In a notable pivot at the COP28 climate talks in Dubai, over 20 nations, led by the United States, have advocated for a substantial increase in nuclear energy. This call to triple nuclear power capacity by 2050 marks a significant shift in the global energy discourse. This shift recognizes nuclear power’s potential for stable and abundant energy production, contrary to the alarmist rhetoric often dominating these discussions.
The endorsement of nuclear power by countries such as the U.S., Japan, and several European nations, as part of their energy strategy, is a refreshing acknowledgment of nuclear energy’s efficiency and reliability. This contrasts sharply with the often impractical and economically burdensome renewable energy alternatives. Of course the call to triple capacity by 2050 is grossly inadequate, but the admission that nuclear is a necessary component of any energy mix is still welcome.
Groups like 350.org, fixated on the risks of nuclear energy, clearly overlook its benefits. Their opposition, rooted in incidents like Fukushima, fails to recognize the advancements in nuclear safety and technology. Their stance seems more a distraction from viable energy solutions than a constructive contribution. Jeff Ordower from 350.org points out,
“we don’t have time to waste on dangerous distractions like nuclear energy.”
https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html
Yawn.
The conference’s emphasis on achieving carbon neutrality often is of course more like a doctrinal narrative than a practical goal. The insistence on moving away from fossil fuels disregards their critical role in current global energy stability and economic prosperity.
The growing acceptance of nuclear energy at COP28 is a positive development, offering a more balanced and realistic approach to global energy needs. This move, however, should not be overshadowed by unsubstantiated fears or the pursuit of unfeasible goals like complete carbon neutrality.
Here is the press release from Energy.gov
At COP28, Countries Launch Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050, Recognizing the Key Role of Nuclear Energy in Reaching Net Zero
DECEMBER 1, 2023
At COP28, Countries Launch Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050, Recognizing the Key Role of Nuclear Energy in Reaching Net Zero
Declaration Recognizes the Key Role of Nuclear Energy in Keeping Within Reach the Goal of Limiting Temperature Rise to 1.5 Degrees Celsius
DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES — During the World Climate Action Summit of the 28th Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change today, more than 20 countries from four continents launched the Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy. The Declaration recognizes the key role of nuclear energy in achieving global net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and keeping the 1.5-degree goal within reach. Core elements of the declaration include working together to advance a goal of tripling nuclear energy capacity globally by 2050 and inviting shareholders of international financial institutions to encourage the inclusion of nuclear energy in energy lending policies. Endorsing countries include the United States, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Ghana, Hungary, Japan, Republic of Korea, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, and United Kingdom. The full text of the Declaration is below.
Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy
02 December 2023
Recognizing the key role of nuclear energy in achieving global net-zero greenhouse gas emissions / carbon neutrality by or around mid-century and in keeping a 1.5°C limit on temperature rise within reach and achieving Sustainable Development Goal 7;
Recognizing the importance of the applications of nuclear science and technology that contribute to monitoring climate change and tackling its impacts, and emphasizing the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in this regard;
Recognizing that nuclear energy is already the second-largest source of clean dispatchable baseload power, with benefits for energy security;
Recognizing that analyses from the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and World Nuclear Association show that global installed nuclear energy capacity must triple by 2050 in order to reach global net-zero emissions by the same year;
Recognizing that analysis from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows nuclear energy approximately tripling its global installed electrical capacity from 2020 to 2050 in the average 1.5°C scenario;
Recognizing that analysis from the International Energy Agency shows nuclear power more than doubling from 2020 to 2050 in global net-zero emissions by 2050 scenarios and shows that decreasing nuclear power would make reaching net zero more difficult and costly;
Recognizing that new nuclear technologies could occupy a small land footprint and can be sited where needed, partner well with renewable energy sources, and have additional flexibilities that support decarbonization beyond the power sector, including hard-to-abate industrial sectors;
Recognizing the IAEA’s activities in supporting its Member States, upon request, to include nuclear power in their national energy planning in a sustainable way that adheres to the highest standards of safety, security, and safeguards and its “Atoms4NetZero” initiative as an opportunity for stakeholders to exchange expertise;
Recognizing the importance of financing for the additional nuclear power capacity needed to keep a 1.5°C limit on temperature rise within reach;
Recognizing the need for high-level political engagement to spur further action on nuclear power;
The Participants in this pledge:
Commit to work together to advance a global aspirational goal of tripling nuclear energy capacity from 2020 by 2050, recognizing the different domestic circumstances of each Participant;
Commit to take domestic actions to ensure nuclear power plants are operated responsibly and in line with the highest standards of safety, sustainability, security, and non-proliferation, and that fuel waste is responsibly managed for the long term;
Commit to mobilize investments in nuclear power, including through innovative financing mechanisms;
Invite shareholders of the World Bank, international financial institutions, and regional development banks to encourage the inclusion of nuclear energy in their organizations’ energy lending policies as needed, and to actively support nuclear power when they have such a mandate, and encourage regional bodies that have the mandate to do so to consider providing financial support to nuclear energy;
Commit to supporting the development and construction of nuclear reactors, such as small modular and other advanced reactors for power generation as well as wider industrial applications for decarbonization, such as for hydrogen or synthetic fuels production;
Recognize the importance of promoting resilient supply chains, including of fuel, for safe and secure technologies used by nuclear power plants over their full life cycles;
Recognize the importance, where technically feasible and economically efficient, of extending the lifetimes of nuclear power plants that operate in line with the highest standards of safety, sustainability, security, and non-proliferation, as appropriate;
Commit to supporting responsible nations looking to explore new civil nuclear deployment under the highest standards of safety, sustainability, security, and non-proliferation;
Welcome and encourage complementary commitments from the private sector, non-governmental organizations, development banks, and financial institutions;
Resolve to review progress towards these commitments on an annual basis on the margins of the COP;
Call on other countries to join this declaration.
###
This is going to ruffle a bunch of feathers…
Also annoyingly an obese Pope calls for others to go without.
Until the US reforms its permitting process, nuclear is not practical.
Not just the US, it’s all the “western” countries too. France got it right during the 1970s energy crisis by choosing one design and building lots of them (I think the number was 21 separate plants). This was probably easier for France because it was done by a publicly owned agency (EdF). Also France is a unitary state and if the government decides to do something, it actually gets done. There’s no reason why governments can’t work the same magic in a private-sector electricity market. If they had the will to do something other than talk. And if they had the will to ignore a well funded anti-nuclear scare campaign that “environmental” non-profits have been waging for 50 years or more.
I blame that 85 year old climate scientist, Fonda.
Don’t forget hr qualifications in Nuclear Engineering (China Syndrome).
It’s hard to come up with a standard nuclear plant design given technical issues that demand widely different design criteria for areas like high seismic design (earthquake prone California), hurricanes and tropical storms, tsunami impacts, tornadoes, heavy snow areas, ocean versus river cooling differences, flood zones, evacuation requirements, security difference issues, nearby population differences, etc , etc.
Seismic and hurricane sound like real problems. The other words might be filler.
The phrase is ‘word salad’.
No, it isn’t. You haven’t a clue what you are talking about.
Any proof? It seemed fairly logical to me.
Salt water vs fresh water for the cooling system?
Really?
Tsunamis, just make the building water tight. Ditto hurricanes.
Earthquake, that’s just a matter of making your building stronger, they’ve been doing that for decades.
There is nothing on that list that’s a problem, much less a major one.
It’s also hard to design and build modern jet airplanes …
(For references, follow the link to Wikipedia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor
(Wikipedia)
Talk about France and Tripling capacity by 2050… If France tripled their nuclear capacity by 2050, they could power much of the EU. Perhaps enough to displace the need for Russian Gas.
Tripling Nuclear? During COP28 in opulent Dubai, Kerry called for the world to triple CO2-free nuclear, from 370,200 MW to about 1,200,000 MW, by 2050.
https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html
Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants
That means, plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.
The additional nuclear would be 11% of total generation in 2050, certainly far from a big deal
While the new nuclear plants are being built, some of the older plants will be retired
The building of the new nuclear plants would require a major increase in infrastructures and educating and training of personnel.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-2022/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2029%2C165.2%20terawatt%20hours,2.3%25%20from%20the%20previous%20year
Existing Nuclear, MW, 2022
370200
Proposed tripling
3
Tripled Nuxlear, MW, 2050
1110600
New Nuclear, MW
740400
MW/reactor
1200
Reactors
617
New Reactors, rounded
620
Reactors/sire
2
Sites
310
New nuclear production, MWh, 2050
5841311760
Conversion factor
1000000
%
New nuclear production, TWh, 2050
5841
11
World total production, TWh, 2050
53000
BATTERIES IN NEW ENGLAND?
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england
Just about every grid operator has made hour-by-hour, or 15 minute-by-15 minute “what if” calculations regarding more and more wind and solar on the grid.
Up to about 10% W/S, most grids can handle the variable, intermittent output, because they have enough reserve capacity of steady electricity sources, including imports from other grids, plus there is demand management, curtailment, etc.
When you get to 20%, things are very dicey. You need more and more storage, but that is unaffordable, even by the folks in Dubai
Only a few countries, such as Germany, Ireland, UK are over 20%, but all of them have connections to grid with hydro plants with huge reservoirs, such as French, Spain, Norway, Sweden.
More and more interconnection with HV DC lines has been the name of the game in Europe
If all these countries go to 25 to 40%, and not have more storage, they will hit the flexibility wall.
All that has been known for some years.
Finally, Brussels/EU has realized, and is admitting, you can’t get “there”, whatever “there” is, without nuclear
So, Kerry calls for a tripling of nuclear by 2050, which is physically undoable.
However, the expanded nuclear would be only 11% of the world total electricity production in 2050, which is grossly inadequate to stay away from the flexibility wall. See Appendix 6
Notably, without any disasters.
This is the only viable way. Despite the constant ponrification on the private sector being more efficient blah-blah, this kind of project, which is very dangerous when done wrong, should be kept in the hands of people responsible at some level of accountability.
The Shareholder has no accountability other than maximising profit. The current accounting paradigm does not allow for wasting investable capital in none-core business, like maintenance and spares.
…and will tripling our nuclear capacity fulfill the world’s need for electricity, or will it only be enough for the 300 million our lord Baal Gates plans to save for his clean, new planet?
“should be kept in the hands of people responsible at some level of accountability”? Like people who report to Biden/Harris now, and next year Newsome/some other female minority?
Oh, I was thinking more of those wonderful capitalist folk who love mankind so much; Soros, Baal Gates, Antonchrist Frauci, Hillary, Pelosi, Nauert…you know, people who understand money? