Some of the Pro-Nuke People Really Don’t Like Renewables At All
A member of the pro-nuke group writes: Craig, we have no $ interest in nuclear. We have concern for our descendants and all the species around us. We have concern for facts, since human progress proceeds no other way. You know this. What motivates you to support energy sources that waste resources, species, $ and intellect? So, Craig, what’s your personal interest that motivates your denial of those facts?
I’m like you guys in the sense that I don’t have a dog in the race financially. I suppose that’s not 100% true, as a few of my clients in the RE space have given me stock in their companies whose value is a function of the success of renewables. Having said that, like you, my real motivation for my actions is the sustainability of our civilization.
First, I should explain that I’m a huge fan of advanced nuclear, both in the normal thorium/fission sense and the fusion sense as well; a dear friend (Jim Boyden, PhD in physics, Cal Tech, 1960) is a significant player in TriAlpha. There is a whole chapter in my most recent book (Bullish on Renewable Energy) on LFTRs.
In terms of the numbers associated with RE, I have to say that I find all (literally all) of the analysis that comes from any other source than you guys to be compelling. Earth Policy Institute, EnergyFactCheck, RMI/Lovins, Climate Progress, Jeremy Rifkin, etc. It all suggests that over the next few decades, we can and will rid our society of oil and coal and reduce the use of natural gas with some combination of wind and solar at scale, efficiency/vehicle light-weighting, and various forms of storage. Here’s Lovins’ take on this (a presentation I’ve seen him give twice). Here’s an interview with Jeremy Rifken, author of the Third Industrial Revolution.
I also point out that “money talks and bs walks,” i.e., we need to notice that the world’s largest banks: Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, CitiGroup, etc. are in the process of investing many trillions of dollars in the RE space. In my experience, trillionaires don’t make childish arithmetical errors.
I’m sure you’ll have the normal pushback. (BTW, we know that RE has a lower CF and energy density than nuclear; we know what “nameplate” means; no reason to waste your time remaking these arguments.)
But you need to recognize two things:
- Virtually the whole world of science supports the scaling of RE etc. in one form or another, and the business world is in the process of making it happen
And, more importantly,
- Since I can see that you are 100% sincere about your beliefs, I need to point out that you’re not doing yourselves any favors with your approach; you’re only making yourselves seem ridiculous, as if you were just a bunch of silly spiteful people with some sort of bizarre agenda (which you’re not).
Craig,
It sounds like you should just drop that forum. It seems to be a sniping ground for small, petty assholes who really are more concerned with attacking people and feeling superior than they ever will be with finding answers to problems.
Yes, nuclear power is a critical portion of the future power mix…
But to discount renewable energy is a fool’s gambit. Wind is less than 1/3rd the cost, on a LCOE basis, than the most optimistic assessments for current technology nuclear power. I couldn’t care less if it’s less energy dense… that’s baked into the cost, and it’s still less. Will thorium cycles allow cheaper energy? I would bet against that.
Nuclear is cheaper than solar, but solar can be generated at the point of demand, so it needs to compete with the delivered price, not the generation price. As of now, solar wins, but that’s only because of numerous subsidies… without the subsidies, in a decade…? Who knows? Both energy sources will be needed, so both should be invested in and built out.
Without thorium cycles, however, nuclear power is a few decades-long luxury before fuel costs begin to become prohibitive.. and again, I have my doubts that thorium cycle plants will be delivering electrical power for at least 2 decades.
I have my doubts that a fusion plant may be operational and delivering consumer energy before the death of my children (who have not yet been conceived).
But wind and solar, and soon likely geothermal… are all cost viable in certain regions of the U.S. TODAY… we don’t have to wait for R&D, nor do we have to wait for NRC approval, nor do we have to struggle to overcome NIMBYISM for a novel nuclear reactor… etc..
We can just keep building wind farms and solar panels, and slowly change the world while waiting for the magic option that the jackasses on your forum – along with many other reasonable and mature nuclear enthusiasts (myself included) believe will move the ball more quickly.
the pro nuke argument is irrelevant because of the following fact: there is not enough mineable fissile uranium to replace fossil fuels the world over. Converting the entire planet’s energy needs to nuclear will deplete world supply in 3 to 5 years.
That’s not an issue with thorium powered reactors, which have many other advantages over uranium, but as mentioned, they are a ways out, and may always be.
Nuclear can have a CF of around 90%. In part this may be because they run it like a base load plant because they are so expensive to build and much cheaper to run. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor
Hydroelectric, geothermal and CSP with heat storage can also have very high CP. Even better they can be load following and because they are often used this way reported CP may be lowered to favor nuclear and coal which is much more difficult to turn down or turn off.
