Another great piece. Your strategy makes sense. Of course, the elephant in the room is that that many boomers, who spent years or decades campaigning against nuclear power [which even half a century ago was the cleanest, safest energy] don't want to admit that their paranoia caused a massive setback to their own environmental efforts. And of course politicians only like solutions that result in crony subsidies--but I'm still mystified about why so few politicians realize that the nuclear industry is where the smart investments are.
1) It is entirely possible, with existing technology, to completely replace stationary thermal power generation; you just have to let go of the "optimum generating capacity is the capacity sufficient to accommodate anticipated peak load at the desired level of reliability, plus a slight excess for additional reliability" paradigm.
In contrast to this assumption, the optimum generation capacity for solar + wind + storage is very different and VERY counterintuitive: the lowest-cost mix of energy generation and storage capacity for 100% SWB systems will have between 3x and 5x more generating capacity than today’s grid, and even at this "overcapacity," SWB generation is already the least expensive option in most locations at reliability equal or better than todays grid.
This may seem ridiculous on its face. However, several recent studies have independently confirmed that this is the case, and not because of ideological preference or ecological concerns, but on a purely economic basis, the only currently foreseeable technology with potentially lower costs than SWB is fusion.
Take a look here to download a high-level presentation on the concept:
2) Fission power generation is a poor alternative to SWB for two reasons:
First, even under best-case assumptions based on emerging and experimental technologies that are not yet commercially mature, the power produced will still be more expensive than SWB.
Second, every fission generating plant is increasingly a national security nightmare, and proposals to increase the number of such installations and site them closer to residential demand only make things worse; the smaller and "thinner-skinned" you make such reactors, the more readily they can be put to such a use.
Current fission-generating plants at least have their reactors encased in a massive, hardened containment structure that can theoretically withstand events such as a commercial aircraft impact. Nevertheless, they are becoming increasingly vulnerable to well-planned acts of state-sponsored terrorism, and possibly by non-state actors as well. (I'm not going into detail about this, but consider, for example, a succession of attacks by commercially available drones with a 30kg lift capacity repeatedly attacking a single location with explosive charges specifically designed to penetrate the reinforced concrete of which most commercial containment structures are made.)
One feature of many of the proposed micro-reactors is their small physical size, distributed locations, and minimal "requirements" for security, for example:
Note that this reactor is intended for "above-ground installation (requiring) minimum ground disruption with less than a 2-acre footprint", and that "minimal onsite personnel (are) required for operation/maintenance/security."
Apparently, they are proud of this, and consider such a reactor a Good Idea.
Here's the CliffsNotes version of this "logic":
"Let's take a source of radiologically toxic material, put it above ground, forgo a traditional containment structure, and site it in populated areas with minimal provisions for security. What could go wrong?"
3) The handwriting is on the wall: in any economy that pursues a rational energy policy, EVERY source of carbon-based stationary power generation will be off-line and a stranded asset within a decade.
However, the incumbent carbon-based generating industry is getting its way, and the US is increasingly pursuing an almost perfectly irrational energy strategy.
This will continue for as long as the industry and its political allies can convince the public that unnecessarily expensive and hazardous electricity is a Good Thing.
I don't see a need to help them bamboozle the public.
Please write some posts and generate a following that encourages lots of comments and discussion. I don’t have the expertise to evaluate your contrasting positions but I’m drawn more to your side. It shouldn’t be lost in a comments thread.
The only thing I quibble with is that the climate has too much CO2 to be “stable”. I just don’t agree with that or the 1.5° target being somehow possible/desirable due to the trade offs involved.
Humans will be able to live just fine at 2° of warming in 2100, but if we come up with cool cheap methods to extract CO2 I am all ears!
