Against my better judgement, I got sucked into a minor Twitterstorm over the weekend. The main outcome was to remind me that, while Twitter is useful in the role of a microblog, providing quick links to, and sharp observations on, more substantial material, it is utterly useless as a venue for discussion and debate.
Update : A large number of nuclear fans were eager to tweet and share snarky responses on Twitter, but only three people were willing to debate the issue here. Thanks to David Michie, Jonathan Suhanto and Ben Huxham who did at least respond. For those concerned that I might have a home-field advantage, I suggested that they post on a site of their own, with links, but no one took this idea up. That says it all for the nuclear “debate” on Twitter, as far as I’m concerned. I’ve muted the lot of them. End update.
In this case, the debate was over nuclear power, and this post from last year. It’s reasonable to ask why I would bother arguing about nuclear power, given my frequently expressed view that it’s dead as a doornail. The problem is that nuclear fans like Ben Heard are, in effect, advocates for coal. Their line of argument runs as follows
(1) A power source with the characteristics of coal-fired electricity (always on) is essential if we are to decarbonise the electricity suppy
(2) Renewables can’t meet this need
(3) Nuclear power can
Hence, we must find a way to support nuclear
The problem is that, on any realistic analysis, there’s no chance of getting a nuclear plant going in Australia before about 2040 (see over the fold). So, the nuclear fans end up supporting the Abbott crew saying that we will have to rely on coal until then. And to make this case, it is necessary to ignore or denounce the many options for an all-renewable electricity supply, including concentrated solar power, large-scale battery storage and vehicle-to-grid options. As a result, would-be green advocates of nuclear power end up reinforcing the arguments of the coal lobby.
Looking at the argument set out above, point (1) is generally taken as self-evident, even though the idea of baseload demand is basically a nonsense, at least until the renewables share gets much closer to 100 per cent.
Point (3) is based on the claim that since France did this 40 years ago, Australia can do it today. The fact that France has long since lost the special characteristics that made its dash for nuclear power possible isn’t even considered. When I looked at the issue a few years ago, I concluded that only China had anything like the characteristics needed, but nuclear power has stalled even there.
Coming back to the Australian debate, it’s striking that it’s still going on, given the negative findings of the SA Royal Commission, established at the behest of the nuclear lobby. But I’ll spell out the problem one more time. Let’s look at the most optimistic possible timetable. The hardest evidence relates to the time between the issuing of a contract to build a nuclear power plant and the connection to the grid. The best-case scenario is that of the KEPCO contract in the UAE, one of the rare cases where the construction phase was completed on time and on budget. There have, however, been unexplained delays in startup. The contract was signed in December 2009 and, on current projections, the first plant (of four) will be connected to the grid ten years after that, at the end of 2019.
So, to get nuclear power going in Australia before 2040, we’d need signed contracts by 2030 at the latest. What needs to happen before that goal can be achieved
* First, obviously, both major parties need to be convinced of the case for nuclear power. That’s highly unlikely but let’s suppose it can somehow be done by 2020
* Next, the current ban on nuclear power needs to be repealed. This ban looms large in the minds of nuclear fans, but actually it’s such a minor problem we can ignore it
* Next, we need to set up, from scratch a legislative and regulatory framework for nuclear power, and establish and staff a regulator similar to the US NRC. Bear in mind that there is essentially no one in Australia with any relevant expertise. I’d be surprised if this could be done in five years, but let’s suppose three
* Next we need to license designs that can be built here and, at the same time, completely remodel the National Electricity Market in a way that makes nuclear cost-competitive with both gas and renewables, while not opening the door for new coal (again, three years would be incredibly optimistic)
* Next we need to identify greenfield sites for multiple nuclear power plants, almost certainly on the east coast, and go through the processes of EIS, Environment Court and so on. In any realistic view, this would never succeed, but let’s suppose another three years.
After all that, we have to find companies willing to build the plants, and organize the necessary contracts. Given the absurdly opimsitic schedule set out above, this would have to be done inside a year.
In summary, even on magical assumptions it would be impossible to get nuclear power going in Australia before 2040, by which time we would already have had to close most of the coal-fired generation fleet. It follows that the only effect of nuclear advocacy is to prolong the life of coal-fired power to the limits of technological feasibility.
In practice, support for nuclear power in Australia is support for coal. Tony Abbott understands this. It’s a pity that Ben Heard and others don’t/
John Quiggin 
Time and time again the notion that the switch to renewables will be ruinous to the economy has been disproved. It’s not the source of energy, its the politics of power that presents the major obstacle.
Nup. The people opposing change don’t think they’ll be the ones potentially dying. It’s moral hazard, basically: there’s a well-known solution to moral hazard, but you talk about it in this sort of context and people look at you like you’re a monster.
Hi Hugo Yes Hugo Professor Quiggin is optimistic; a diversity of opinion is a good thing if it is aimed at solving a particular problem and the people contributing to the discussion are contributing in good faith.
So I’d like to reassure you that I didn’t mean to deride you for having “a “capitalist individualist value system”. It is a descriptive term not a judgement. I’m derisive about the negative – fatally negative – aspects of capitalism but I try not to deride the people who for whatever reason continue despite the evidence to choose to ignore the problems inherent in that system.
But seriously, I think you are being a snowflake – to use the right wing pc language. I think this is the correct usage of the term – to be complaining about your power problems that don’t seem to be that bad compared to where I live.
The power goes out frequently because the soil is deep and volcanic (highly reactive) so power poles fall over quite often because of wind and rain and car crashes. They lean at alarming angles for some time before a crew comes out and straightens them up. It makes the long drives to town more interesting than a line of dead straight upright poles though.
