tired of shoving any more money into this pit without improving any of its problems. Wide-scale renewable deployment has only started 17 years ago and right now wind and solar are already the cheapest electricity sources in many places while also being a no risk technology. The pace of the price of storage coming down mimics the radical cost improvements we have seen in pv, so it is just obvious to a lot of people (like those at the world bank) that a renewable energy system is the most competitive in a lot of places already and will be everywhere soon.
France’s electricity is heavily subsidized and not at all a measure for the kWh cost of nuclear plants, which are heavily subsidized as well as are the government owned Areva and EDF which are constantly on the brink of bancruptcy. The costs to keep their aging nuclear fleet online are escalating quickly, the newly build are years later (if they ever get finished) and billions over budget, and they still haven’t solved the problem of storing the waste, at the same time their electricity supply nearly collapsed last winter because they had to temporarily shut down 13 nuclear plants because of security concerns over faulty steel for the pressure vessels.
Dear Mr. Shellenberg[er], if you want to do nuclear any favour, start acknowledging the real problems nuclear has and then please quickly solve the cost, waste and risk problem.
J.E. van Dorp, MSc says
A very good article.
As the IPCC and the International Energy Agency have stated, nuclear power is an important tool for lowering co2 emissions, and without it, solving the climate crisis becomes implausible.
Thanks to Environmental Progress, people are being made aware of the dangers posed by the global antinuclear movement to people and nature.
Citizens need to act now to save our common future. We need to stop donating to so-called “Green” organisations, which are in reality little more than antinuclear fear propaganda outfits. And we need to tell our politicians to support nuclear power and educate the public to undo decades of antinuclear misinformation which has brainwashed people into believing nuclear power is bad, rather than good.
Hans says
It is kind of ironic that the author complains about the anti-nuclear establishment. Nuclear always had the support from the political, economic and military establishment. Complaining about the establishment while being part of it is apparently the fashion of the day.
Karel Beckman says
Nuclear is certainly not “part of the establishment” in countries like Germany, Austria, Italy and many other anti-nuclear countries. In other countries the picture is mixed. And it is certainly true that there has been a strong anti-nuclear movement which has had a lot of influence, whatever you may think of it. The key question seems to me not whether nuclear is good or bad as such but whether we can achieve the CO2 emission reductions we need while at the same time phasing out or reducing the contribution of nuclear power.
Tilleul says
The disappearance of nuclear is not an option, it’s a fact we need to live with. The key question is how do you finance and build nuclear in a world where financing through huge public debt is no longer an option. We can’t. Even a giant conglomerate like Toshiba is threatened by bankrupcy when faced with cost overruns on only a few reactors. Nuclear has been deliberately misleading the public about its ability to decrease carbon emissions, its costs, its debts and its wastes… Now how do we clean up their mess ?
Hans says
We can now have a semantic discussion over the definition of “establishment”, but the anti-nuclear movement has always had a strong grass-roots basis, where the pro-nuclear lobby came from the nuclear industry, the military and governments. The fact that in Germany the government, for opportunistic reasons, finally started to listen to its’ people doesn’t change that.
[censored – no personal attacks allowed]
Hans says
I am a bit surprised that I am censored here. Shellenberger uses emotional rhetoric by painting himself and his organisation as anti-establishment. It should therefore be allowed to question these anti-establishment credentials. For example by pointing out that he and his organisation are supported by the financial/economic establishment.
Karel Beckman says
I censored the part where you attacked the author personally and questioned his motivations. We don’t allow ad hominem attacks on our authors.
As to being supported by “the financial/economic establishment”, what on earth is that supposed to mean? Who are you referring to specifcially?
Bas Gresnigt says
“The key question … whether we can achieve the CO2 emission reductions we need while at the same time phasing out or reducing the contribution of nuclear power.”
No doubt about that as wind & solar are now becoming so much cheaper. Also compared to the costs of written off existing nuclear plants, being:
– the operating costs +
– the costs of the nuclear waste they produce (subsidized after nn years due to nuclear law) +
– the cost of risk on nuclear accidents (near all subsidized thanks to nuclear law).
That invisible insurance premium (invisible for the citizen until disaster strikes) alone counts already for 2-5cnt/KWh considering the not up-to-date state of most old NPP’s and the accident history of nuclear power plants.
E.g. Borssele still doesn’t meet all requirements of the European stress test (few months ago their management stated that they make progress).
Bob Wallace says
About 80% of the world’s 402 nuclear reactors are 25 years old or older. It’s unlikely many of those reactors will still be operational in 2050. We’ve yet to see a reactor last 50 years.
Some of the reactors younger than 25 years probably won’t make it because an expensive repair will become necessary and the cost of repairs will make the electricity unaffordable.
We will be replacing most of our existing fleet with something. And it’s now clear that building new coal plants is not acceptable and building new nuclear plants does not make financial sense.
It’s also the case that many of the world’s coal plants will age out during the next 30 years. They will also have to be replaced. The US coal fleet is nearing or past the average 40 year lifespan of US coal plants.
This is money the world will be required to spend. Even if climate change was not an issue we’d be constantly replacing aged out plants. The nice thing is now we can replace these old thermal plants with much more affordable renewable generators at a savings. And reduce global warming (in the case of coal plants).
Hans says
“Solar and wind barely made up half of nuclear’s seven percent decline as a share of global electricity. ”
Fact check based on BP statistics:
Peak nuclear power consumption was in 2005 with 626.4 Mtoe., it was 50.9 Mtoe lower in 2015 [1].
Solar power production was only 0.9 Mtoe in 2005 but was 56.4 Mtoe higher in 2015.
Wind power consumption was 23.6 Mtoe in 2005 but was 166.7 Mtoe higher in 2015.
So solar and wind together more than four times compensated the decline of nuclear.
[1] http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2016/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2016-full-report.pdf
[2]http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2016/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2016-renewable-energy.pdf
Bob Wallace says
” According to Shellenberger, the nuclear crisis is caused purely by cultural, ideological and political factors. There are no technological and economic barriers to expanding nuclear power: ”
Where have any reactors been built (outside of very low labor cost countries) that have produced market competitively priced electricity?
If the Vogtle and Summer reactors are completed their electricity could easily cost over $0.15/kWh. At a time when wind and solar will be closing in on $0.02/kWh. (Unsubsidized wind is now around $0.03/kWh and continues to fall.)
—
“But if nuclear’s fortunes are not reversed, then the chances of preventing very large temperature increases — without using extreme measures, like deliberately trying to cool the planet — drop close to zero.”
That is not a logical statement. It assumes that renewables are not capable of producing low carbon electricity.
Since the cost of electricity from renewables is vastly less than that of new nuclear (and generation can be brought online very much faster than can nuclear) it seems obvious that our money is best spent on renewables.
Let’s not forget that nuclear needs backup. Reactors go offline without notice. Nuclear, if it plays a significant role on a grid, also needs storage. In the US, Japan and other countries we built pump-up hydro storage in order to time-shift nuclear output from low to high demand hours.
Battery prices are rapidly falling. For short cycle use (single day moving wind to mornings and solar to late afternoon type use) they are now about the same cost a pump-up. Pump-up can serve as our 1+ day storage and as the cost of batteries falls further it can be the 2+, possibly 3+ storage method.
Wind + solar + storage should give us 24/365 reliable electricity for half or less the cost of nuclear + backup + storage.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
At a time when wind and solar will be closing in on $0.02/kWh. (Unsubsidized wind is now around $0.03/kWh and continues to fall.) Bob Wallace – That’s when the sun shines and the wind blows I guess. Where have any reactors been built (outside of very low labor cost countries) that have produced market competitively priced electricity? They have been built in Korea and near completion now in the UAE. As a matter of fact the cost of skilled labour in South Korea is higher than that in the USA. Furthermore it’s not to cost of labor, in the USA they lost the benefit of the learning curve and the ability to carry out such mega-projects with any experience.
Bob Wallace says
What’s the cost of electricity produced by reactors in SK?