Great piece, your posts are riveting. My special angle on this is to bring the gospel of affordable and effective climate policy to skeptics
Something skeptics did predict was that the wind and solar path without affordable CO2 removal would be completely economically and politically infeasible. Something we didn't predict is that people would still do it anyway. I think Germany and the UK have tripled electricity prices and cut their electricity emissions by half. I believe that's a 10% cut over the full economy's emissions, and rather than succesfully electrify they're producing less electricity. Yet, they might keep on doing it
The current skeptics strategy of saying "nuh uh climate change", while sadly being probably better that the Paris Accord style climate policy, isn't a real alternative. They need to be able to make a plausible case to climate concerned voters that they can do as much or more for ten times less cost. That's what I find compelling about your work and who I will promote it to
I do have a non substantive critique of your position on nuclear. I think the classic LWR is entirely a plausible path forward, and at a much higher probability than advanced reactors. Operations have been developed to a tee with legacy reactors, where advanced reactors have at times been built and then shut down because they were too expensive to operate. New technology may change that, but it will be challenging to surpass already excellent nuclear power and require decades of operational development that private companies are unlikely to succeed at. They may, and it sounds like there are credible options like Thorcon to surpass proven nuclear designs, but they don't have to.
What we have is sufficient to replace coal and much of gas, and potentially significantly electrify - like France already has. We might need a revolution in permitting and regulation to get out of the way of repeating our past success - but it would be less of a revolution than doing one better with advanced designs
Honestly, the only thing that will speed the process is when clean energy becomes cheaper than FFs. That requires abundant clean energy, and to get to a state of abundance will require, as you said, nuclear, but also geo-thermal and yes, more renewables. Kind of feels like carbon capture is another zombie, or at best a smallish contributor to the fix.
Seeing you refer to Ontario as a poster-child for nuclear success, with our struggling and government-propped-up nuclear stations that left us to keep the lights on with coal-fired stations for 7 years while the Pickering NGS generated ZERO, and several other years when around half of our nuclear capacity was "derated" because a a long-ignored accident pathway – "fuel string relocation" —was rediscovered, would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
Our electricity costs are so high that even our "Conservative" government doesn't have the nerve to pass all the costs into customers without a significant explicit subsidy from taxpayers. Wouldn't it make sense for a government-owned industry to generate a profit for the public purse instead of sucking at its teat? Not with this technology!
The first half of this essay is so important and sensible that it is really sad that you insisted on harnessing it to the deliriously unrealistic second half.
Ontario’s costs are high because prior governments decided to add a bunch of renewable slop to an already decarbonized grid and now you have to pay for those garbage subsidies. Your nuke stations are some of the best run in the world.
Our regulator, the Ontario Energy Board, concluded several years ago that our Pickering-A station generated the most expensive nuclear electricity in North America and probably the world. Best run, though, you assure us.
I participated in that OEB rate hearing. Where does your "information" come from?
Quico, exactly right to call Emission Reduction Alone a zombie ideology, but I was disappointed by your failure in this article to recognise the collapse of albedo, the 2.5% darkening of the planet this century, as a primary climate crisis. Planetary darkening feedbacks are causing four times as much immediate warming as new emissions and driving the grave risk of tipping points that would swamp all carbon action. The idea that action on carbon could stabilise the climate without prior action on albedo is a dangerous mistake. Sure, algae and nuclear technologies need to ramp up, but their climate impact will take decades, and we needed to protect fragile ecosystems such as coral reefs by cooling the water yesterday, by deploying sunlight reflection technologies. HPAC had a conversation today with a colleague of Russ George, leader of the 2012 Ocean Pastures Restoration test. That action was wildly successful as a carbon removal exercise, except that it raised the ire of the zombies, who managed to slander his public image. Getting the story right is essential. Work on carbon needs to be placed within a critical engineering path that recognises the most urgent task is to reverse the darkening of the world. Albedo restoration is a prerequisite for effective carbon removal because it cools the planet first—buying time, restoring energy balance, and enabling carbon sinks to recover. Both can proceed together, but first we must stop the fever (albedo) before we can successfully remove the infection (CO₂).
Another great piece. Your strategy makes sense. Of course, the elephant in the room is that that many boomers, who spent years or decades campaigning against nuclear power [which even half a century ago was the cleanest, safest energy] don't want to admit that their paranoia caused a massive setback to their own environmental efforts. And of course politicians only like solutions that result in crony subsidies--but I'm still mystified about why so few politicians realize that the nuclear industry is where the smart investments are.