The droughts and flooding rains and the intense summer storms that we get out here more often than in the past and I’ve been here 20 years mean that nothing built lasts – in the drought soil dries out and when it hails and then rains with such intensity the water runs up my street. For example, concrete paths no matter how well built break up.
During the last rain event there was so much water and it came with such intensely that it that took out the power and roads for weeks or days – maybe it just seemed like weeks – in 2011.
I can’t imagine why you haven’t managed to rig up some alternative to getting your water out of the tank with a bucket. I’d just ring the local water bloke and ask him what I should do. Surely?
One thing is for certain, the denialists on the Right and the alarmists on the Left both prefer personal insults to reason. It is a waste of time engaging with them.
Dealing with climate change is easy-peasy with current technology and know how, as Prof Quiggin and others have made clear. We don’t need to sacrifice our living standards or have third world electricity standards to do it.
@JQ: Ok, if only economists are credible on whether 100% renewables is feasible, then if this guy is not credible I don’t know who is. Read his CV.
https://www.loeschel.org/c-v-lebenslauf/
I’ll remind you what he said:
“The challenge looks really difficult,” said Andreas Loeschel, head of the government commission monitoring Germany’s energy transition. “There was too much confidence that renewables would do the trick. It’s about getting dirty energy out of the mix.”
He wasn’t misquoted or anything. He actually retweeted the link to the story.
Thanks for that link to the Bloomberg article, David. That article suggests I may be a little too optimistic about the current state of renewables.
Nonetheless, I think there is still plenty of low hanging fruit for reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. After all, it is only the net figure (emissions minus sequestration) that matters.
Mangroves, sea grass meadows and coastal wetlands are apparently much better at CO2 uptake than forests and they are also much depleted ecosystems. With the political will, I don’t see why these systems can’t be regenerated. It might also be a good idea to pay Australian farmers to turn a few million square kilometres of marginal, drought prone farmland back to mallee scrub. There are countless other examples.
ps. As to political will, it is nice to see that Right in many countries, including Germany are already on board. The Right in the Anglosphere are a peculiar bunch but I imagine reality will dawn on them eventually. It is certainly noticeable that nearly all the outlier scientists that they listen to are already in God’s waiting room.
Hugo,
My sympathies for your troubles. But I’ll also make a point. You talked about the food that you “must throw out,” and the ladder you “have to climb”…but as an engineer, when people talk about what they “must” or “have to” do, my immediate thought is about what potential alternatives are available.
If you have to climb a ladder to get water out of your tank, does that mean the water level in the tank is above the ground? If so, that means water could be siphoned out of the tank without needing any electricity. Or if that’s not possible, a simple 12 volt pump operating off a car battery should be able to provide you many thousands of liters of water without the need for climbing a ladder (other than for the initial installation of the tubing into the tank).
For your refrigerator and freezer, have you thought about the possibility of making sufficient ice beforehand (to keep temperatures inside just above freezing)? Or is dry ice (frozen carbon dioxide) available anywhere near you? Or what about one or more battery-powered freezers, for example…
https://www.solar-electric.com/sundanzer-dcf50-battery-powered-freezer.html?gclid=CjwKCAjwh9_bBRA_EiwApObaOCtuBS8e668Fjn_8PgSoc2V4c7tXiuZExDu0qwTd7jwKVrhEjW1wABoCY-QQAvD_BwE
“I’ll remind you what he said:..”
That wasn’t directed to me, but I’ll remind you what I said about what he said. 😉
He’s talking about *Germany*. Germany is an absolutely terrible country to attempt to run using wind and solar.
1) It has very little onshore wind. And it’s densely populated, and no city wants wind turbines with 100 meter blades near it…let alone inside it.
2) It’s offshore wind is limited too, because it doesn’t really have much land offshore…compared to, say, Australia, Britain, the U.S. East Coast, etc.
3) It’s solar resources (for photovoltaics or solar thermal) are abysmal (because the country is cold and wet).
4) It’s load curve is not well suited to solar either (load curves that are suitable to photovoltaics have very high demand on summer days around noon, and very little demand in the winter or on cloudy days).
You need to find somebody who knows about the electrical system in Australia, or the U.S. southwest (especially Texas, which has wonderful potential for both wind and photovoltaics).
That we don’t have a clear picture of past 50% let alone achieving the final 20% does not mean we should turn aside from reaching 50% and more using RE technologies. This is perhaps my biggest problem with nuclear advocacy – the relentless objection to and rejection of RE, wanting support for it to be stopped, until everyone agrees with them. It’s a “perfect as the enemy of good enough” argument – or perhaps of “barely adequate” or even “better than nothing at all”. Hold up a bar too high and nothing gets done.
Stopping policy support for growth of renewables will get us HELE coal maybe, gas plants certainly but will not get us nuclear. And still we will get renewables, but at reduced rates, under conditions that don’t undermine the viability (it will be called ‘reliability’, just as HELE will be named ‘dispachable’) of coal and gas.
Climate science denial and alarmist economic fear are the greatest impediments to The Transition. They work against nuclear as effectively as they work against RE. More effectively in my opinion, because they undermine support for that transition amongst those who – if denial and economic alarmism were given zero tolerance – would strongly back nuclear.
Ending the influence of denial – within businesses and governments believing they can use lies to cheat (and it is lying and cheating) their way out of responsibility – unlocks what latent support there is for nuclear. I still think nuclear will struggle, and the end of Denial will unlock more support for RE than it does for nuclear, but nothing less than the Conservative Right facing the climate problem with eyes open can get nuclear-for-climate back onto the table. I still don’t get how so many advocates of nuclear can be so tolerant of that deeply imbedded denial within the political parties that profess to like nuclear.