Of course wind prices are going to be lowest where the wind blows and solar the lowest where the most sunshine can be found. But if wind falls to $0.015/kWh in the windy US Midwest it should be only $0.03/kWh in places with half as much wind.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bob Wallace – Electricity prices across countries around the world vary due to factors like infrastructure maintenance, government energy and climate change policies, local energy resources and diversity in generation assets. Like I said, at night there is no solar electricity generated. Depending on weather conditions, especially during heatwaves there is no wind at all. You can not just quote the hypothetical solar and wind generation price, because it needs baseload support. One has to look at what the household electricity prices is. The household electricity price for South Korea is $0.10/kWh. Electricity rates in South Korea are amongst the lowest when compared with other developed economies. The household electricity price for electricity in South Australia with it high solar and wind penetration is the highest in Australia. California is the same where the consumer pays the highest rate in the USA. Germany with its energiewende has the highest electricity price in the world at $0.40/kWh. Depending on the weather and the time of day, Germany can face absurd states of energy surplus or deficit. Denmark a proud wind country the consumer price is $0.42/kW/h. It is well known that in areas with high wind and solar penetration on the gird the consumer pays the highest consumer price for electricity with the costs often falling disproportionately on the poor. Endlessly ignored by those promoting renewables and/or those directly invested in the business itself, higher cost electricity (and energy) is horrible for our health. That’s because, since electricity is so indispensable, meaning that it “cannot not be used,” higher cost power drastically erodes our disposable income, which is the very basis of our health, while also disproportionately hurting the poor most. As a percentage of income, poor families pay 5-9 times more for electricity than rich families do.
Bob Wallace says
Falling wind turbine and solar prices are available to all countries. As are the technological advances in how to use that hardware.
The first offshore wind was pretty expensive. Now that we are getting started in the US we should be able to match Europe’s very sweet prices quicky. Europe paid for the learning curve.
It makes no sense to compare retail, commercial or even industrial rates. Those are not the cost of generating and distributing electricity. They are impacted by both subsidies and fees/taxes.
For example, Germany has high retail rates compared to France but Germany’s cost of generation appears to be less than France’s.
German consumers pay a lot in taxes and Germany’s renewable subsidy programs are put exclusively on retail customers (although industrial customers benefit from the lower wholesale costs).
In France the government is apparently subsidizing the cost of electricity with tax dollars. France has admitted that it costs them about nine cents per kWh to operate their reactors and that is higher than the wholesale cost of electricity in Germany.
Second half of 2015 cost of electricity and distribution:
France € 0.1261/kWh
Germany € 0.1352/kWh
Very similar. Less than 1/100th of a euro difference.
Tax and fees:
France € 0.0495
Germany € 0.1482
Now the cost of electricity jumps over 100% due to ‘addons’ in Germany.
” You can not just quote the hypothetical solar and wind generation price, because it needs baseload support. ”
No, no “baseload” is needed. What is needed is some way to supply electricity when the wind is not blowing and Sun not shining. That can be hydro, energy stored in pump-up hydro or batteries, or dispatchable thermal generation. It can be electricity imported from other grids. It can be minimized by load shifting.
” The household electricity price for electricity in South Australia with it high solar and wind penetration is the highest in Australia. ”
You need to do a little checking to see why Australian electricity is so expensive. (Here’s a hint: some very bad decisions were made to upgrade the grid for increases in demand which never occurred. And then, driven by the resulting high price, a lot of people started installing solar which lowered sales and cause further rate increases. )
AU electricity was very expensive long before there was any appreciable wind installed on the continenette.
” It is well known that in areas with high wind and solar penetration on the gird the consumer pays the highest consumer price for electricity with the costs often falling disproportionately on the poor.”
What we’re seeing in the US is that those states with the most wind installed are seeing their rates hold about level while the rates in states without much installed wind increase. Unfortunately we can’t post graphs here so I can’t show you how Germany’s wholesale price of electricity has been rapidly trending downward after they started installing a lot of renewables.
One must be careful about casually comparing the cost of electricity from one country/grid to another. In one case you are often dealing with legacy generation which was installed and paid off years early. A country/grid with a lot of recently installed wind/solar will have capex and finex costs that pump up the rate until the project is paid off.
(Those countries/grids with paid off generation will have to replace their generators later on. That’s when their rates will jump up and then fall back.)
Hendrikus Degenaar says
What is needed is some way to supply electricity when the wind is not blowing and sun not shining. That can be hydro, energy stored in pump-up hydro or batteries, or dispatchable thermal generation. It can be electricity imported from other grids. It can be minimised by load shifting. That’s funnly, yes that will reflect the real cost generation cost. German consumers pay a lot in taxes, yes that is to pay for their energiewende. On a grid, battery storage will never work except for frequency and voltage stabilisation, something you can also do with flywheels. Any of the other factors you have mentioned will have to be added to the generating cost.
The wind and solar issue in South Australia and demand exceeding supply in Victoria, NSW and Queensland was caused by a prolonged heatwave. In other words it was the wind generating power that started to let the system down. Naturally more baseload or dispatchable thermal generating capacity was needed, but it just points out that you can’t rely on wind and for a justified reason adding other generating sources will add to the generating cost. No matter what and where, in the end it is what the consumer ends up having to pay for their electricity. In the USA and Canada, you have low consumer prices, but I can see that in both countries the consumer price goes up the moment when they start get a higher penetration of renewables on their grids.
Bob Wallace says
“On a grid, battery storage will never work except for frequency and voltage stabilisation, something you can also do with flywheels.”
Batteries are being used for frequency and voltage stabilization. There seems to be no movement to use flywheels. This is the real world making a choice.
Batteries are already being installed on grids for storage in addition to grid smoothing. Several grids have started which we may see largely as pilot projects at this point. The first large scale utility battery storage will likely be on islands where fossil fuel options are very expensive.
Of course the cost of batteries/storage will have to be added to the cost of electricity. Let’s look at how the economics stand today.
New wind (unsubsidized) is under 2c/kWh.
New solar (unsubsidized) is under 5c/kWh.
Electricity can be stored for 10c/kWh or less.
Compare –
New nuclear is probably not possible in the West for < 13c/kWh.
Nuclear needs storage to time-shift output from low demand to high demand hours.
So put your own percentages into this formula and see if you can find a condition where nuclear+storage is cheaper than renewables+storage.
X% * 13 (nuclear) + Y% 23 (stored nuclear < X% 3 (wind) + Y% 5(solar) + Z% 14 (stored wind/solar)
Percentages on each side of the 'less than' side must sum to 100.
Can you find wind/solar/storage mix that is more expensive than nuclear?
Now if you happen to be considering an area which can suffer prolonged periods of both low solar and wind you'll need more long term storage than other areas. Let me try some numbers.
First nuclear. Daily variation in demand can vary 1:2 and more. Let's be generous to nuclear and assume about a third of total output would need to be stored (half of low demand moved to high demand hours).
67% * 13 + 33% * 23 = 16.3 cents/kWh
Assume a need to store a lot of energy to cover long low input rates. 30% from each wind and solar and another 40% stored.
30% * 3 + 30% + 5 + 40% *14 = 8 cents/kwh. Less than 16.3.
Take an extreme case. Only 10% of wind and solar used directly (from wind/solar farm to use) and 80% needing to be stored.
10% * 3 + 10% + 5 + 80% *14 = 12 cents/kwh. Less than 16.3.
Even if 100% of all wind and solar had to be stored before use renewables would still be cheaper than nuclear (14c vs. 16.3c).
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bob Wallace, if the storage from renewable electricity generation was a simple as you put it, why is storage seen as something that still needs to be resolved. No movement on flywheels.? Currently, high-power flywheels are used in many aerospace and UPS applications. Today 2 kW/6 kWh systems are being used in telecommunications applications. For utility-scale storage a ‘flywheel farm’ approach can be used to store megawatts of electricity for applications needing minutes of discharge duration. They are used for voltage and frequency control, when short-term backup power is required because utility power fluctuates or is lost. FYI – one of my start-up’s http://www.wbamnet.org addresses energy efficiency, and deals with supply and demand issues caused by intermittent renewable electricity generation (smart load-shedding) on the grid.
Bob Wallace says
“why is storage seen as something that still needs to be resolved”
Multiple reasons.
a) We really don’t know how much storage we will need and where it would be best sited.
As the price of wind and solar fall it will make sense to somewhat overbuild capacity and simply curtail than to install storage. Clearly it wouldn’t make sense to capture a 1% over production. The threshold for capturing rather than curtailing will depend on the price of both renewables and storage.
b) Storage is an emerging technology. In the last few years immense amounts of research into storage has started up. We don’t yet know what technologies will prove out.
