'Every euro invested in nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse' - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15161464
Nuclear energy always was an unmitigated disaster from the ecological and economical points of view. As the costs for nuclear energy continues to rise while the price for renewable energy goes into the basement, it takes a Trumpean level of denial not to see that.

From the beginning, nuclear energy was driven by a desire for imperial domination. Empires collapse but their toxic waste will remain for many generations to come. Long-term storage will be a security and economic nightmare for future generations. Companies/countries heavily invested in nuclear will go on operating old and increasingly unsafe plants until the next catastrophe, because decommissioning of plants and storage of radioactive materials would bankrupt them. At this point, the nuclear industry is just trying to save it's own skin and the rest of humanity be damned.

Can nuclear energy help us meet climate goals? The editor of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, Mycle Schneider, says no. He explains his stance to DW.

As Japan marks the 10th anniversary of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, the global conversation around the merits of using nuclear power to tackle the climate crisis remains hot. Many environmentalists are opposed, pointing to the risk of nuclear meltdowns and the difficulty of properly disposing of nuclear waste.

However, it has been championed by others for its ability to produce huge amounts of carbon-free energy. DW spoke to Mycle Schneider, editor of the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR), which assesses the status and trends of the global nuclear power industry.

DW: The goal is to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). What role can nuclear power play?

Mycle Schneider: Today we need to put the question of urgency first. It's about how much we can reduce greenhouse gases and how quickly for every euro ($1.21) spent. So, it's a combination between cost and feasibility, while doing it in the fastest possible way.

And if we're talking about the construction of new power plants, then nuclear power is simply excluded. Not just because it is the most expensive form of electricity generation today, but, above all, because it takes a long time to build reactors. In other words, every euro invested in new nuclear power plants makes the climate crisis worse because now this money cannot be used to invest in efficient climate protection options.

What about existing nuclear power plants?

The power plants exist, they provide electricity. However, many of the measures needed for energy efficiency are now cheaper than the basic operating costs of nuclear power plants. That is the first point, and unfortunately it is always forgotten.

The second point is that renewables today have become so cheap that in many cases they are below the basic operating costs of nuclear power plants.

Image

Let me give you two examples: The world's lowest price for solar power in currently in Portugal, at 1.1 cents per kilowatt hour. And we now have the first results from Spain with costs for wind and solar power at around 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour. These are below the basic operating costs of the vast majority of nuclear power plants around the world.

It would often even be affordordable to pay 1 – 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity storage in addition to the generation costs for wind and solar power and still be below the operating costs of nuclear power plants. And here we have to ask the same question: How many emissions can I avoid with one euro, one dollar or one yuan?

So why are construction projects being announced now?

In the case of nuclear power, I often have the feeling that Trumpism prevails. Facts no longer matter. There is talk of plans and projects all over the place, but in reality, little or nothing actually happens. We document this in detail every year in the more than 300 pages of our World Nuclear Industry Status Report.

What sort of interests are behind this?

These are very clear self-interests. If the industry doesn't launch phantom projects, then it will die even faster.

Why do politicians go along with it?

There are different interests here. During a visit to the Le Creusot forge in December 2020, for example, French President [Emmanuel] Macron made it clear that there are also military strategic interests in maintaining the nuclear industry. And France has never made a secret of the links between military and civil interests when it comes to nuclear.

In other countries like China there are different interests. China is funding infrastructure in a large number of countries through its Belt and Road Initiative, also known as the New Silk Road. This is geopolitics on a grand scale.

The co-financing of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant in Great Britain, for example, puts this into context. In this case, the fact that it is an inefficient project is irrelevant. The scale of Chinese infrastructure investments is huge. There's talk of $1,000 billion (€821 billion). That means: You have to look at each country, because each country has their own self-interests.

What other interests do energy companies have in continuing to operate unprofitable reactors?

The main reason is that an operating nuclear power plant generates income. As soon as a nuclear power plant is decommissioned, liabilities appear in the balance sheet and additional expenses appear.

You can see an example of this in Japan. It often took years to officially close nuclear power plants because companies could not afford to remove these plants from their assets. Some of these operators would have gone bankrupt overnight.