Outstanding post. Please keep up the good work.
Why, Why, WHY do I keep reading such "analysis"?
Just for starters:
1) It is entirely possible, with existing technology, to completely replace stationary thermal power generation; you just have to let go of the "optimum generating capacity is the capacity sufficient to accommodate anticipated peak load at the desired level of reliability, plus a slight excess for additional reliability" paradigm.
In contrast to this assumption, the optimum generation capacity for solar + wind + storage is very different and VERY counterintuitive: the lowest-cost mix of energy generation and storage capacity for 100% SWB systems will have between 3x and 5x more generating capacity than today’s grid, and even at this "overcapacity," SWB generation is already the least expensive option in most locations at reliability equal or better than todays grid.
This may seem ridiculous on its face. However, several recent studies have independently confirmed that this is the case, and not because of ideological preference or ecological concerns, but on a purely economic basis, the only currently foreseeable technology with potentially lower costs than SWB is fusion.
Take a look here to download a high-level presentation on the concept:
https://www.rethinkx.com/publications/rethinkingenergy2020.en
Here is the documentation of the underlying assumptions and study methodology supporting the conclusions.
https://23227526.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/23227526/Energy%2BReports%2B-%2BMethodology-1.pdf
2) Fission power generation is a poor alternative to SWB for two reasons:
First, even under best-case assumptions based on emerging and experimental technologies that are not yet commercially mature, the power produced will still be more expensive than SWB.
Second, every fission generating plant is increasingly a national security nightmare, and proposals to increase the number of such installations and site them closer to residential demand only make things worse; the smaller and "thinner-skinned" you make such reactors, the more readily they can be put to such a use.
Current fission-generating plants at least have their reactors encased in a massive, hardened containment structure that can theoretically withstand events such as a commercial aircraft impact. Nevertheless, they are becoming increasingly vulnerable to well-planned acts of state-sponsored terrorism, and possibly by non-state actors as well. (I'm not going into detail about this, but consider, for example, a succession of attacks by commercially available drones with a 30kg lift capacity repeatedly attacking a single location with explosive charges specifically designed to penetrate the reinforced concrete of which most commercial containment structures are made.)
One feature of many of the proposed micro-reactors is their small physical size, distributed locations, and minimal "requirements" for security, for example:
https://westinghousenuclear.com/energy-systems/evinci-microreactor/
Note that this reactor is intended for "above-ground installation (requiring) minimum ground disruption with less than a 2-acre footprint", and that "minimal onsite personnel (are) required for operation/maintenance/security."
Apparently, they are proud of this, and consider such a reactor a Good Idea.
Here's the CliffsNotes version of this "logic":
"Let's take a source of radiologically toxic material, put it above ground, forgo a traditional containment structure, and site it in populated areas with minimal provisions for security. What could go wrong?"
3) The handwriting is on the wall: in any economy that pursues a rational energy policy, EVERY source of carbon-based stationary power generation will be off-line and a stranded asset within a decade.
However, the incumbent carbon-based generating industry is getting its way, and the US is increasingly pursuing an almost perfectly irrational energy strategy.
This will continue for as long as the industry and its political allies can convince the public that unnecessarily expensive and hazardous electricity is a Good Thing.
I don't see a need to help them bamboozle the public.
Please write some posts and generate a following that encourages lots of comments and discussion. I don’t have the expertise to evaluate your contrasting positions but I’m drawn more to your side. It shouldn’t be lost in a comments thread.
The only thing I quibble with is that the climate has too much CO2 to be “stable”. I just don’t agree with that or the 1.5° target being somehow possible/desirable due to the trade offs involved.
Humans will be able to live just fine at 2° of warming in 2100, but if we come up with cool cheap methods to extract CO2 I am all ears!
Absolutely right, and well said. Thank you Quico.