We may or may not have lithium-air batteries or solid state lithium batteries which could be much cheaper than any of today’s options. Liquid metal batteries might turn out to be cheap.
“No movement on flywheels.?”
Very little that I can see compared to batteries.
The DOE Storage Database lists only three utility scale flywheel systems in operation and none announced or under construction.
There are over 350 pump-up hydro facilities listed.
There are 10 battery facilities listed and they have yet to pick up a couple of recent systems that have been announced.
Perhaps flywheels will increase in use but I’m just not seeing talk of that happening. I’m skeptical when it comes to flywheels, the price of batteries is coming down so rapidly.
If flywheels can compete, then great!. The more storage options, the better.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
I am not promoting flywheels, I just made mention that they exist. http://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/flywheel-energy-storage-market
On sort of batteries; we are even starting to see small portable commercial nuclear power reactors being developed in Russia and China. Such a reactor could potentially run for 5 years before needing to be refuelled. Russia is already constructing a floating nuclear power plant currently being built at the Baltiysky Zavod shipyard in Saint Petersburg. It contains two KLT-40C naval propulsion reactors with a 35 MWe capacity each.
Bob Wallace says
“we are even starting to see small portable commercial nuclear power reactors being developed in Russia and China”
We haven’t actually seen them (other than in ships) so we don’t know what their electricity would cost.
Given that new reactor electricity would run 13 cents or more while wind and solar are expected to fall to 2 cents or less do you really think there’s a route to lowering the cost of nuclear by 75%?
Bas Gresnigt says
Hendrikus,
Sorry, but you forget the cheapest storage method: PtG-store-GtP. The Germans invest a lot in it and expect to start regular roll-out in 2024. Also because the H2 gas can be used for many other purposes.
Storage in earth cavities is very cheap. Though round-trip efficiency is low (~40%), it can easily cover long seasonal production slumps.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Power-to-Gas is an elegant PtG-store-GtP an innovation that simply takes excess renewable electricity to create hydrogen and methane for injection into natural gas pipelines or use in transportation. It may be taking off in Germany but I don’t hear off it much elsewhere. You need excess renewable electricity to make this work. BTW – Natural Gas is still a fossil fuel.
Bob Wallace says
The downfall with much of the electricity -> fuel -> electricity thinking is a general an assumption of cheap (even free) electricity.
We almost certainly have a huge fleet of EVs coming online. The average EV needs only three hours of charging using a 240 VAC outlet.
That means that EVs can easily become massive dispatchable loads.
When other demands lower or the wind starts blowing very hard the price of electricity might start slipping below the “normal 10c/kW” level. Millions of EVs will start charging based on a price signal. EVs (and other dispatchable loads) will create a market where now only small ones exist. They will pay less than the high demand rate, but far above cheap/free.
The role for electricity -> fuel -> electricity is possibly for long term storage. It will have to compete with pump-up hydro. And the input cost must be realistic, at least what EV owners will pay.
Bas Gresnigt says
Bob,
Unmanned German PtG facilities can buy on the EPEX in Leipzig. Av. price below 3cnt/KWh. When they only buy (operate) below 2.5cnt/KWh their av. purchase price will be ~1.5cnt/KWh.
That implies that when PtGtP can sell for ~6cnt/KWh they chain runs break even.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
[omitted] yes millions of EVs will start charging based on a price signal. Down goes the grid or maybe not as perhaps they are on the road. In reverse, I can just see the faces of EV owners to see their batteries being drained because someone decides to use them as a dispatchable load.
3 Phase Mode 4 charging option with maximum 400A per phase (50kW – 150kW). Mode 4 is used for very rapid (3 hours) service station charging. They are not designed to be used for dispatchable load purpose.
On top of population growth, recent forecasts have suggested that at a 30% annual growth rate in EV and or FCEV sales would result in as much as 2 million b/d of oil demand being displaced by 2028, while at the same time adding 2,700 TWh to electricity demand globally by 2040. Nuclear will be well placed to bring about a hydrogen economy should FCEV come out as the winner. In any case there is a lot more electricity going to be required. I still don’t see much renewable generation.
I keep seeing those fantastic even as low as (wholesale I guess) numbers such as ~1.5cnt/KWh. Does this include any life cycle costs? Anyhow they don’t appear to reduce the consumers utility bill.
Bob Wallace, I think that I asked you this question in the past, what has been your personal contribution on power generation.
Bob Wallace says
“yes millions of EVs will start charging based on a price signal. Down goes the grid ”
A study by the NREL found that the US could charge 70% of all US cars and light trucks if they became battery powered overnight.
There is a lot of unused late night capacity.
They did not include all the electricity which would be saved if we didn’t use so much for oil extraction, refining and distribution.
A dispatchable load charging system would not trigger all EVs to start charging at the same time. Charging would be spread out in order to match supply to demand as much as possible.
“I can just see the faces of EV owners to see their batteries being drained because someone decides to use them as a dispatchable load.”
You’re confusing using EVs as a dispatchable load and as a grid storage system.
I don’t think anyone seriously thinks EVs will be used for grid storage. The economics don’t work.
As for serving as a dispatchable load here is how it might work.
Someone who owns a 200 mile range EV and has a 30 mile daily driving routine might set the absolute minimum charge to 50 miles and their “by breakfast time” minimum to 80 miles.
If they get home, plug in, and their remaining charge is less than 50 miles the grid will charge them up soon. Then when other demand is lower the grid will charge their EV up to 80 miles.
If there’s extra electricity (windy night) then the grid might charge them fully, 200 miles.
Being fully charged if energy supplies are low the grid can skip nights and let the EV drop from 200 miles at breakfast time to 170 miles to 140 miles to 110 miles to 80 miles.
That’s four days that charging can be skipped with no impact on the EV driver.
“Bob Wallace, I think that I asked you this question in the past, what has been your personal contribution on power generation.”
I don’t recall being asked but I don’t mind answering.
I’ve run my house on solar power for about 35 years.
I’ve done less direct things such as supporting politicians who assist renewable energy and working to educate people about renewable energy.
I also attempt to minimize my petroleum consumption.
Nigel West says
Bob, the ability of the ‘Grid’ to support EV charging is a two part issue. One is generation capacity which you explain is likely to be managed by EV charging away from peak demand times.
The other issue is the capacity of the wires to support charging. It’s an issue for the UK. If there were too many EVs (more than six in some streets) charging together the existing LV network could be overloaded. It needs careful management or reinforcement which would take time and money.
http://environmentjournal.online/articles/gear-growth-small-scale-low-carbon-energy-lights-go-warns-think-tank/
Bob Wallace says
“The other issue is the capacity of the wires to support charging. ”
Residential charging in done on a 250 VAC, 50 AMP circuit.
That’s what one uses for a clothes dryer (in the US). Hardly a strain on the wiring.
There is one small problem in that the old style neighborhood transformers were sized with the expectation of them being able to cool down for several hours per night. Adding several EVs could keep them hot around the clock and call for their replacement sooner.
It’s a minor problem. The old ‘cans’ are being replaced with more efficient solid state units anyway.
Nigel West says
Bob, the design of the UK’s LV distribution systems is different to the US where homes are supplied from a 3 wire overhead system. The ‘cans’ you refer to are pole mounted transformers which can be changed easily for higher capacity units if needed.
In the UK in rural locations overhead systems are used too, but not in our densely populated towns and cities where the low voltage system is underground. Uprating an underground system to provide capacity to charge a concentration of EVs is far from a minor problem. It would mean relaying low voltage cables and likely upstream reinforcement to provide additional network capacity.
Such a programme of work would be costly and would need to be phased over many years as distributors lack the skilled resources to do it any quicker. Fortunately as EVs sales in the UK are running at 4% of total car sales the issue is currently easy to manage for distributors. But if car owners were encouraged say by Government to switch to EVs in a short time network capacity issues would arise.
The same issues could arise if home owners were required to switch to electric heating to curtail the use of gas for home heating.
Helmut Frik says
@ Nigel, this depends how your undergrund cable are dimensioned. The connections of my house is dimensioned for 3x230V/100A here in germany, and the local 20kV/400V transformer is runing at a average load of 10-15%. It is good that engineers here hat e to install new transformers and cables over and over again, and dimension them with a lot of spare capacity to avoid this. This way the equipent stays in place for many decades. So no problem here to switch everything from Gas and natural gas to electricity as far as the lowe voltage grid is concerned.