Here are three graphs that show why a nuclear plant never will–and never should–be built in Australia. The are graphs mainly related to the U.S., but much of Australia’s climate is reasonably close to the U.S. southwest.
1) This graph shows utility power purchasing agreement (PPA) prices for electricity from photovoltaics in the U.S. Prices have declined from over $150 per megawatt-hour (15 cents per kWh) in 2008 to approximately $25 per MWh (2.5 cents per kWh) in 2018.
2) This graph shows electric vehicle (EV) battery prices. Bloomberg New Energy Foundation (BNEF) predicts EV battery prices below $100/kWh. That means that if an EV battery could do 1000 cycles, the cost per kWh would be $0.1 per kWh (10 cents per kWh).
3) This graph shows Tesla battery cycle life. On average, Tesla car battery packs appear to last about 250,000 km before they lose 10 percent of their capacity.
https://electrek.co/2018/04/14/tesla-battery-degradation-data/#jp-carousel-65298
No one in a sunny warm climate is going to gamble billions of dollars on a new nuclear plant in the face of those numbers.
Oops. I forgot to include the link to the second graph with project electric vehicle battery pack prices:
https://i2.wp.com/evobsession.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Battery-Cost-Curve-Chart-v.2.png?ssl=1
Thanks, Mark Bahner. I’ll look more into what I can do about getting water out of the tank without mains power.
Also thanks for your links. There is so much positive news on solar, wind, batteries, pumped hydo storage and electric vehicles. Hopefully the Tesla truck will live up to Musk’s claims.
I wonder if vehicle to grid will be a key part of dealing with the intermittency of renewables.
@Mark Bahner: re pt 1) on photovoltaics PPAs. First it’s good that continuous deployment and R&D have led to real cost reductions in the technology, thus making it still viable at ~2.5¢/kWh. And the same for wind. These technologies are a part of the mix & will remain so; this has never been about 0% renewables.
Now the bad news. You realise this fits in exactly with what I was talking about at the top of this blog post thread – the end point is the Revenue, not the Cost. And ultimately the former degrades faster than the latter. There’s other stuff to worry about. These PPAs don’t price in the intermittency, and while renewables are a smaller % of the mix, this factor is not material; but once wind & solar can no longer free-ride off the existing (basically fossil fueled) infrastructure to reliably ensure sufficient supply at all times, it’s a problem that must be faced. So storage, more transmission lines, etc.
In addition, it’s not just nuclear plants that don’t want to be part of such a market, where the residual demand (sans VRE supply) becomes increasingly randomised; it’s any & all “baseload” supply that will avoid involvement. You are left with gas peaker plants, and the nebulous concept of “dispatchable renewables” (which is hydro & the other type, which remains shapeless & formless at this time). The practical result is an investment freeze with an increasingly tightening supply-demand situation, and paradoxically increasing cost to the end consumer, while wholesale prices crash during renewable output and PPAs get cheaper (but also less valuable). If you’re in the right part of the market (gen-tailers like AGL, Origin) there are bumper profits to be had.
At a certain point, a purchaser of electricity will put out a request for a PPA & no one will turn up. There won’t be a margin for it to be worth the effort, and/or the cost of firming contracts to balance out the real-time supply will be too risky.
Meanwhile in the country where the fate of humanity will be decided…
‘Nuclear energy occupies a pivotal position in Beijing’s simultaneous search for energy security and decarbonisation because of its carbon neutrality and cost-effectiveness: at about 420 renminbi per 1000 kWh, nuclear power is much cheaper than renewables, on a par with coal-fired power.’
https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/china/article/2154378/why-nuclear-energy-will-fuel-power-hungry-chinas
Re China; the article also talks about cost overruns, delays etc as they move from theory to practice
“the problems have created a seemingly conflicting narrative surrounding China’s stance on nuclear energy: bold government proclamations and planning on one hand, and financial and technical complications on the other.”
I found an online news item which said “The world will add 70,000 solar panels every hour in the next 5 years”. It is unclear if this allows for growth. Let’s assume that it is an average over 5 years. Also, assume a solar panel is 1 sq. m. Thus, in 5 years the world adds 70,000 x 24 x 365 x 5 solar panels = 3 billion solar panels (rounded down slightly). Let’s assume we can pick up the pace and make 1 billion solar panels a year.
Another site said we would need about 500,000 square kilometers of solar panels across the earth to power the world. There are 1 million square meters in a sq. km. Doing the simple math that’s;
(5 x (10 to the 5th) x (10 to the 6th) solar panels = 5 x (10 to the 11th) solar panels. I hope I have not miscounted my powers of 10.
If we divide 5 x (10 to the 11th power) by 10 to the 9th power then we find we need 5 x 100 = 500 years to make enough solar panels. If we do effecitvely 10 times better by massively retooling the world economy to make solar panels and wind generators then it looks like our global renewable energy build-out takes about 50 years. Can we do it I wonder? Is this fast enough to stop going above 2C increase (which is pretty dangerous and damaging anyway)?
At the same time, we would have to cut all anthropogenic emissions including agricultural emissions to net zero. And we would have to hope that natural feed backs (tundra melt etc.) do not not add more CO2 and methane. Can we do all this? It looks like a very tough task. All peoples, including those in the West, are going to have to accept a very basic standard of living to achieve this. Anyone who thinks this transition will be easy, and that the market will handle it all without statist intervention, has to be kidding, IMO.