There's no doubt that energy companies like EDF in France face a serious financial crisis. The question is, how will they survive this? Certainly not without the help of massive state subsidies in the long term. But as long as they can keep earning money, even if it's no longer profitable, investing in demolition and waste management isn't a consideration.

How much does demolition cost?

In the order of €1 billion per reactor. In France, only a third of [the required funds] have been put aside. This means the problem starts once the reactors go offline.

What about the costs of the storage of high-level radioactive waste?

No one knows how much this really costs, because there is no functioning permanent storage facility.

Image

Is there any chance of a permanent storage facility being operational in the future?

There is currently no operational permanent storage facility. The most advanced projects are in Finland and Sweden. However, the concept there is based on a design from the early 1980s, with storage in copper containers. However, recent research has shown that the copper containers are significantly more susceptible to corrosion than first thought. That means the viability of commissioning one of these facilities in Sweden or Finland is still totally unclear. It's the same situation for other countries. They are even further behind on development or they don't even have storage models, let alone locations.

How far along in this process are countries in Asia?

In Japan there is still no storage location or model. The same goes for Korea. In China they're discussing whether or not nuclear waste should be reprocessed. That's even further away.

Basically, these countries behave just like countries in the West where the nuclear power plants were built two or three decades ago. That means there is no advanced planning in place and no coherent concept as to how their highly radioactive nuclear waste should be stored for eternity.

Mycle Schneider is the initiator and lead author of the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report, an independent reference report on the development of the global nuclear power industry. Schneider is an independent consultant to governments and international organizations around the world. In 1997 he was awarded the Alternative Nobel Prize (Right Livelihood Award).
#15161466
First, let's set politics and cost aside for a minute.

We need to transition away from carbon, and we need to do it fast. I don't think you can get there without nuclear power.

There are new designs that are quite safe, and they are smaller, so they can fit into existing areas, sometimes. This all comes down to designing power grids for specific places. Most places will need a variety of ways to generate power.

The only way to do that is to declare an emergency. Because that's where we are.
#15161476
I've come to the conclusion we don't need nuclear. Fine to keep them running while renewables ramp up, but eventually they lose out.

Even the often touted SMR are looking less and less attractive. Still too expensive, still not commercially deployed and to reach the power of a current nuclear power station you need dozens of them, which sorry of defeats the purpose.

My money is firmly on the development of geothermal, compressed gas storage, V2G and battolyzer hydrogen to fill the gap.
#15161507
Every Euro invested in renewables is a euro invested in gas. Every time the sun stops shining on your panels you turn up the gas, every time the wind stops blowing through your turbines you turn up the gas. Or you can destroy ancient villages and forests to dig up filthy lignite coal like the dirty Germans.

I like how the interviewer complains about nuclear being expensive and then there's a graph showing it to be cheaper than coal prior to the Fukushima Diichi meltdown. Despite being the worst case scenario for a nuclear disaster, a 50 year old reactor was hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami back-to-back, zero deaths occurred when it melted down. This proved that as well as being cheaper and cleaner than coal nuclear is also safer.

Nuclear waste is safely stored on sight where it has never harmed anyone. Waste products from the burning of fossil fuels are released into the atmosphere where they kill millions of people each year as air pollution. Solar panels contain toxic heavy metals, which will poison the bodies of 3rd world workers when they're disposed of.

@late Nuclear's problem isn't the safety of its designs. Its problem is the public perception of safety, which has been formed by decades of propaganda and fear mongering and is largely immune to reality.
#15161537
BeesKnee5 wrote:My money is firmly on the development of geothermal, compressed gas storage, V2G and battolyzer hydrogen to fill the gap.


My money is on floating off-shore wind energy and hydrogen. Floating wind turbines can be installed in waters with a seabed of 100 meter depth. That tremendously increases the potential for wind energy. Hydrogen can be used for storing and transporting surplus energy produced during peak production.

Image

AFAIK wrote:Every Euro invested in renewables is a euro invested in gas.


It is impossible to switch from fossil fuels to renewables from one day to another. Therefore, a transition fuel is needed. Since gas is better than coal, there is a net gain.