Problems in e.g. Italy where many houses are just connected witch 3…6kW per house, but even then a closer look might enable some enforcement of the grid without having to replace everything.
Nigel West says
A classic case of German over engineering which feeds into higher power prices. But may prove to be a good move now.
Unfortunately the UK is not in the same position. Over engineering of electricity supply systems ceased decades ago. Cost efficiency has been demanded by regulators of monopoly public services.
Helmut Frik says
less overengineering than long therm economic consideration. The “oversized” cables and transfomers cost only a fraction of digging the trenches in the roads and building transformer stations and installing the transformers etc. So some intelligent engineers and economists long time ago decided that building those components strong enough that there is a big likelyhood that the spendings for new trenches and other work can be avoided for many decades in the future will safe the utilities a lot of money. Which works in practice. You might find transformers here running practically without significant maintenance since the times of Emperor Wilhelm II. (Well today they supply a smaller region dur to rising demand per House 🙂 )
Bob Wallace says
Nigel, let’s think about what happens when your UK family arrives home at the end of their day.
On goes the electric kettle for a cuppa, perhaps a load of clothes is taken out of the washer and put into the dryer. Another load of wash is started. Dinner is put on the stove. Family member take showers. The kids turn on their TVs and their playstations. The heat gets turned up a bit.
All of that adds up to more energy than an EV takes to charge. If your residential distribution system will run all that, heck, if it will run a clothes dryer it will charge EVs.
If you can power your lifestyle at 7AM or 6PM then you can charge your EV at 1AM.
Nigel West says
Bob, agreed, but a kettle, dryers, showers and cookers are not on for long. In aggregate all switched on together they could draw 10 kW initially say, but only for a short period. After a few minutes kettle goes off, 10 minutes and shower is over. Cooker thermostat and dryer starts cycling on and off after 10 minutes. So aggregate home load falls back to a few kW.
Due to diversity that peak load will not be on in other houses fed from the same network at exactly the same time too. My home consumes 20kWh/day.
Unfortunately EV charging is thought to be more onerous. At the top end there are Teslas drawing 7kW continuously for hours to charge 85kWhr batteries.
A typical low voltage cable rating is about 250A/phase. Not many 7kW continuously charging EVs would be needed to eat up any spare network capacity.
Helps I guess if one has solar and the sun shines!
Bob Wallace says
Nigel says “(household appliances) are not on for long. ”
I thought your argument was that British residential wiring was incapable of carrying enough electricity to charge EVs late at night.
If the wires will support the kettle, shower, washer, dryer, TVs, computers, stove, and oven all at the same time then you can charge EVs without melting your connections.
Nigel West says
Bob, yes home connections will be okay and not melt with a 7kW EV load. It’s the capacity of the delivery network above that is the issue. Clusters of EVs drawing 7kW continuously for hours on the same feeder could stress the delivery network. When electrical engineers design distribution networks they use a concept known as “diversity”. Means the network design capacity is much less than summing peak loads for each house.
Check out diversity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_factor
Bob Wallace says
“Clusters of EVs drawing 7kW continuously for hours on the same feeder could stress the delivery network”
As I stated with some US transformers not sized for late night high demand.
It is very possible there are components in the system that will have to be replaced/upsized.
That is not a big deal.
The big deal is stopping petroleum use.
The buildout of EVs will be gradual and utilities will have a very good idea of where they might need to make upgrades by simply monitoring demand from specific areas/neighborhoods.
If one house suddenly starts using more electricity late at night then it’s likely that they are charging an EV (or have an indoor grow).
If more houses on the same transformer (or whatever the weak link is) start drawing more then the utility can decide whether to upgrade the component or wait until demand rises more.
Bas Gresnigt says
Hendrikus,
Because in Germany storage will become an issue in two decades, and in near all other countries not.
Germany has little hydro, etc. and is too big to rely on interconnections with other countries.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm
Helmut Frik says
@ Hendricus what should this graph tell? It’s well known to everybody here I guess.
Tilleul says
In Korea, electricity prices are set by the government like in France. This led to EDF and Kepco having a huge amount of debts in order to keep the price down and no money left to dismantle the reactors and to invest in new capacities.
What happens in nuclear developpement was that governments spent a huge amount of taxpayer money in exchange of low cost electricity. However this did not happen as nuclear reactor have such a high maintenance cost (all the reactors were insanely dangerous so they had to make quick fix after quick fix and that increased the real costs by several orders of magnitude). In order to keep their social license, electric companies had to sell at losses, these losses were financed by debts, using money set in the dismantlement funds to full their own growth through M&A and by not setting in money apart to replace their ageing powerplants. This was very help by the fact that nuclear energy is basically a small group of experts who are paid to validate each other.
Now that debts needs to be paid, powerplants needs to be dismantled, electricty growth is stagnant leading to huge write down and so on, the Enron-like ponzi scheme is starting to crumble.
What is extroardinary is to see that people are still “blaming the greens” instead of looking at the mirror and blaming the nuclear fanboys who had a total disrespect for any economics matters and were even proud of the fact they did not care about this.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
China is expected restart its nuclear power program in inland areas within the next four years. The statement came from Wang Yiren, vice-director of the state administration of science, technology and industry for national defense, and vice-chairman of the China Atomic Energy Authority. He said that China has already decided where its inland AP1000 nuclear reactors will be built. Three inland units have already been given approval. They are; the Taohuajiang nuclear station in Hunan province, southeast China; the Dafan nuclear station in Hubei province, eastern China; and the Pengze nuclear station in Jiangxi province, southeast China. Furthermore, April 2017 – China’s General Nuclear chairman He Yu said China is expecting to construct four to six Hualong One reactors annually from 2020 to achieve an installed nuclear generating capacity of at least 150 GWe by 2030.
South Africa’s $72 Billion Nuclear Project to Move in June 2017. The state utility Eskom requests proposals from companies bidding for the project. http://fortune.com/2017/04/09/south-africa-nuclear-project/
Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah City for Nuclear and Renewable Energy (KA-CARE) to assess the potential for building at least two South Korean SMR SMART 330MWt reactors in that country, and possibly 16 more. The cost of building the first SMART unit in Saudi Arabia has been estimated at $1 billion. The agreement is seen by South Korea as opening opportunities for major involvement in Saudi nuclear power plans, and it also calls for the commercialisation and promotion of the SMART reactor to third world countries. KAERI sees this as a new business model for SMR development. KAERI has designed an integrated desalination plant based on the SMART reactor to produce 40,000 m3/day of water and 90 MWe of power at LESS THAN THE COST OF A GAS TURBINE. Saudi Arabia projects 17 GWe of nuclear capacity by 2040 to provide 15% of it’s power. Jordan last month has signed a draft contract with Saudi Arabia on the development of uranium mining in the Jordanian central region.
Bob Wallace says
I don’t think China is going to build any more AP-1000s.
It’s going to be very interest to watch China over the next five years to see how their nuclear program develops. Their nuclear industry has quite a bit of momentum but the Chinese leaders know how to do math. They’ve been increasing their wind and solar installation rates like gangbusters.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see them shift their investments from nuclear to renewable. They need quick results in order to clean up their air. And they aren’t big money wasters.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bob Wallace, they can always substitute the AP1000’s with their ACPR1000. China will not shift their investments from nuclear to renewable. They have their planning for renewables and will stick to that. China will plough $493 billion into renewable power generation by 2020. The Chinese NEA said installed renewable power capacity including wind, hydro, solar and nuclear power would contribute to about half of new electricity generation by 2020.
Bob Wallace says
Yes, China apparently will switch away from the AP1000 to their design which has worked out better for them. My statement was that China seems to be finished building that particular design.
“China will not shift their investments from nuclear to renewable.”
That’s an “I’ve got a functioning time machine” statement. You do not know what China will do. I don’t know what China will do. However, we can look at what is happening and what has happened in the past.
China has modified their renewable plans multiple times. They went through a series of ‘five year’ plans for wind. Hit their target years ahead of five. Set new and higher targets. I think this happened at least three times.
China has massively increased their solar targets over time.
China has plenty of places to spend their money. If they see nuclear as too expensive compared to renewables then they will make changes.
The thing that may keep nuclear going longer in China than most other countries is the low cost of labor in China. Nuclear has a high labor input so low cost labor brings down the cost of building a reactor.