@Ikonoklast I always like exercises like this. Let’s start with your 500 years calculation, which looks correct based on the data (which I haven’t checked). We can then make the following adjustments
1. Assume that the task is shared equally between solar and wind. This brings us down to 250 years
2. Double the efficiency of solar cells from 20 per cent (current commercial cells) to 40 per cent (achieved in the lab). This brings us down to 125 years
3. Double energy efficiency across the board. Again, this is largely a matter of replacing existing stock of cars, lights, fridges etc with best current technology. This brings us to 60 years
To get to zero by 2050, we need, in addition to the above, to double the installation rate. That’s about what I’ve estimated in the past. For completeness, note that we need step 2 to work for wind as well. Again, that seems consistent with current rates of technical progress.
This is all consistent with rising living standards. If it doesn’t happen, it will be because of people like Abbott and Trump on one side, and supposedly green enemies of renewable energy on the other.
TBH what happens in Australia is completely irrelevant in terms of climate change action. We only have influence on a global scale through our coal and gas exports. If the Chinese are serious about climate change they will do what works. The won’t get bogged down in petty ideological debates of the kind we’ve seen here, nor will they care much about cost if the low cost option doesn’t deliver rapid decarbonisation. They will pursue all possible solutions including renewables, hydro, conventional nuclear and Gen IV nuclear. China is also serious about decarbonising transport with subsidies for EVs of around $8 billion in 2017. I for one am thankful that China is pursing an all-of-the-above strategy. As we’ve seen in Germany, making an idealogical decision to exclude one zero-carbon energy source can lead to sub-optimal outcomes. I’m also thankful that not all decisions in China are made by economists!
@ David Michie. The really interesting thing about the article you linked is that the Chinese are giving up on Western suppliers, and looking at Rosatom instead. Can you see reliance on Putin as an option for Australia, or any democracy?
@JQ Have the “supposedly green enemies of renewable energy” suggested at any point there should be any slowdown in renewable investment? I’d suggest the answer is no. I certainly don’t. We should be doing far more. It’s the opponents of nuclear who are saying nuclear must not be considered. So I’d turn it around and say if 100% renewables doesn’t deliver the rapid decarbonisation we need, it will be the supposedly green enemies of nuclear who will be at fault.
Interesting that for all the talk of an energy transition there hasn’t been one. There’s been an energy *addition* not a transition.
https://www.axios.com/despite-renewables-growth-there-has-never-been-energy-transition-e11b0cf5-ce1d-493c-b1ae-e7dbce483473.html
@JQ No, nuclear power in Australia is politically impossible in Australia for the foreseeable future, but then so is a carbon price that would deliver rapid decarbonisation. The Chinese are pursuing many options including developing their own Gen IV reactors. They’re also building wind and solar on a grand scale, electric vehicles, battery storage etc. All of which is great. It’s you who gave decided that one technology should not be pursued. Thankfully the Chinese are doing their own thing.
JQ, I believe some of the efficiency we are looking for will come from the pure electrical economy itself. Taking motive power as the proxy, electric motors are 80% efficient and ICE motors are 20% efficient. There’s a 4 times gain right there. For space heating we move away from fossils and even away from electrical heating. Space heating effects are best achieved by insulation, insolation, and heat ballast all with smart design techniques. Then there’s mass transit public transport and pedal power for short journeys.
People will have to accept (I believe) a reduction in private vehicle ownership, in numbers and vehicle size. Long distance tourism, especially flights, may largely cease. Westerners will have to eat a lot less meat. Consumer items will have to be mandated to last and be repaired often rather than thrown away via planned obsolescence. Unfettered capitalism encourages the profligate use of resources, often on non-necessaries. These sorts of errors will have to reigned in. Frugality, equality and cooperation will have to become key social values. We won’t survive without them.
David Michie,
Nuclear power is a minor player. It makes about 4 or 5% of the world’s power IIRC. It can’t become a major player because at this rate of fission fuel use all known uranium reserves run out by about 2055. The sensible thing to do is keep the existing nuclear fleet (allowing for shutdowns) and run to 2055 or thereabouts, but build no more. Solar power and wind are much, much cheaper.
“Baseload” electrical power need is a myth. Storage and distributed generation keep power running 24/7 for processes that can’t be shut down. Processes that can shut down, will be shut by a smart grid when generation is lower. We will learn to live with it.
If we really want some 24/7 renewable power then can build solar convection towers. They run at night as well as by day. In fact, their output improves at night! They work via the temperature differential between the surface and the top of the tower. This differential increases at night. If solar convection towers prove cheaper than large power storage then towers will be built and if not then vice versa.
@JQ It seems that democracies are indeed buying Russian nuclear technology. Probably not a good thing. We don’t want to be relying on Russian and Chinese nuclear tech mid century if 100% renewables doesn’t deliver rapid decarbonisation.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/07/27/commentary/world-commentary/russia-unrivaled-nuclear-power-plant-exports/#.W3ow-oGubqA
https://www.economist.com/europe/2018/08/02/the-world-relies-on-russia-to-build-its-nuclear-power-plants
@Ikonoclast In 2017 solar PV produced 416TWh, wind 1120TWh and nuclear 2506TWh. So if nuclear is a minor player, wind and solar are even less significant.
Your point about peak uranium assumes no improvement in today’s wildly inefficient reactor designs, no scope to burn spent nuclear fuel, no breeder reactors, and no thorium cycle reactors. That would be like assuming no improvement in solar, wind and storage tech in 33 years which is just silly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium
@DM So Egypt, Iran, Hungary, Turkey, Jordan, India. All either dictatorships or well on the way under Putin-style strongmen. Where are the democracies you were talking about?