As Mycle Schneider said, after more than 60 years of nuclear energy, there is still no viable plan for long-term storage. The real costs of nuclear are born by the tax payer, not the operators.

There are numerous ways to store renewable energy produced during peak times.

late wrote:We need to transition away from carbon, and we need to do it fast. I don't think you can get there without nuclear power.


Nuclear can't serve as a transition energy. The decision to go nuclear locks you into that industry for generations.

It's a strategic choice that's invariably linked to military interests. Even the idea to build smaller plants is mirrored by the military decision to build smaller nuclear weapons. That reduces the nuclear threshold and increases the chances that we'll sleepwalk into a nuclear holocaust.

Nuclear is a monopolistic industry. It takes huge investments to develop and build. The big players are calling the shots. For some critical components like the reactor there are only one or two manufacturers for a given type.

Renewable is decentralized. Even small communes can operate their own wind turbines. There is no security risk and it's getting cheaper all the time.

Nuclear will go the way of the dinosaurs. :D
#15161538
Unfortunately the technology for energy storage so we can have powar at night or when the wind is being less than helpful does not exist. I love solar, at one point when my finances are improved I'd love to have a house with solar panels, maybe a couple of those nice tesla batteries and have a backup for any sort of unexpected blackout.
However, the reality is that on a large scale, with current technology it simply does not work for more than a minority of our energy generation. The production of batteries on a large scale is likely to be just as disastrous as fossil fuels. Mines for rare earth metals and other materials used for batteries threaten our drinking water, the soils, etc, The dams for a hydroelectric generation have a huge impact on ecosystems. No all environmental impact is CO2.
Unless energy storage improves significantly in terms of efficiency, price, density, etc... solar and to a degree wind, will not be the major source of energy.
It is unlikely that we will stop using hydrocarbons altogether for the next century or two. We don't have the technology to replace hydrocarbons on planes and rockets and the aerospace industry will likely grow significantly from now on with the increased interest on Mars by the private sector. Not all hydrocarbon use is the same, we can have a cycle of synthesized hydrocarbons (biofuel) that does not release "sequestered" CO2 (e.i fossil fuel). For instance, if we grow corn and burn a quintillion tons of ethanol produced from that corn, at the end of the day, that CO2 came from the atmosphere, we just put out what we took, rather than burning fossil fuels that have been stored for millions of years out of circulation.

Nuclear have suffered from bad publicity but it is nowhere near as bad as the average "environmentalist" thinks. It is far safer than coal/gas/hydrocarbons, etc. The newest nuclear technology puts out even less waste and of course it is safer as well. Eventually, we might get fusion sorted out, and when we do, we have to be in the mindset to put everything else out of business as far as "bulk" energy generation.
#15161541
Atlantis wrote:

As Mycle Schneider said, after more than 60 years of nuclear energy, there is still no viable plan for long-term storage. The real costs of nuclear are born by the tax payer, not the operators.


Nuclear can't serve as a transition energy. The decision to go nuclear locks you into that industry for generations.




Not true, we've known we can store the waste in geologically stable seabeds for a couple decades. It's easy, it's safe, it's cheap. This is 100% politics.

Not only can nuke power serve as part of the transition, you can't make that transition fast enough without it.

Again, this is not a one size fits all situation. But a lot of the major urban centers will need reliable power generation. Take NYC as an example, you need a crapload of power, and it's a built up area. What you have is wishful thinking. We need to make actual plans that will actually work. Not fairy dust sprinkled from unicorns.
#15161545
This isn't wishful thinking, it's already happening.

Renewables of Wind, Solar, Hydro, Biogas and Geothermal are increasingly replacing FF.

Battery storage, lithium and sodium are providing short term storage, CAES and LAES compression storage is being installed at multiple sites.

But the biggest development at the moment is the Battolyzer.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 09052/full

A battery that when fully charged by renewables generates hydrogen for long term energy needs, it's currently being installed at a power station in Netherlands

https://www.tudelftcampus.nl/blog/2021/ ... echnology/

Thus isn't new tech, it's tech rediscovered

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2021 ... s-too-soon

These developments are increasingly marginalising nuclear as a future method of meeting electricity demand.
#15161561
Atlantis wrote:It is impossible to switch from fossil fuels to renewables from one day to another. Therefore, a transition fuel is needed. Since gas is better than coal, there is a net gain.