The average salary for an engineer in China is 100,000 yuan. About $14,500. Mean annual salaries for engineers in the US run $88,000 to $115,000, depending on specialty.
The minimum wage in China is $0.93/hour. That’s 13% of the minimum wage in the US.
If labor is 1/8th the cost in China then that will lower their cost of nuclear. Wind and solar farms, having lower labor inputs, won’t benefit as much by lower labor costs.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bob Wallace have you ever been to China.? China’s General Nuclear chairman He Yu and Wang Yiren, Vice-Chairman of the China Atomic Energy Authority, be rest assured that they know on what they say.
Bob Wallace says
Yes, I was last in China in February. Unfortunately I couldn’t work He Yu into my schedule. I’ll try to make time for him next trip.
What has Yu told you? Will China continue to spend money on nuclear even if renewables end up being significantly cheaper than nuclear?
Does he see China’s government change from being money-wise to money-foolish when it comes to energy decisions?
Nigel West says
When China’s economy booms electricity demand booms so they need generating capacity quickly which has been new coal. Nuclear takes longer to commission so struggles to keep up with demand growth in the boom times.
Nuclear can fully displace dirty coal capacity. Unlike renewables which can only partially displace dirty coal.
Transporting coal over long distances is expensive. One solution is long distance DC transmission – ‘coal by wire’ – but that is costly. Whereas nuclear stations can be sited closer to demand centres.
Nuclear is the best technology to clean up emissions. Renewables isn’t as good as nuclear because fossil fuels will always be needed as back-up. PWR’s can run for almost 2 years without a stop between inspections/refuelling. Inspections and refuelling periods can be timed to coincide with periods of low system demand so little back-up is needed for a fleet of nuclear stations.
China imports western nuclear power tech. Their engineers shadow western engineers and learn the skills needed to design and build large commercial reactors. The Chinese will soon be exporting home grown reactor designs.
Bob Wallace says
Nigel, you argument becomes invalid as soon as you claim “renewables which can only partially displace dirty coal”.
Renzo Tavoni says
As an Italian citizen I think that Italy was the first country in the world having closed its functioning reactors after Chernobil (Latina,Trino Vercellese,Caorso) and never started the biggest one (Montalto di Castro 90% completed ).
The definitly closure was not immediate but took a lot of years,because the nuclear supporters disappeared and politicians had not the courage to take the decision.
Unfortunately we had not a “NP”mouvement that could help us to face the situation.
The result was that Enel did not loose its investment because the charge was put on the electric bill,the same was for the industry that was reinboursed by the state.
I am sorry having been so long with old facts concerning Italy,but I plaude to the initiative of NP of opposing the premature closure of nuclear plants that can only produce a loss of money and a damage to environment.
Helmut Frik says
The problem of nuclear is first extraordinary costs for the plants, and dying supply chains.
First and most obvious for the nuclear part of the plants (westinghouse Areva), where the production capacities are falling faster than they are built up elsehere (if any). And now, due to the collaps of the construction od coal power plants materialising worldwide, also on the side of the non nuclear part of the power plants, where so far components from the coal power supply chain were used with a high economy of scale.
So the prices for nuclear power plants are likely to rise further in the future.
On the other hand the capacity of the PV supply chain looks like it will exceede 150GWp at the end of the year.
When installed in utility scale PV plants with 1-Axis trackers, capacity factor is mostly 0,15-0,3 in the sun belt of the world. Which means that 3GWp of PV might replace 1 GWp of nuclera in output.
And the capacity expansions in the PV market are going on fast, along with falling prices. So additions of +/-5 nuclear power plants per year are simple negible in comparison, and are getting less relevant every year.
The growth of wind power is slower, but still significant higher than nuclear and also starting from a much higher base. And also shows falling costs.
This is not a environment in which a nuclear renesaince makes any economical sense. And ramping up the nuclear supply chain as it was done 1950-1980 would also take decades to build factories train workers etc, so a huge scale build out of nuclear would come decades too late. The world has changed during the last years.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Helmut Frik, It is clear to me that you know nothing on the Nuclear Industries activities taking place in China, South Korea and Russia. It’s not to late for those countries.
The UAE energy plan announced in January 2017 involves investment of $163 billion by 2050 to achieve half of its energy being from nuclear power and renewables. By announcing the first unified energy strategy for the UAE which aims to balance economic needs and environmental goals, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai has set forth ambitious plans that boost clean energy while slashing dependence on natural gas to generate power. The four South Korean designed nuclear units at Barakah, with construction running on-time and on-budget when completed, is expected to deliver up to a quarter of the UAE’s electricity demand.
China is expected restart its nuclear power program in inland areas within the next four years. The statement came from Wang Yiren, vice-director of the state administration of science, technology and industry for national defense, and vice-chairman of the China Atomic Energy Authority. He said that China has already decided where its inland AP1000 or the GEN III Hualong One Reactors will be built. Three inland units have already been given approval. They are; the Taohuajiang nuclear station in Hunan province, southeast China; the Dafan nuclear station in Hubei province, eastern China; and the Pengze nuclear station in Jiangxi province, southeast China.
Furthermore, announced last month by China’s General Nuclear chairman He Yu; China is expecting to construct four to six Hualong One reactors annually from 2020 to achieve an installed nuclear generating capacity of at least 150 GWe by 2030. That is 40 to 60 Gen III Nuclear Reactors. Furthermore there is much happening on their GEN IV SMR development program. The will have the worlds first SMR demonstration plant plant go critical by November this year.
South Korean KAERI has designed an integrated desalination plant based on their SMR (SMART) nuclear reactor to produce 40,000 m3/day of water and 90 MWe of power at less than the cost of a gas turbine. The batch first of these are envisaged for Saudi Arabia.
South Africa will launch the tender for the approximated US$72b expansion of its nuclear power plants in June when state utility Eskom requests proposals from companies bidding for the project, Reuters reported. Accordingly, the country has asked Eskom to procure an additional 9,600MWe of capacity to reduce the country’s reliance on an ageing fleet of coal-fired plants.
Bas Gresnigt says
UAE will have noticed that Abu Dhabi signed a contract with a consortium who will install, operate and decommission a 1.1GW solar farm for a during 20yrs guaranteed price of produced electricity of 2.4cnt/KWh (production start 2019).
I estimate that UAE & Dubai will revise their nuclear strategy as even they don’t want to throw money away and solar prices wil continue to fall.
Dubai plans already 5GW solar.
Bob Wallace says
Some nuclear might be built in Middle Eastern countries because they can import very cheap labor. Labor costs can be even less than what is paid in China.
Nuclear startups are likely last longest where labor is cheapest. Wind and solar installation has low labor inputs which means that there is a lower cost savings in those countries.
Nigel West says
ME countries are building nuclear and renewables to reduce home fossil fuel consumption. SA consumes 1/4 of the fossil fuels they produce. Reducing home consumption will allow increased exports so should boost foreign income.
Helmut Frik says
Not when nuclear power results in higher payments to foreign countries than other modes of power generation, That’s why UAE does not plan further nuclear power. And that’s why the business model for SA nuclear power stations does not look conincing for anyoune outside todays gouvernment.
Helmut Frik says
To be correct, the UAE have built the for corean nuclear plants (or almost built it) which the nuclear fanboy group takes as posterchild, looked at the price tag, looked at the price tag for wnind and solar, and decided to build no further nuclear in the future, but plenty of wind and solar.
Different story as you like to tell here.
And you did not answer the question who will keep the factorys for huge steam turbines and other thermal power plant equipment open and all those specialists employed, when only 5 or 10 nuclear power stations per year need such equipment, and not like today 5 or 10 nuclear power stations and many hundreds of coal pwoer plants? Tell me how this business plan should work without extremely rising prices for nuclear pwoer plants. Plannings for coal power plants fall fast, and so it is to be expected that the number of plants under construction buying such equipment will fall fast too, resulting in a dying supply chain, resulting in rising costs per unit, rising transportation and maintenance costs etc.
Simple economic logic. You can see here in germany and neighbouring coutries how Siemens and GE close their turbine plants due to missing sales.
Once China stops its buildout of coal power plants same will happen there too. And china already stops new coal power construction. India also sees no need for further coal power plants after those already under construction. Russia nearly builds no power plants, no new coal power plants in the US and in Europe.