@JQ I’m pretty sure India is a democracy, and a very significant one in terms of energy requirements over the next 30 years. But if you think it’s a good idea that the most commercially viable nuclear tech is owned and controlled by Putin, then fine. I’m not so comfortable about the world having an oh sh*t moment in 2040 and realising that renewables haven’t done the trick and the only country that can deliver nukes in a hurry is Russia.
David Michie,
Solar and wind installations are growing exponentially. Nuclear is flat. It won’t take many years to change the overall position. Add in hydro and biomass and renewables already outstrip nuclear by a considerable margin. However, there will be little more growth in hydro and biomass. Solar and wind are the future.
Solar/wind defeat nuclear on price already. That will push development of the former and stall development of the latter. Nuclear is going nowhere and solar-wind can be deployed much faster. So why would anyone sink any more money into nuclear (apart from military applications)?
India?
@Ikonoclast I agree that renewables are growing far faster than nuclear, especially in the west. However, the Chinese appear to disagree with your assessment about viability of nuclear, and what the Chinese do is vastly more important than what happens in Australia or anywhere really.
‘Nuclear energy occupies a pivotal position in Beijing’s simultaneous search for energy security and decarbonisation because of its carbon neutrality and cost-effectiveness: at about 420 renminbi per 1000 kWh, nuclear power is much cheaper than renewables, on a par with coal-fired power. Under the Sustainable Development Scenario, investment in nuclear plants is projected to increase 24 per cent in the next 12 years – faster than investment in natural gas and renewables.’
https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/china/article/2154378/why-nuclear-energy-will-fuel-power-hungry-chinas
I think Ikon is way off base on a number of things.
“[Nuclear] can’t become a major player because at this rate of fission fuel use all known uranium reserves run out by about 2055. “
This comment shows a complete lack of understanding of resource economics. People have been making the same mistake re oil for the last century. You are confusing known reserves of a resource at useful at current prices and technology. This has nothing to do with how much of the resource exists and what will become useful as technology improves and prices increase. This really is resource economics 101 and I’m surprised your reading is so limited that you haven’t grasp this point long before now. Also see David Michie.
I, like you, don’t advocate nuclear for Oz as the economics don’t stack up, but let’s stick to fact based arguments.
Also this:
“People will have to accept (I believe) a reduction in private vehicle ownership, in numbers and vehicle size. Long distance tourism, especially flights, may largely cease. Westerners will have to eat a lot less meat.”
Chicken and pork can be substituted for resource intensive beef. No one needs to eat less meat. As to private vehicles, a switch from the energy intensive ICE SUVs that now dominate the roads to small electric vehicles will do the trick.
Planes can become more efficient but if they can’t cut emissions fast enough there is no reason why airlines should’nt be able to buy carbon credits that fund reafforestation, the restoration of mangroves, sea grass meadows and coastal wetlands etc etc.
Anyone on the Left who thinks we need to put up with a third world electricity supply and live like chaste medieval monks is unduly pessimistic and playing right into the hands of Tony Abbott and co.
David Michie,
China is a big player on the energy market. Like all big players it can spread and hedge its bets across all market sectors. Australia is a little player. We can’t economically afford bets on nuclear power. Solar and wind with gas and a coal phaseout (followed hopefully by gas phaseout) are the only bets we can afford.
Since China is hedging its bets right across the board, China is actually saying it isn’t predicting what will work finally. It is going for as much of everything non-carbon as it can. China knows its coasts (with 100s of millions of people) are sinking so they are very worried as they should be. Their alluvial deltas and coasts face a double-whammy: subsidence from lack of silt (which is staying further upstream) and sea-level rise.
@Hugo: Agree with much of what you say, but airlines buying offsets is a crock, CORSIA is a farce, and aviation has been let off the hook for far too long. Great talk on aviation emissions here:
IMO, the only way forward (apart from dampening demand) is carbon neutral synthetic kerosene. Incidentally another process ideally suited to Gen IV nukes because F-T process requires a lot of heat.
@Ikonoclast: I agree, I can’t see any reason for Australia to invest in nuclear in the short term. Our renewables share is very small, we are a long way from dealing with the issues that Germany is confronting at the moment, and we have ample solar and wind resources. We don’t have much hydro though, which may get problematic if we ever get to a very high renewables share.
Hugo,
There’s economics 101 and then there’s neoliberal-managerial economics 101. The latter accepts all the inflated claims of reserves by various national governments. A lot of reserve claims include categories like “unproven” and “yet to be discovered” and they just put them all up anyway in the figures. The figures are very dodgy. Geological science being what it is now, it’s quite clear there are very few reserves left to be discovered. This is true for oil and true for uranium. EROEI (energy return on energy invested) puts a floor on what reserves are usable and viable. Nothing below a 1:1 energy return (no energy profit) can ever be economically used for primary energy. That puts a real physical floor on the economic game.
My shorter answer:-
Those who think economics 101 is clinching argument have forgotten physics 101.
@Ikon Seriously, the energy density of uranium and thorium in a breeder reactor is so fantastically huge your EROEI arguments are meaningless. Current reactors can only use 0.7% of natural uranium and you assume no technological development?! We could power the world on spent fuel for decades with reactors designed to do so.
Ikonoclast:
“Geological science being what it is now, it’s quite clear there are very few reserves left to be discovered.”
That is complete nonsense and you are making things up. The reason there aren’t more known recoverable reserves is that when you already have 30 or so years of known recoverable reserves, there is no economic incentive to spend tens of millions of dollars to find new reserves. As well as being economics 101 this is just plain common sense.