Where such base load plants are a high percentage of the energy mix there may be off peak excess capacity that would give a higher CP but the value of the power produced would be less.
Nuclear also will be turned off when the temperature reaches about 95%. http://www.commondreams.org/news/2007/08/18/hot-weather-forces-partial-shutdown-tva-nuclear-plant There seems to be something about nuclear that overheats the source of cooling more than any other thermal power plant. This suggests that in a warming world the CF of Nuclear may be falling due to weather that is too hot.
Craig you framed this quite well and put the nuclear genie followers into a very defined position. Good for you. So no need to add words to further support your positions.
I concur with both Glen Doty and Pierre. They summed it up well.
If SMR ‘s or thorium and the biggest nuclear trophy ICON “Fusion” are ever going to make a real contribution they need to address their life cycle costs and their safety related issues and be able to produce at the proper smaller scale to integrate into a different grid requirement.
Since we are going to a diversified mix of renewable energy and storage , the issue of filling in the gaps to make up for the current shortcomings of both wind / solar creates a market opportunity for SMR’s . The market will need a cost effective fast ramp and load following capabilities and these small nukes may fit in that space. Gas may not be the fix due to fugitive emissions which reduce the CO2 benefits from gas burning versus coal.
To be viable – They must get the NRC to change many things and the pilot demonstrations , one at Idaho Nuclear labs has been announced pending approval ( cant be a 4 year planning and analysis paralysis deal like the present nuclear formats) It must get built and not just talked about to see how the technology performs. The challenges to efficacy is quite Steep!
The concept of integrating small increments of power to blend into the RE mix could work, as the changing nature of base load needs – its going down – precludes the need for large scale over priced nuke units. So the nuclear genie fellas will have to accept that small is Beautiful and bigger is not better. The economics have changed.With Utility load factors down to 50 % level the need for big big units is no longer needed. A modular just in time model is emerging.
Doty said it well in respect to Fusion, its highly unlikely that it can break its long hyped talk and transform into reality. Time magazine just did a good over view of that decades long work and still no viable model! Despite the big money being thrown at it. ITER project in France Billions over cost and delayed into mid 2025 or beyond?
The nuclear advocates have a right to their positions but not the childish one’s that excludes or denies the Huge Renewable Energy future Reality as now even all the banks see the real reality for the World going Forward! As the world turns ….
Nuclear, wind and hydro generators all suffer from the same problem: if they are employed on a large scale then there are times when the generation exceeds the grid demand so the excess generation capacity goes to waste. Energy storage provides a solution, especially if the store can handle energy in both electric and thermal forms. The journal Sustainability has an article (for which I was a co-author) that explains how this can be accomplished:
http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/11/8297/pdf
The article also shows how energy from solar thermal collectors can be used to boost the exergy held by the store. Solar thermal collectors are much more efficient than solar PV collectors and exergy stores can make a bigger contribution to the power grid by reducing the peak power demand in both the summer and the winter.
The article explains how the use of such stores could completely eliminate the need for fossil fuels for both heating and power production in Ontario. The concept also provides flexibility in employing any mix of the four energy sources: nuclear, wind, local heat and solar.
Well said, Craig – just one of many examples of why I appreciate your ethical and informed commonsense approach.
Thanks. I try to be frank without being nasty, though I don’t always pull that off. 🙂
You might find this interesting if you’re not already aware of it… 🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha#Rules_for_satyagraha_campaigns
Wow, I had never heard of that. Thanks very much. We certainly need more satyagraha in the world, don’t we?
…perhaps more now than ever. 🙂
Exactly.
I’ll admit that I haven’t read through all the comments and have just watched about 8 hours of you tube videos on thorium rare earth mining, related issues, and have done numerous searches. It really doesn’t look like we would ever run out of Thorium. As an added benefit by giving a positive dollar value to Thorium it makes mining rare earths here in the US profitable, and as we all know RE needs rare earths, especially the Wind generators. There are a handful of videos online so go watch them!
Who would have figured research into nuclear powered planes would have lead to feasible LFTRs?
Forgot to mention, looks like the Chinese came here to the US to get their info on LFTR. Maybe I’m wrong, but there are now 4 countries that could get in on LFTR – China, Russia, US, and France. What if there was international collaboration on developing it? One reactor had 6,000 operating hours and then was shut down. Wouldn’t it be ironic yet once again if it’s developed overseas, becomes a standard, and then sold back to us?