I have already experienced hot technologies died very fast because key components, which were mainly produced for other markets were not available any more, because the neighboring market stopped requesting this products and switched to other products. One day you get a notice that the product is not produced any more, and you can only buy what’s left in store, and that’s it then. (or you pay a 100 times the previous price to get a single hand made piece for you)
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Helmut Frik, – where do you get your information from.? Siemens Power Plants Tailored to your Needs.
http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/fossil-power-generation/power-plants/
Helmut Frik says
And so? If you follow the news here you could read how they lay of people on regular base, shrinking their business fast.
You get it “taylored to your needs” but from a shrinking supply chain, which promises rising costs for the time to come. Simple economics.
The decline of this supply chain is a ongoing process, it did not yet come to an and at no supply chain at all. So you can still get the products. But the number of such products being produced is falling. If it keeps falling, the likelyhood that you don’t get that product any more at prices anyone can afford is rising.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Well, South Korean companies such as Doosan Heavy Industries. The Chinese Hangzhou Steam Turbine Co and Japanese Toshiba, Hitachi, and others will still be there…
Helmut Frik says
Why should they be there? China is closing down coal power plants already under construction, and skips thos in planning stages, Corea skips plans for new coal or nuclear capacity, and so on. Why should these companys keep their steam turbine capaictys open at high losses when nobody buys their turbies any more?
They stay open as long a a dozend huge steam turbines for coal power stations are sold every week (total market). Why do you expect them to stay open with a single turbine every two months? Try to buy a piston steam engine or a linotype machine….
Bob Wallace says
This is what we saw as film cameras died. First sales volumes fell to the point at which manufacturers could no longer justify research into improving SLRs. Then volumes fell further to where it made no sense to keep manufacturing lines open.
Same thing with film developing. When processing machines broke there was no economic argument for repairing them.
The industry just collapsed.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Yes, the film industry disappeared but not the company – FUJIFILM Corporation was named a Clarivate 2016 Top 100 Global Innovator for the fifth year in a row.
Bob Wallace says
” the film industry disappeared but not the company”
Kodak went bankrupt. As did Polaroid. Fuji became a major manufacturer of digital cameras.
There’s still a small amount of film being shot. Mostly by people seeking to be “different”. Overall film is a tiny, tiny niche compared to what it was in 2000 and for a few years after.
The films that have held on are the ones with the least exotic manufacturing and processing needs. Films that can be manufactured on a small scale. A couple of guys working in a garage can make perfectly good B&W film.
Nigel West says
Because there are many steam turbines in operation all around the world that require overhauling and new parts manufactured. The expertise and ability to build them will not disappear, but the output capacity may shrink.
Bob Wallace says
The US is in the process of closing coal plants. And in about 20 years will have no operating coal plants. Perhaps as soon as ten years almost all will be gone.
Other countries are reducing coal use. The world seems to have passed ‘peak coal’.
Plants are closing. Countries have stated that they will build no new coal plants, even India is talking about no more coal plants.
Considering the cost of new coal plants along with the now very low price of wind and solar and the rapidly dropping cost of storage it won’t make economic sense to replace worn out or seriously broken coal plants.
The market for new parts and replacement parts will decline.
Then, at some point, the last parts manufacturer will throw up its hands and shut shop.
Nigel West says
Gas fired CCGTs use steam turbines so do nuclear plants.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Where do you guys get your information from – Nobody buys steam turbines any more. You really believe that Korea, China, Russia, Canada are not expanding it’s nuclear business. Do you really think that there are no more thermal gas plants going to be built. FYI – the conventional steam turbine, combined steam turbine and co-generation market is worth US$19,292 Million by 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/04/26/canada-aims-for-a-fleet-of-small-modular-nukes/#7ddb217e30a8
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bob Wallace, – Kodak never went bankrupt. They now provide packaging, functional printing, graphic communications and professional services for businesses around the world. It’s main business segments are Print Systems, Enterprise Inkjet Systems, Micro 3D Printing and Packaging, Software and Solutions. Kodak provides high-speed, high-volume commercial inkjet, and colour and black-and-white electrophotographic printing equipment and related consumables and services.
Bob Wallace says
Kodak filed for bankruptcy in January 2012.
“Eastman Kodak Co., the photography pioneer overcome by digital competition, emerged from bankruptcy today as a commercial-printing company that sells nothing to consumers.
The new, smaller Kodak has shed the cameras, film sales and consumer photo developing that made it a household name, focusing on printing technology for corporate customers, touch-screen sensor components for smartphones and computer tablets, and film for the movie industry. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Allan Gropper last month approved Kodak’s exit plan, which cut about $4.1 billion of debt and left shareholders empty-handed.
Kodak, based in Rochester, New York, filed for bankruptcy in January 2012”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-09-03/kodak-exits-bankruptcy-as-printer-without-photographs
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bob Wallace – the US could charge 70% of all US cars and light trucks if they became battery powered overnight. And that would only com from renewable electricity generation. I don’t think the electrons will know.
Bob Wallace says
Yes, that’s from a NREL study done a few years back. There was an even earlier study where they found that the US had enough spare capacity at night to charge 80%. The more recent study looked at available transmission and dialed it down 10%.
Charging EVs late at night should be a major boon for wind farm construction. As it is now the wholesale cost of electricity drops very low due to low demand and (typically) stronger nighttime winds. Charging a large number of EVs would create a market for that late night electricity which would increase wind farm profits.
Increased profits will mean more investment in additional wind farms. And additional wind farms will mean more inexpensive electricity available during the other hours of the day.
EVs are likely to both decrease our cost of driving and our cost of electricity.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Speculative – EV’s are likely to both decrease our cost of driving and our cost of electricity. Increased profits will mean more investment by the super rich in Artificial Intelligence to replace humans. A number of governments are already studying and experimenting with the introduction of an universal basic income system.
Business goes on, and the same will be the case with Toshiba and Westinghouse. On September 3, 2013, Kodak announced that it emerged from bankruptcy as a technology company focused on imaging for business. Its main business segments are Digital Printing & Enterprise and Graphics, Entertainment & Commercial Films.
Cobalt Prices To Rocket As Tesla And Apple Scramble For Supplies. http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Cobalt-Prices-To-Rocket-As-Tesla-And-Apple-Scramble-For-Supplies.html
Bob Wallace says
Life does go on. The concentration of wealth by the top 1% or less is an issue we’ll either have to address or return to the lifestyle of almost all of us living as serfs.
But we’re discussing energy here.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
It’s all related, EV’s, Toshiba, Cobalt, etc…
Bob Wallace says
An interesting comment I happened across –
“All producers need storage to optimize profitability. That means that coal and nuclear plants will be buying storage starting this year. The smart money will be buying battery storage.”
What that seems to be saying is that wind and solar are taking the wholesale cost so low at times that it’s reaching the point where large thermal plants can’t afford to sell large portions of their output into low demand hours. And that batteries are getting cheap enough to allow moving that very low selling price electricity to hours paying higher prices.
Obviously not all markets will be at this point, but it’s a point most markets are likely to traverse.
The next point is likely to be where there is enough wind and solar that they start installing storage and sell into the highest demand markets and undercut coal and nuclear.
Interesting times…
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bob Wallace – You missed the point – the US could charge 70% of all US cars and light trucks if they became battery powered overnight.
And you think that the electricity would only com from renewable electricity generation. Charging EV’s – I don’t think the electrons will know if it came from solar, wind, coal, gas, hydro, or nuclear.
In defence of Bob Wallace; he did not post any fake news, all he did was post a link to news on a fact that some greens support new nuclear in Finland.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bob Wallace – Interesting times, the smart money will be buying battery storage. What a joke, has this been peer reviewed by any experts in the field, or was it obtained from some editorial on a battery manufacturer peddling their product. This where the smart money will go. Canada is looking to fill their looming energy supply gap, and address climate change, by building a fleet of the new super-safe small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) over the next 20 years. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/04/26/canada-aims-for-a-fleet-of-small-modular-nukes/#7ddb217e30a8
Bob Wallace says
If small modular reactors were a good bet then some very large corporation would be manufacturing them right now.
We’ve known how to build small reactors since 1955 when the first US atomic submarine went into service.
GE had an active division studying SMRs and tossed in towell a couple of years back. They couldn’t find a way to make them cheap enough to produce affordable electricity.