All you have to do is look at the known reserves of oil each decade throughout the last century to see that the 30 to 50 years of known reserves is almost a constant.
I note Prof Quiggin has explained this to you before and pointed you in the direction of Tim Worstall but to no avail as you apparently lack the capacity to learn anything that contradicts your sackcloth and ashes mantra.
Here is what you and your kind wrote about oil, back in the 1970s:
“The United States may be totally independent of Arab oil by the year 2015. Unfortunately, so will everyone else because statistically that will be the year the last barrel of oil is pumped from the last well on earth. Of course, there will be no “last barrel” as such in 2015 because the world’s oil fields cannot continue to produce at current levels much longer. “ ****www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/09/article-from-1975-the-world-will-be-out-of-oil-by-2015/
As to uranium, only a couple minutes googling is enough to see that there are known reserves of uranium that have been exploited in the past, such as those in Florida, but which are not being exploited now because the price of uranium is so low. Known resources such as these simply don’t show up in the known recoverable resource figures such as the ones you appear to be relying on. You appear to miss this point because you don’t understand how resource economics works and you consequently don’t understand the figures you cite.
Your kind also play right into the hands of the Conservatives, who scare the electorate by telling them that the Left want to take us back to the Dark Ages.
Hugo,
It is clear you are the one not reading scientific papers. Try this:
The End of Cheap Uranium – Michael Dittmar
Institute of Particle Physics,
ETH, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
Click to access 1106.3617.pdf
Also check Physics.org – “Why nuclear power will never supply the world’s energy needs.”
And here’s an excerpt from The Energy Watch Group report:
“Uranium abundance: At the current rate of uranium consumption with conventional reactors, the world supply of viable uranium, which is the most common nuclear fuel, will last for 80 years. Scaling consumption up to 15 TW, the viable uranium supply will last for less than 5 years. (Viable uranium is the uranium that exists in a high enough ore concentration so that extracting the ore is economically justified.)”
Sure, it mentions “economically justified” but this price justification is being held down by cheaper solar and wind power. In addition, there comes a point where even recovery of low grade uranium is not justified by the energy returns. In addition, the world’s uranium reserves are not large at all. To quote
“Hence, today’s uranium price of 130 USD/lb is reflected in 0.005 EUR per kWh in electricity costs. Should the uranium oxide price increase to 500 USD per pound, the increase in generation costs would already be 0.025 EUR/kWh, which would represent a dramatic 50% to 70% increase in power costs. Critical voices, however, see the economic power generating costs due to nuclear waste and pollution as being much greater than the 0.03 – 0.04 EUR/kWh quoted above.
Anyone believing that such high uranium prices are a figment of the imagination should consider the rapid price increases in recent years, while bearing in mind that about one third of the uranium required comes from existing stocks which will be used up in the near future. If worldwide uranium extraction cannot be expanded by at least 50% in the next 5-10 years, uranium will inevitably be in short supply.
…
Reserves are shrinking. Only about 60% of uranium needed is mined; the remaining 40% come from reserves, a large part of which accumulated as Russian nuclear weapon material stocks were run down after 1990. The Russian contracts to supply the USA expire in 2013, and Russia has already announced that it does not intend to extend them. (see, e.g. http://www.usec.com/).
…
This means that in order to satisfy current needs, world production must increase by about 50%. However, this is becoming increasingly difficult as more easily-accessible deposits are worked out, and as merely mines with low ore content are left to be developed. New deposits are being exploited more slowly than was envisaged because of unforeseen problems, and are proving to be more expensive than originally calculated. A good example is the largest, and only, project with good-quality ore at Cigar Lake in Canada. The original planning foresaw ore extraction beginning in 2007, but water broke in several times resulting in the mine being completely flooded in October 2006. The mine operators now hope that ore extraction will begin at the end of 2010 or 2011. Some observers believe that the mine may have to be given up entirely.” – The Energy Watch Group, Uranium costs – Electricity costs.
Ikonoclast,
You have deliberately picked some very old and lugubrious material and demonstrated that you are way behind the curve by doing so as some of it is just plain false and misleading. For instance, from the notoriously anti-nuke Energy Watch Group you quote this:
“New deposits are being exploited more slowly than was envisaged because of unforeseen problems, and are proving to be more expensive than originally calculated. A good example is the largest, and only, project with good-quality ore at Cigar Lake in Canada. The original planning foresaw ore extraction beginning in 2007, but water broke in several times resulting in the mine being completely flooded in October 2006. The mine operators now hope that ore extraction will begin at the end of 2010 or 2011. Some observers believe that the mine may have to be given up entirely.”
Sounds awful, doesn’t it? I almost went out and got myself some sackcloth and ashes. But then, out of curiosity, I read some more recent reports on the Cigar Lake mine that “may have to be given up entirely”:
“Mining commenced at Cigar Lake in 2014. The proven and probable ore reserves at Cigar Lake are extremely large and very high grade. A 480-metre-deep underground mine was developed in very poor ground conditions – the orebody is actually in the soft Athabasca sandstone. Hence it uses ground freezing and remotely-controlled high pressure water jets at this level to excavate the ore. Production ramped up to 8,200 t/yr U3O8 (7,000 tU/yr) in 2017. In 2016 it was 7864 tonnes (6668 tU).Ore slurry from remote mining is trucked for toll treatment at Orano’s expanded McClean Lake mill, 70 km northeast*. The McClean Lake mill was licensed only for 5900 t/yr, and in May 2016 Orano’s (then Areva Resources) application to increase this to 10,900 t/yr was approved by the CNSC and in 2017 the licence was extended to 2027. Cameco reported that capacity in 2016 had been increased to 8200 t/yr U3O8. The mill is also expected to treat other ores in due course, notably from Midwest.
