At the recent United Nations climate change meeting in Dubai, nearly 200 countries agreed for the first time on the importance of “moving away from fossil fuels” to reduce carbon emissions and slow global warming.
Challenges Facing Renewable Energy
However, this does not mean that a significant reduction in fossil fuel use is coming anytime soon. Renewables like wind and solar are rapidly gaining market share, yet global consumption of oil and natural gas continues to rise as the world’s population and economies grow. In the United States, President Biden has signed the most ambitious set of support for green energy ever, yet oil and natural gas production is still hitting new record highs.
The problem with renewable energy is that it is very difficult to store the energy that is generated, especially in developing markets where resources are scarce.
The batteries that hold energy in electric vehicles are the most expensive components of cars, and they still do not provide the same range as a gasoline engine. It remains inefficient to store energy captured by wind and solar farms. Networks powered by renewables typically rely on natural gas as a “baseload load” available when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing, because gas can be stored and used as needed.
Environmental Benefits of Nuclear Energy
There is another energy source that achieves a similar purpose to natural gas, approximately without carbon emissions: nuclear energy. It can serve as a bridge leading the United States and other countries toward bold goals to reduce carbon emissions over the next decade. “We can’t get there just with wind and solar,” said retired Admiral Richard Mes, CEO of the Mes Group, at a recent event sponsored by the think tank Third Way. “The only clean generation available today is nuclear energy. We need to better acknowledge the advantages of nuclear energy.”
Nuclear energy had its moment in Dubai, where the United States led 21 other countries in committing to doubling nuclear power production by 300% by 2050, which would significantly reduce carbon emissions in the power sector. And like many climate pledges, this may be wishful thinking. “Policymakers are now making big announcements about nuclear energy that they can’t or won’t hold,” wrote nuclear advocate Ted Nordhaus in Foreign Policy, pointing to high costs and regulatory hurdles as problems.
Challenges Facing Nuclear Energy
A major challenge for the nuclear energy industry is convincing policymakers and the public that nuclear energy is safe and that new designs will prevent the scary accidents that people remember from the past.
Data support their side, especially when considering the deaths and illnesses caused by air pollution from fossil fuels. The particles emitted by burning carbon, for example, kill 8.7 million people annually worldwide, according to a 2021 Harvard study published in Environmental Research. In contrast, deaths related to nuclear energy are rare.
Regarding those accidents: the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011, in which one worker was killed, was not due to a design flaw at the plant but rather due to a tsunami. The Chernobyl disaster in 1986, which killed about 30 people and injured others, was caused by a faulty Soviet design not used in the West. The Three Mile Island incident in 1979 in Pennsylvania was contained without known fatalities or negative health effects. “We have this aversion to nuclear energy, but I think a lot of the fear is unwarranted,” said Bob Panting, CEO of the Climate Adaptation Center and former NOAA weather service forecaster. “Like most things, we have to make choices between imperfect solutions.”
Role
Nuclear Energy in the United States
Nuclear energy accounts for about 18% of electricity generation in the United States. Natural gas makes up 40%, coal 20%, and renewables, including wind, solar, and hydropower, account for around 21%. The goal is first to retire the coal plants, which are the most polluting, while providing more renewable energy online as quickly as possible. On the current trajectory, it seems that nuclear energy is more likely to decline as part of electricity generation in the United States rather than increase, due to the periodic retirement of large, aging reactors.
However, nuclear plants may be an ideal replacement for coal-burning facilities, as existing infrastructure can serve new pollution-free nuclear plants. Wind and solar farms must be built in sunny and windy locations. But nuclear plants can be located anywhere, and a recent study estimates that cost savings of 15% to 35% could be achieved by converting coal plants to nuclear sites. Three-quarters of coal jobs could be transferred without new licensing requirements.
Small Modular Nuclear Technology
Earlier this year, the U.S. government endorsed a new type of technology known as the small modular reactor, or SMR. Unlike traditional reactors that generate about 1 gigawatt of power on average, enough to power 750,000 homes, SMRs start small and are designed to be modular. The newly approved design, built by NuScale, includes up to 12 reactors, each producing 50 megawatts of power. Another design, still awaiting approval, will include up to six reactors with 77 megawatts each.
One advantage of smaller reactors is the ability to build them in a central factory rather than on-site as is common now. Their size can be scaled up or down as needed to align with renewable energy installation plans and provide any baseload power that may be required as support.
The vision for what can be achieved using SMRs, and even smaller nuclear reactors beyond that, is exciting. Mike Wandler, CEO of L&H Industrial in Gillette, Wyoming, sees an opportunity in commercial reactors that can be deployed by the dozens or hundreds. “L&H makes parts for the largest machines on earth, and we want to get into that supply chain,” he told Yahoo Finance.
If the technology proves viable and regulatory approvals are granted, small reactors could operate for 50 years or more, with regular refueling supplying cleaner energy more efficiently than fossil fuels. “You could have a town, and instead of having a massive power source and losing 30% in the line, you could have 10 or 20 reactors around the town,” Wandler said. “When one is being refueled, you wouldn’t even notice it.”
What’s even more compelling: mobile nuclear reactors that fit into a shipping container could power individual factories, reducing the heavy carbon footprint associated with the energy-intensive production of goods like steel and cement. Any excess energy from the mobile nuclear reactor could be fed back into the grid, supplying power elsewhere. These applications could be particularly beneficial for remote mining operations that aren’t connected to the electrical grid, where diesel fuel usually has to be transported by truck. “Suddenly, you can solve many problems,” Wandler said.
Challenges of New Nuclear Power Designs
However, new nuclear power designs do not seem cost-effective without heavy government support. NuScale recently canceled a pilot project in Utah using SMRs because costs soared and local communities declined to participate, as they would have to pass on the high costs to consumers. SMRs still involve costly engineering, and production has not scaled up enough to make nuclear power competitive with gas, which is considered relatively cheap due to increased production. Renewables are also becoming cheaper, making nuclear power the most expensive among them.
It will be
“This is an evolution, not a revolution,” said Kristy Tizak, the executive director at ClearView Energy Partners for research. “It’s not that small nuclear reactors don’t work, but it’s about the cost compared to other technologies and the licensing arrangement. Nuclear reactors require upfront capital.”
Current Trends in Nuclear Energy
More states are opening the door to nuclear energy as regulators recognize it can play a key role in reducing emissions. The Tennessee Valley Authority, the largest publicly-owned energy company in the country, is exploring the use of SMRs. The clean energy tax credits in the massive 2022 Green Energy Act apply to nuclear power and will help reduce costs. Other experimental projects are moving forward, some funded by the Department of Energy. “It’s an increasingly favorable political environment,” Tizak said.
Retired Admiral Mies is calling for more governmental support beyond tax incentives and research funding. “The only way we can be somewhat successful is if the U.S. government, as the largest electricity buyer, uses its purchasing power to deploy SMRs in federal facilities in sufficient numbers to drive down the cost of SMRs,” he said at a Third Way event last month.
There’s more to the issue than just providing clean, affordable energy for Americans. Many countries are seeking affordable nuclear energy, including those without local technology. Russia is the largest exporter of nuclear energy technology in the world. China is also exporting. Both have lower safety standards than U.S. producers, who claim only 8% of the export market. China is already leading the world in solar energy exports and is ahead of the U.S. in wind technology as well.
Clean energy comes in many forms, and like many countries, the U.S. has yet to keep pace with its emissions reduction ambitions.
Rick Newman is a senior writer at Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Twitter @rickjnewman.
Source: https://www.aol.com/why-more-nuclear-power-192034968.html
Leave a Reply