If Canada wants to give it a spin, let them go for it. It’s not my tax money. If they succeed in generating electricity for 25% the present cost of electricity then everyone else can give SMRs a think. In the meantime the rest of us will get on with what is affordable.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
China is having a small modular reactor reactor going critical by November this year. Their target is to have the reactor factory manufactured modules available for export in 6 years. On General Electric – if you had read the article in full you would have noticed that GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy and Advanced Reactor Concepts are jointly developing and licensing a sodium-cooled advanced small modular reactor (aSMR) based on their reactor technologies, and plan to enter the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s Vendor Design Review process.
Bob Wallace says
We’ll see how that goes. Perhaps with China’s very cheap labor they can produce electricity for only twice the cost of solar and wind.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Just a simple and repetitive solar and wind remark. They only generate electricity when the sun shines and when the wind blows. Not much to show for when you look. However, I must say that the UK is not doing bad, they justabout got rid of coal and with wind generation is doing well, however, they are working on substantially expanding their nuclear generation capacity. http://data.reneweconomy.com/LiveGen
Bob Wallace says
“They only generate electricity when the sun shines and when the wind blows. ”
That sounds like something Donald Trump might suddenly announce.
“Just found out that the Sun doesn’t shine all the time. Who knew? Bet you’re glad I’m president so I could tell you this sort of stuff.” ;o)
Nuclear reactors only produce power when they are working. That a revelation?
We engineer around that problem. We’ll engineer around the Sun going down at night.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
We engineer around that problem. We’ll engineer around the Sun going down at night. Is it the earth turning, or is the sun going down, that does the trick, maybe Trump knows.?
Also during the daytime one has to take into account, the amount of solar radiation reaching the installed solar PV surface. This can vary greatly because of changing atmospheric conditions and the changing position of the sun, both during the day and throughout the year. Clouds are the predominant atmospheric condition that determines the amount of solar radiation that reaches the earth. Consequently, regions of the nation with cloudy climates receive less solar radiation than the cloud-free desert climates. For any given location, the solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface decreases with increasing cloud cover.
There have been the occasions that volcanic eruptions cause problems. Airborne ash resulting from volcanic activity reduce the solar resource by increasing the scattering and absorption of solar radiation. This has a larger impact on radiation coming in a direct line from the sun (direct beam) than on the total (global) solar radiation. Some of the direct beam radiation is scattered toward earth and is called diffuse (sky) radiation (global = direct + diffuse). Consequently, concentrates that use only direct beam solar radiation are more adversely affected than collectors that use global solar radiation. On a day with severely polluted air (smog alert), the direct beam solar radiation can be reduced by 40%, whereas the global solar radiation is reduced by 15% to 25%. A large volcanic eruption may decrease, over a large portion of the earth, the direct beam solar radiation by 20% and the global solar radiation by nearly 10% for 6 months to 2 years. So it’s not all sunshine they say…
Bob may I ask.? Are you a professional engineer.
Bob Wallace says
We now see nuclear reactors stop operation due to floods, heat waves and earthquakes.
A well designed grid includes ample reserve to cover events such as heat waves and clouds.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bob Wallace, I think you should have a good read again on what you wrote. And I agree that a well designed grid would include nuclear in case the other sources fail due to heat waves (no wind), lack of water in hydro dams, volcanic ash clouds, heavy dark rain clouds and not to forget, no sunshine at all. The nukes are humming nice in the USA, Canada, France, China, Korea the UK and many other places.
Nigel West says
“We now see nuclear reactors stop operation due to floods, heat waves and earthquakes.”
Europe’s nukes are not troubled by floods or earthquakes. Although EDF’s inland nukes can be output constrained during heat waves.
Nuclear does fine during heat waves in the US when the A/C demand is high, wind power not so good……
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/28/americas-heat-wave-no-sweat-for-nuclear-power/#1fc8242b163c
“A well designed grid includes ample reserve..”
Quite the opposite in fact, ample reserve just results in unnecessary costs. The level of reserve carried needs to be based on risk. Interconnected transmission systems came about to reduce reserve levels.
Helmut Frik says
During draught nuclear also suffers from lack of cooling (maximum temperatures in the rivers have to be kept not to kill all fishes etc. ) that’s the same in germany, france, and also in the US. Physics in the US is not different.
Bob Wallace says
Hendrikus, I am very familiar with how weather can impact renewables.
I see lots of nuclear advocates who don’t acknowledge that reactors are also taken offline by weather (and earthquakes).
In the US we had both North Anna reactors go offline due to an earthquake. During Hurricane Sandy two reactors were shut down due to flooding. Other reactors have been shut down by floods. Heat waves have taken reactors offline.
Those potential supply issues must be taken into consideration regardless of the generation source.
Nuclear, like renewables, needs backup and storage.
Nuclear would be a crummy backup for renewables. A massively expensive plant sitting idle most of the time. That would be a fortune wasted.
And reactors take days to bring online when fill-in requires rapid response.
Bob Wallace says
NIgel tells us –
“Europe’s nukes are not troubled by floods or earthquakes. ”
In 1999 a strong storm flooded the Blayais Nuclear Power Plant, forcing an emergency shutdown after injection pumps and containment safety systems failed from water damage.
“In Britain, after discovering in May 2013 that one of their reactors would be at risk during a storm of inundation by seawater, the owners, EDF Energy, quietly shut it down. The reactor, at Dungeness and built on a shingle beach beside the English Channel, supplies 750,000 homes.”
Finland’s Loviisa nuclear power plant on the Baltic Sea was flooded by a 1.73-metre storm surge in 2005.
“All nuclear plants need large quantities of water for cooling so all must be built close to the sea, large rivers or lakes. This makes them vulnerable to sea level rise, storm surges and to the possible collapse of large dams upstream from poor construction, floodwater or seismic activity.”
I don’t know if any European reactors are sited close to active faults, but Europe does have some level of quake potential. Europen has experience 260 earthquakes (mostly very small) in the last 365 days.
Over the last 100 years there have been very strong earthquakes, largely in Greece, Romania, Turkey Italy and Spain.
In 1909 there was a ‘6’ in Provence.
In 1580 there was a 5.8 in the Dover Straits area.
Hopefully Europe hasn’t built any reactors over active faults as we have done in the US.
And Nigel tells us –
“Nuclear does fine during heat waves in the US ”
That is not true. We do close some reactors when cooling water sources rise too high. That will almost certainly be a larger problem going forward as temperatures rise.
—
Nigel. Grids in developed countries are designed to supply electricity 24/365.
Please quit making stuff up.
Importing electricity from adjacent grids is one part of reliability design, along with large amounts of dispatchable generation which sits unused much of the time. US gas peakers run only 5% of the time.
Keeping ample backup available is part of the cost of running a grid.
Nigel West says
In Europe when the civil works for a nuclear station are designed the forces imposed by an earthquake are taken into account to ensure that it will be safe.
Dungeness B is not closed down and is humming nicely. The site is protected by a shingle beach –
https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/power-station/daily-statuses
The UK’s coastal located sites have sea defences to protect them from flooding. After Fukushima all the European reactor operators were required to review this important safety requirement and demonstrate to the regulator that the sites were adequately protected and safe to operate against all credible flood risk scenarios.
In the west nuclear safety is paramount. Independent regulators oversee operators. Issues are dealt with. New nuclear stations will be even safer.
_
Bob says:
‘Grids in developed countries are designed to supply electricity 24/365.’
No they are not. That is not possible. They are designed using security standards. Anyway the costs of attempting a 100% secure grid would be prohibitive. LOLP and VoLL is used to rationally assess reinforcement needs relative to security of supply.
Adequate generating plant capacity margins needed relative to demand are determined analytically using historical plant availability data. Otherwise how would anyone know what is ‘ample’? I can tell you no Government wouldn’t accept being told generation capacity is ‘ample’.
Too much, i.e. ample, capacity results in unnecessary costs and wasted investment.
Bob, your comments about grids shows your limited knowledge. You would be well advised to think harder before you speak about transmission systems. You are clearly not an engineer.
Bob Wallace says
Nigel –
“A British nuclear power reactor was shut down for five months over fears of a Fukushima-style meltdown.
One of two reactors at Dungeness power station on the Kent coast was closed by energy giant EDF last year after concerns that its shingle bank flood defences could be breached during a catastrophic weather event.