Construction on the mine project began in 2005 with production originally scheduled to start in 2011. However, underground floods in 2006 and 2008 set the start date back until 2014 and increased the overall cost of the project from C$660 million to about C$2.6 billion. There are extra requirements for pumping capacity – now 2500 m3/h, and ground refrigeration. In February 2010, dewatering was complete and remediation remediation proceeded. The 425 m level was backfilled and new workings developed in more competent rock at 480 m level. The first jet boring commenced in December 2013. The estimated average cash operating cost for Cigar Lake increased from $14.40 per pound U3O8 in 2007 to $23.14, but revised milling plans reduced this estimate to $18.60 per pound. The first ore slurry was sent to the McClean Lake mill in March 2014, and treatment began there in October 2014. Initial treatment of the ore is at Cigar Lake, with average slurry grade of about 15% U3O8 for shipment to McClean Lake.Some 1.3 million cubic metres of waste rock from Cigar Lake is being emplaced under water in the Sue C pit at McClean Lake, to prevent acid generation from it. Tailings will remain at McClean Lake.A Cigar Lake II deposit nearby is being investigated, as is the Waterbury Cigar Lake project as a possible northern extension of the Cigar Lake deposit.”
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/canada-uranium.aspx
Meanwhile the OECD’s “Uranium 2016: Resources, Production and Demand” says:
“At the 2014 level of uranium requirements, identified resources are
sufficient for over 135 years of supply for the global nuclear power fleet. Moreover, an additional 72 700 tU of resources have been identified by the NEA/IAEA as resources
reported by companies that are not yet included in national resource totals.
Total undiscovered resources (prognosticated resources and speculative resources) as
of 1 January 2015 amounted to 7 422 700 tU, a minor decrease from the 7 697 700 tU in the previous edition (NEA/IAEA, 2014). It is important to note that in some cases, including
those of major producing countries with large identified resource inventories
(e.g. Australia, Canada and the United States), estimates of undiscovered resources are
either not reported or estimates have not been updated for several years.
The uranium resource figures presented in this volume are a snapshot of the
situation as of 1 January 2015. Resource figures are dynamic and related to commodity
prices. Identified resources have changed very little since the last reporting period
because of lower levels of investment and associated exploration efforts reflecting
current, depressed market conditions.”
***www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2016/7301-uranium-2016.pdf
There is no cause for alarm.
“These PPAs don’t price in the intermittency,…”
Actually, the PPAs do price in the intermittency. As I’m sure you know (but others might not) the PPAs have the utility as the buyer and the solar cell development company as the seller. The seller can’t sell at a higher price, and the buyer won’t buy at a higher price, precisely because photovoltaics are intermittent.
There are PPAs that include photovoltaics plus storage, and those are closed at higher prices exactly because the utility is willing to pay more, and the developer demands more, because the photovoltaics plus storage are more valuable than the intermittent photovoltaics alone.
Here’s a webpage that reviews a combination of a lot of different offers:
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/record-low-solar-plus-storage-price-in-xcel-solicitation#gs.e0Hzofk
Wind came in lowest, at $18.10 per megawatt-hour. It was followed by combined wind and solar, at $19.90; then wind with battery storage, at $21; PV alone, at $29.50; then wind, solar and battery storage, at $30.60.
In both cases, “…plus storage” is available at a higher price. A couple important parenthetical notes on these prices:
1) Both solar and wind are heavily subsidized in the U.S., and the sellers (the developers of the wind and solar projects) rely on these subsidies to be able to bid so low.
2) “…plus storage” does *not* mean that the storage makes the wind or solar like a gas turbine, nuclear, or coal-fired power plant. The “…plus storage” is just a few hours, and not necessarily even at the full power of the wind or solar project being proposed.
“At a certain point, a purchaser of electricity will put out a request for a PPA & no one will turn up. There won’t be a margin for it to be worth the effort, and/or the cost of firming contracts to balance out the real-time supply will be too risky.”
I don’t agree. A free market just doesn’t work like that. The utilities put out a request for proposals for PPAs, and potential developers submit sealed-bid proposals to an auction. There’s no way that *no* developers would submit a bid, because there *has* to be some bid price at which each of them would make money.
From David Michie’s comments:
“Meanwhile in the country where the fate of humanity will be decided…”
Anthropogenic global warming isn’t a “fate of humanity” issue. Nuclear war, biological war, highly advanced AI, a supernova exploding in the immediate galactic neighborhood…those are potential “fate of humanity” issues. There’s no credible scientific analysis of which I’m aware that says that the world of 2100 will have a lower gross world product, or will not have more people living longer than the world of 2000.
“Nuclear energy occupies a pivotal position in Beijing’s simultaneous search for energy security and decarbonisation because of its carbon neutrality and cost-effectiveness: at about 420 renminbi per 1000 kWh, nuclear power is much cheaper than renewables, on a par with coal-fired power.”
Nuclear at 420 renminbi per 1000 kWh translates to 63 USD per MWh…or 6.3 U.S. cents per kWh. That’s a reasonable good deal, but it’s not heart-stoppingly low. In fact, I’d guess that solar plus storage will be extremely competitive with that in less than a decade, if it’s not already.
Here are things about China that make it totally different from other countries on earth:
1) It has a communist one-party government. And because the government is communist, it has a long history of the government actually providing financial backing to industries and working closely with industries.