People expect the lights to stay on 24/7 regardless of the local weather conditions. Gas and renewables complement one another and operate in tandem to ensure this.

Atlantis wrote:As Mycle Schneider said, after more than 60 years of nuclear energy, there is still no viable plan for long-term storage. The real costs of nuclear are born by the tax payer, not the operators.

He mentioned Finland and Sweden's storage efforts and nuclear is the only energy source where the operator is required to take responsibility for its waste. FF companies dump their waste in our skies.

Atlantis wrote:There are numerous ways to store renewable energy produced during peak times.

They are very limited. Pumped hydo only works when geography allows it and we'll need to manufacture billions of batteries to store anything significant at great cost to those living near the lithium mines and decommissioning facilities. Currently California has to pay neighbouring states to take its electricity during peak production to prevent it from overwhelming their grid. Hydrogen is also in its infancy.

Meanwhile France has been producing over 90% of its electricity from carbon free sources for decades due to its nuclear industry. It also kept prices affordable by committing to one reactor design and using it in every facility in the country.

@XogGyux Growing corn for biofuels would require us to take food off of people's tables and put it in our aircraft. Or we would have to convert all our remaining forests to agriculture.
#15161598
AFAIK wrote:@XogGyux Growing corn for biofuels would require us to take food off of people's tables and put it in our aircraft. Or we would have to convert all our remaining forests to agriculture.

Not necessarily. You could grow extra specifically for this reason rather than to starve people for it. In fact, with cheap energy, you dont even need to have fields to grow our food, you could grow it indoors on large purposeful build aquaponics. And for fuel crops, you could go berzerk and genetically engineer a plant that maximizes the fuel extraction vs space/time needed to grow it. For that matter it does not even have to be crops, you could grow algae or even bacteria. You wouldn't be doing this for "cheap energy" you would be doing it for "high density"/"portable" energy and you would be growing it not because it is cheaper but because it is "greener".
That is not to mention that we could potentially reclaim large areas of deserts to do this.
#15161613
XogGyux wrote:
Not necessarily. You could grow extra specifically for this reason rather than to starve people for it. In fact, with cheap energy, you dont even need to have fields to grow our food, you could grow it indoors on large purposeful build aquaponics. And for fuel crops, you could go berzerk and genetically engineer a plant that maximizes the fuel extraction vs space/time needed to grow it. For that matter it does not even have to be crops, you could grow algae or even bacteria. You wouldn't be doing this for "cheap energy" you would be doing it for "high density"/"portable" energy and you would be growing it not because it is cheaper but because it is "greener".
That is not to mention that we could potentially reclaim large areas of deserts to do this.



Ethanol is not greener.

We got ethanol a second time thanks to ADM being good at politics, and willingness to grease a LOT of palms.

Not only is it not better in terms of climate, it's also not good for the ecology.

Lose/lose proposition.
#15161616
Growing biofuel isn't the answer and it doesn't need to be.

Anerobic digestion of food and agricultural waste is increasing. There will be a squeeze on fossil fuel gas from biogas, hydrogen and an increasing share of renewables.

Grid side lithium batteries will be limited to short term 4 hour storage and balancing services. The growth in lithium storage is far more likely in residential solar and V2G.

https://octopus.energy/blog/vehicle-to-grid/
https://auto.economictimes.indiatimes.c ... s/74599257

I really do think the path is getting clearer by the day, with technology like geothermal piggybacking on lessons learned from the fracking industry, hydro being used less for baseload means increased capacity for meeting peak demands.
#15161618
AFAIK wrote:Pumped hydo only works when geography allows it and we'll need to manufacture billions of batteries to store anything significant at great cost to those living near the lithium mines and decommissioning facilities.


XogGyux wrote:Unfortunately the technology for energy storage so we can have powar at night or when the wind is being less than helpful does not exist.


Wind is blowing at night too. I live in a remote area where isolated farmsteads have had to generate their own power for decades. Where the topology of the land allows it, most use a hybrid system of wind and solar.

Anyways, we are at the very beginning of renewable and storage technology. Wind turbines are getting better all the time and the new generation of floating wind turbines could generate enough energy for the entire planet. They are moored at the high seas far from shore where the wind is stronger and more constant.

In Europe, networks between countries are being integrated. For example, there is a cable between Germany and Norway to store wind or solar energy from Germany in hydroelectric dams in Norway during peak production and return the energy when production is reduced.

While enormous sums have been invested in nuclear since the war, investments in renewables and storage are only just picking up. Germany and the EU have a project to invest billions in developing a hydrogen economy. China and Japan are following suit. Wind energy produced during peak hours is virtually free of charge. Transformed into hydrogen it can easily be stored and transported. The first trains and trucks running on hydrogen are already in operation. Green hydrogen will fuel ships and airplanes. It's the only way to make heavy industry including steel production go carbon neutral.

I agree that electric batteries are a dead end and that biofuels are a travesty. Organic matter needs to go into soil. That's the only way to store excess CO2 from the atmosphere in a sustainable manner. Those who don't understand that, haven't even started to understand the problem we are facing.

However, the reality is that on a large scale, with current technology it simply does not work for more than a minority of our energy generation.


That's simply not true. Germany is one of the most heavily industrialized countries on the planet. It's manufacturing industry is at least 4 times that of the UK. Yet after only 20 years, almost half of power is generated by renewable energy. Wind energy in Germany now produces more power than coal and nuclear combined:

Image

Moreover, GDP growth has been decoupled from emissions. In other words, while the economy grows, emissions decline:

Image

AFAIK wrote:Meanwhile France has been producing over 90% of its electricity from carbon free sources for decades due to its nuclear industry. It also kept prices affordable by committing to one reactor design and using it in every facility in the country.


That's exactly the problem, isn't it. Nuclear energy is subsidized because the state is assuming the risk. Cheap subsidized nuclear energy prevents the development of renewable energy and encourages waste. The French have decided to extend the operational life-span of their old reactors because decommissioning them would be a financial catastrophe, but you can't do that indefinitely. The French face some very tough decisions. Meanwhile, German industry has been forced to innovate to stay competitive despite higher energy prices. The high price Germans initially payed for rolling out renewable energy will benefit the rest of the world because declining costs will make the technology affordable even to poor countries.

Cheap renewable energy is more beneficial to the developing world because nuclear energy is controlled by a small number of monopolistic operators in the industrialized world. Wind turbines can be produced in the developing world, while it's totally out of question that developing countries like Zimbabwe or Cambodia produce nuclear power plants. They depend on the West, Russia or China to supply the technology.

The bottom line is that nuclear energy only serves the imperial powers!
#15161643
The only people whole build nuclear today are those who want nuclear weapons and States who don't care about the capital cost.

That's it,
There is no Western country who is building enough new nuclear to maintain current levels, let alone expand. UK nuclear is so old it barely manages 50% capacity. US have had multiple closures, one new reactor due to start this year and then nothing in the pipeline.

For India and China nuclear is a tiny fraction of the current and future planned energy mix.

South Korea cancelled their program and have switched to investing in offshore wind. They will not be the last to decide money is better spent elsewhere.

SMRs will be great when they come, but they are small scale by design and unlikely to be cheaper than storing energy in compressed gas, flow batteries or nano coated salt. There is already too much competition.
https://www.azonano.com/amp/article.aspx?ArticleID=5622
#15161658
late wrote:Ethanol is not greener.

We got ethanol a second time thanks to ADM being good at politics, and willingness to grease a LOT of palms.

Not only is it not better in terms of climate, it's also not good for the ecology.

Lose/lose proposition.


You are looking it from your current perspective in which we are indiscriminately burning everything we get our hands-on. The reality is, right now there is nothing that suggests we would be able to stick a battery to our planes or rockets and make them work. At the current stage, a battery power rocket is unimaginable. As for regular flight, we are likely going to be limiting to very small 1-2 sitters aircraft that can only stay a couple of hours off land and/or very very slow "high efficiency" propeller-powered devices. Transcontinental jet airplanes are not feasible or even imaginable at the current states of energy storage density.