The flood defences were reviewed in an official government report in response to the Fukushima disaster and they were found to ‘not be as robust as previously thought’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2583997/Britains-Fukushima-EDF-accused-playing-flooding-threat-nuclear-plant-quietly-shut-down.html#ixzz4ftTaKSWM
I don’t know about European reactors but US reactors are designed to go into emergency shutdown mode when subjected to a an earthquake exceeding a set threshold. That can take the reactor (or reactors) offline for days.
—
‘Grids in developed countries are designed to supply electricity 24/365.’
“No they are not. That is not possible. They are designed using security standards. ”
Oh, bullshit, Nigel. No developed country designs their electric grid to only operate part time.
Obviously there will be outages but not because they were designed in.
IIRC Germany suffered a total of 12 minutes of outages in 2015.
“Too much, i.e. ample, capacity results in unnecessary costs and wasted investment.”
And too little capacity risks periods of no electricity.
Helmut Frik says
The amout of reserves which are considerd as “minimum” in germany would be considered ” extremely ample” in Australia as far as I can see.
Naturally security of power supply costs money. But cost analysis in germany comes to the result that having more and longer outages costs much more.
Nigel West says
Yes the UK is doing well. Vast change from when the UK was known as the dirty man Europe due to burning so much coal. Germany has that crown now!
This month saw the first day ever that coal was not in use to generate electricity since the early days of the UK industry.
Likely to see many more days over the summer when coal is not needed except a few part loaded units to support the grid at times. Coal will be needed regularly again next winter though. The plan is to be completely shot of coal in the early 2020s.
About 6GW of local embedded solar during the summer, and embedded wind power, is depressing demand on the National Grid. Underlying demand is down too.
Gas fired CCGTs are running instead of coal I assume because the ‘spark spread’ is better than the ‘dark spread’.
During the summer, periods are expected when only nuclear and renewables will be needed – the grid will be fossil free. Some flexible wind capacity may have to be curtailed at these times.
Bas Gresnigt says
Sorry, but UK is not doing well, keeping old nuclear with its high accident risk.
UK already created significant increased genetic and health harm to newborn in continental Europe, a.o. Norway, with its 1957 nuclear Windscale fire (in addition to the estimated few hundred cancers).
Nigel West says
Bas, I appreciate your concerns. Apart from one PWR, all the UK capacity is gas cooled reactors which don’t have the same melt down risk associated with light water reactors. Anyway they will start to close in the early 2020s.
The design of the EPRs being built at Hinkley Point C is very safe compared to previous PWR designs. The reactor containment building is steel lined capable of withstanding a primary circuit pressure release. The containment dome is a 1m thick double walled RC design. Below the reactor is a basement that would ‘catch’ and cool a molten core in the unlikely event of a severe accident. So the risk of radiation reaching the environment is not significant.
I think your concerns are over done.
On Windscale, that was 60 years ago and was a military reactor accident due to MoD pressure to build a bomb. The stacks were fitted with filters which contained contamination from the pile fire.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Bas Gresnigt – I keep reading comments from anti-nuclear people on scientific un-confirmed estimates and predictions of cancer and deaths from Nuclear Power Generation, however I never read from the same people acknowledging on how many lives it factually saves from not having to burn fossil fuels.
Bas Gresnigt says
James Hansen etal needed to use ~43 Chernobyl deaths (NYAS >a million + genetic harm) in order to reach the conclusion that nuclear would cause less death than fossil….
But that would become a long discussion, and hardly relevant as everybody agrees to move fossil out (the climate).
Bob Wallace says
“I never read from the same people acknowledging on how many lives it factually saves from not having to burn fossil fuels.”
Why are we having a “nuclear kills fewer people than does burning fossil fuels” discussion?
It’s a time waster.
Just install renewables. No one gets harmed by particles from wind farm smokestacks or exposure to solar panels.
Safer. Quicker. Cheaper.
Bob Wallace says
Hendrikus, who do you consider the most reliable source(s) of health issues connected with nuclear energy?
If I have a health problem I check to see what Harvard Medical, the Mayo Clinic and a few other institutions with very good reputations have to say. Who are the reliable sources for nuclear health issues?
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Correct Nigel West, today the UK is running ZERRO coal. http://energynumbers.info/gbgrid
Hendrikus Degenaar says
Published by the respected National Geographic; Animals Rule Chernobyl Three Decades After Nuclear Disaster. Three decades later, it’s not certain how radiation is affecting wildlife, but it’s clear that animals abound. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science/
Bob Wallace says
German hunters still have to get their wild boar meat checked to make sure it can be consumed and it’s too radioactive.
(Are you really trying to say that the Chernobyl disaster was a good thing?)
Bas Gresnigt says
No hunting in the exclusion zone.
So hunting was worse for the animal population than the increased radiation.
We know that there is a long latency before the extra health damage due to increased radiation shows (1-6 decades, similar as with smoking, etc). And most animals procreate while they are young.
Nigel West says
As I understand the situation in California, renewables are now regularly driving wholesale prices negative during the day time. In addition to solar, Hydro is running flat out to control reservoir levels after heavy rainfall.
On the face of it a great business opportunity for arbitraging using storage. However investors may be concerned that with PTCs being phased out the spread to arbitrage will close as negative bidding disappears. California should be improving interconnections with western states then bigger players may muscle in too soaking up surplus day time production.
Investing bug sums in battery storage farms could be a risky investment based on arbitrage unless supported by long term contracts, perhaps with the ISO for system support services to deal with rapid load ramping in the early evening.
Using stored wind and solar to displace coal would be good to cut carbon emissions. But not displacing nuclear if it then closes prematurely as flexible gas fired generation will run more in place of low carbon nuclear.
Bob Wallace says
“renewables are now regularly driving wholesale prices negative during the day time.”
“Regularly” is an overstatement. A few hours some days in the Spring.
That’s because we still have unexpired contracts with coal which have a little while longer to run and still have one nuclear plant to close.
When those periods of oversupply get large enough we’ll see storage installed to move that unneeded power to higher demand hours. But there has be enough extra on a regular basis.
We’re seeing some grid scale storage coming online in California. The State is requiring it. I believe the idea is to help kickstart the storage industry and to give the utilities some experience using it before significant need arrives and leaves them in the position of having to scramble to catch up.
The Pacific NW has too much electricity in the spring. But they have the ability to shut down their coal plants.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
China unveiled it’s plan to begin converting coal plants to walk away safe SMR 630MWe HTR-PM nuclear starting in the 2020’s. Converting to nuclear power for just the burner could be done for 300-400 plants at the cost of about $1.2 billion for each that is about 600MW in size.
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/chinas-plans-to-begin-converting-coal.html
Helmut Frik says
Interesting, but not competitive. The front runner projects of solar power generation are now in the area of 600-650$/kWp with 1500-2000 full load hours in China. The fleet of coal fired plants has a average of about 4000 Full load hours in china.
So to be competitive, the reactor would have to come down to 1300-1600$kWp TODAY, while it is at 5000S/kWp today and they hope taht maybe, maybe not they might bring down the costs towards 2000-2500$kWp.
We will see what kinds of problems the reactor will run into during operation (like Hamm Üntrop?) and how the cost will develop then, and in which decade.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Helmut Frik – “We will see what kinds of problems the reactor will run into during operation (like Hamm Üntrop?)” This is not Hamm Üntrop this is China. They already have data from the 17 years of operational experience obtained from their pilot plant.
Bas Gresnigt says
Sorry, but it seems that you are dreaming. China’s current 5 years plan targets 58GW nuclear in 2020, and they won’t come further than ~52GW.
While wind and solar targets will be reached. In fact the 2020 wind and solar targets were increased after the 5years plan was adapted.
Hendrikus Degenaar says
@Bas Gresnigt – who is dreaming, as a matter of fact, I have first class contact with the scientist and engineers on this project in China, and I am sure that they are more qualified then you are. Be rest assured that they know how to do their calculations, the Chinese don’t pursue unprofitable business. Furthermore, I stated that the commercial availability of the SMR HTR-PM will start in the 2020’s. To be more precise about 6 years from now.
Not even taking the above say 300 SMR plants 189 GWe into account, China will have an installed nuclear generating capacity of at least 150 GWe by 2030, this increase including it’s current capacity, will come from it’s Hualong One reactor program.