2) China does not have free speech. Dissent with respect to nuclear power can easily be suppressed.
3) China has an extremely large population on a very small land area (i.e., it’s very densely populated). In particular, the population is largely close to the coast. If the nuclear plants are on the coast, they can be cooled by ocean water.
Anthropogenic global warming is a “fate of humanity” issue in the sense that it is a fate of civilization issue. Modern civilization and population levels will be unsustainable in a 450 ppm plus world. The current level is over 410 ppm. We started the industrial revolution at 250 ppm. The year 2017 was a new record for anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
“There’s enough (fossil fuels) in the ground to take you to 1,000 ppm or more, but I don’t think that’s going to happen….450 ppm would guarantee disaster. If you leave it in place long enough, it would guarantee that you do lose the coastal cities.” – former NASA scientist James Hansen.
Our climate is already becoming more unstable. Extreme events are more severe; droughts are longer, heatwaves hotter, extreme storms and floods more frequent and damaging. There is a possibility of runaway feedback releases of CO2 and methane from melting tundra, burning Boreal forests and methane from methane clathrates on the sea floor. Climate tipping points are a real concern. The pretense that these dangers are not real is just more dangerous denialism from the anti-science, anti-realism brigade.
@Mark Banner: That’s absurd and borderline denialism. BAU/RCP8.5 is most definitely a fate of humanity issue. You’ll struggle to find a climate scientist who says otherwise.
Re China:
1) Agreed, and a good thing.
2) Agreed.
3) Disagree. Many countries are densely populated and Gen IV reactors don’t need water cooling. How would you power Singapore? No room for wind or solar. It’s 100% gas at the moment.
Here’s an insight into what’s happening in China.
Some of my uranium-relevant posts did quote dated papers. It is true that some new uranium mine production has come on line. It is also true, since the Fukushima incident, that several nuclear power stations have been taken off-line around the world, mainly in Japan and Germany IIRC. This situation has led to an oversupply of uranium and a price crash.
The oversupply is relative to the poor demand. We need to look at the reasons for the poor demand. Nuclear reactors (some) have been taken off-line and few, if any, new ones have been built. We need, in turn, to look at the reasons for this.
This article sums up the issues well.
https://thebulletin.org/2017/10/a-dozen-reasons-for-the-economic-failure-of-nuclear-power/
The article also canvasses the issue that nuclear power, like all large societal issues, is a political economy issue and not just an economic issue. As the author notes;
“It is essential to approach nuclear power in a political economy framework—the original discipline practiced by Adam Smith and Karl Marx, which entails the interrelationship between the practical aspects of political actions and the pure theory of economics—because nuclear power has never been economically competitive and, consequently, has always relied on the exercise of political power to secure a role in the electricity sector.”
The author then goes on to list the problems with the viability of nuclear power.
@Ikonoclast That political power exists in the one place it really matters: China. If they figure out how to mass produce reactors cheaply, and the West’s gamble on 100% renewables fails they’ll be ready to sell reactors to the world.
David Michie,
China would be taking the bigger gamble if they did that. Nuclear power is the way to completely gut-shot your economy because it takes massive economic subsidies to build nuclear compared to renewables. However, China is hedging its bets with renewables also.
I predict that China’s nuclear “renaissance” will fail just as the West’s has done. There is also the problem of uranium fuel limits unless they go down the breeder reactor path. That path is hellishly expensive and dangerous.
David Michie: “Your point about peak uranium assumes no improvement in today’s wildly inefficient reactor designs, no scope to burn spent nuclear fuel, no breeder reactors, and no thorium cycle reactors.”
Those aspirations have all been around since the 1940s.
https://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-engineering/thermodynamics/laws-of-thermodynamics/thermal-efficiency/thermal-efficiency-of-nuclear-power-plants/
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/heavy-manufacturing-of-power-plants.aspx
The increased costs of manufacturing higher pressure parts outweigh the efficiency gains.
“If they figure out how to mass produce reactors cheaply”
Maybe they could try building a bigger foundry? Would that be cheaper and faster?
If China and other countries want to continue nuclear research into the mid 21C, good for them. Maybe there will be some significant breakthroughs. But nuclear research is already incredibly well funded. So what is it you actually want?
How about we focus on our efforts on getting to the 80% renewables scenario you’ve been mentioning.
Actually, it appears the Chinese renaissance has already failed. There were hardly any new plants started between 2015 and 2017. At the beginning of this year, they were talking about starting 6-8 new plants in 2018, but as far as I can tell, they haven’t started any.
As for Rosatom, it’s much better at signing deals that at delivering. Its Russian projects have run overtime just like in the West. Its budget is too opaque to be relevant, but now that Putin is running out of oil money, he won’t be able to prop it up much longer. My guess is that it has about 5 years of life left.
China produces an insignificant fraction of its power from nuclear, and plans to increase that to a trivial or maybe even minor fraction: it’s vastly outweighed by solar and wind and that will not change.
Two points: china has a vast economy and is engaged in a virtually-unprecedented power buildout; the nukes represent crumbs off the table in power policy terms. Probably the power production is just a byproduct of military schemes.
Slowly slowly… who is the frog not feeling the temp rise? Renewable frog or nuclear frog?
“Sourcing 100% renewable energy will make us cleaner and greener, reducing our grid reliance, and running some of our buildings on zero carbon electricity,”said Catherine McGuinness, Chairman of the City of London Corporation’s Policy and Resources Committee. “We are always looking at the environmental impact of our work and hope that we can be a beacon to other organisations to follow suit.”
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/15/city-of-london-to-source-100-renewable-electricity-for-square-mile/