No you are right, there is nothing magical about burning a fuel that we synthesize from plants vs one that came from fossil fuels. The difference is, when you burn something that came from a plant/bacteria/etc, you are virtually guaranteeing that the CO2 released is CO2 that you had captured before... therefore not adding new, which is the main issue with fossil, we are releasing new CO2 that was neatly stored away below 200M of ground or sea.


Wind is blowing at night too. I live in a remote area where isolated farmsteads have had to generate their own power for decades. Where the topology of the land allows it, most use a hybrid system of wind and solar.

Anyways, we are at the very beginning of renewable and storage technology. Wind turbines are getting better all the time and the new generation of floating wind turbines could generate enough energy for the entire planet. They are moored at the high seas far from shore where the wind is stronger and more constant.

In Europe, networks between countries are being integrated. For example, there is a cable between Germany and Norway to store wind or solar energy from Germany in hydroelectric dams in Norway during peak production and return the energy when production is reduced.

While enormous sums have been invested in nuclear since the war, investments in renewables and storage are only just picking up. Germany and the EU have a project to invest billions in developing a hydrogen economy. China and Japan are following suit. Wind energy produced during peak hours is virtually free of charge. Transformed into hydrogen it can easily be stored and transported. The first trains and trucks running on hydrogen are already in operation. Green hydrogen will fuel ships and airplanes. It's the only way to make heavy industry including steel production go carbon neutral.

I agree that electric batteries are a dead end and that biofuels are a travesty. Organic matter needs to go into soil. That's the only way to store excess CO2 from the atmosphere in a sustainable manner. Those who don't understand that, haven't even started to understand the problem we are facing.

On average, americans consume about 10x more energy than Indians, which in turn consume about 10x as a person in Congo. The world will have a massive demand for energy as the rest of it develops. It would be rather selfish of us to assume a future for the world in which we only worry about replacing our current energy generation. Right now, these renewables account for what? 10% at best?
I simply don't see it happening.

It is not as if the Congo is going to be having a nuclear reactor either but if brad pit and lady gaga are buying all the solar panels to show how green they are, the African dudes will just continue to burn kerosene for their power, just a thought.
#15161697
^Not only in the developing world is demand for electricity growing. In order for the UK to electrify all road transport we need to increase electricity production by 50%. If we replace gas boilers with electric heating we'd need to expand the grid by 6 or 8 times.

@Atlantis You criticise nuclear for being dependent on state subsidies and then praise renewables for receiving subsidies. If California and Germany had transitioned to nuclear by installing small reactors mass produced in China those reactors would be cheaper than coal now and there'd be no need for filthy lignite as a 'transition'.

Are you concerned about countries doing imperialism to secure supplies of lithium, which is only found in a few countries?

Image
#15161831
AFAIK wrote:^Not only in the developing world is demand for electricity growing. In order for the UK to electrify all road transport we need to increase electricity production by 50%. If we replace gas boilers with electric heating we'd need to expand the grid by 6 or 8 times.


Sorry but this isn't right.
The UK national Grid have done analysis of future electricity requirements.

Road transport electrification would add 25% to existing demand, which would take us back to the demand level of 2012. UK used 250TWh last year which is down from 320TWh due to led lighting and more efficient appliances.

Replacing gas with electric heating will double electricity demand to 600TWh.

There is an important reason why people get this so wrong, heat pumps don't need the same amount of energy to generate heat as a gas boiler. Boilers are generally 60-80% efficient while heat pumps are 300-400% efficient so they need a fifth of the energy to heat a home. Cars are the same, a FF car is 20% efficient, compared to 80% for electric vehicles so a quarter of the energy is needed.
Last edited by BeesKnee5 on 18 Mar 2021 22:26, edited 1 time in total.
World War II Day by Day

March 28, Thursday No separate peace deal with G[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

The Settlement program is an example of slow ethn[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Meanwhile, your opponents argue that everyone e[…]

People tend to forget that the French now have a s[…]