Great piece, your posts are riveting. My special angle on this is to bring the gospel of affordable and effective climate policy to skeptics
Something skeptics did predict was that the wind and solar path without affordable CO2 removal would be completely economically and politically infeasible. Something we didn't predict is that people would still do it anyway. I think Germany and the UK have tripled electricity prices and cut their electricity emissions by half. I believe that's a 10% cut over the full economy's emissions, and rather than succesfully electrify they're producing less electricity. Yet, they might keep on doing it
The current skeptics strategy of saying "nuh uh climate change", while sadly being probably better that the Paris Accord style climate policy, isn't a real alternative. They need to be able to make a plausible case to climate concerned voters that they can do as much or more for ten times less cost. That's what I find compelling about your work and who I will promote it to
I do have a non substantive critique of your position on nuclear. I think the classic LWR is entirely a plausible path forward, and at a much higher probability than advanced reactors. Operations have been developed to a tee with legacy reactors, where advanced reactors have at times been built and then shut down because they were too expensive to operate. New technology may change that, but it will be challenging to surpass already excellent nuclear power and require decades of operational development that private companies are unlikely to succeed at. They may, and it sounds like there are credible options like Thorcon to surpass proven nuclear designs, but they don't have to.
What we have is sufficient to replace coal and much of gas, and potentially significantly electrify - like France already has. We might need a revolution in permitting and regulation to get out of the way of repeating our past success - but it would be less of a revolution than doing one better with advanced designs
For anyone wondering how they can help jumpstart carbon capture efforts, consider donating to Terraset, a charity doing just that.
Honestly, the only thing that will speed the process is when clean energy becomes cheaper than FFs. That requires abundant clean energy, and to get to a state of abundance will require, as you said, nuclear, but also geo-thermal and yes, more renewables. Kind of feels like carbon capture is another zombie, or at best a smallish contributor to the fix.
Seeing you refer to Ontario as a poster-child for nuclear success, with our struggling and government-propped-up nuclear stations that left us to keep the lights on with coal-fired stations for 7 years while the Pickering NGS generated ZERO, and several other years when around half of our nuclear capacity was "derated" because a a long-ignored accident pathway – "fuel string relocation" —was rediscovered, would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
Our electricity costs are so high that even our "Conservative" government doesn't have the nerve to pass all the costs into customers without a significant explicit subsidy from taxpayers. Wouldn't it make sense for a government-owned industry to generate a profit for the public purse instead of sucking at its teat? Not with this technology!
The first half of this essay is so important and sensible that it is really sad that you insisted on harnessing it to the deliriously unrealistic second half.
Ontario’s costs are high because prior governments decided to add a bunch of renewable slop to an already decarbonized grid and now you have to pay for those garbage subsidies. Your nuke stations are some of the best run in the world.
Our regulator, the Ontario Energy Board, concluded several years ago that our Pickering-A station generated the most expensive nuclear electricity in North America and probably the world. Best run, though, you assure us.
I participated in that OEB rate hearing. Where does your "information" come from?
Quico, exactly right to call Emission Reduction Alone a zombie ideology, but I was disappointed by your failure in this article to recognise the collapse of albedo, the 2.5% darkening of the planet this century, as a primary climate crisis. Planetary darkening feedbacks are causing four times as much immediate warming as new emissions and driving the grave risk of tipping points that would swamp all carbon action. The idea that action on carbon could stabilise the climate without prior action on albedo is a dangerous mistake. Sure, algae and nuclear technologies need to ramp up, but their climate impact will take decades, and we needed to protect fragile ecosystems such as coral reefs by cooling the water yesterday, by deploying sunlight reflection technologies. HPAC had a conversation today with a colleague of Russ George, leader of the 2012 Ocean Pastures Restoration test. That action was wildly successful as a carbon removal exercise, except that it raised the ire of the zombies, who managed to slander his public image. Getting the story right is essential. Work on carbon needs to be placed within a critical engineering path that recognises the most urgent task is to reverse the darkening of the world. Albedo restoration is a prerequisite for effective carbon removal because it cools the planet first—buying time, restoring energy balance, and enabling carbon sinks to recover. Both can proceed together, but first we must stop the fever (albedo) before we can successfully remove the infection (CO₂).
And by the way, here is an excellent critique of the politicisation of emission reduction in Australia - https://www.cis.org.au/commentary/opinion/why-is-csiro-hiding-the-inconvenient-truth-about-renewables-cost-blowout/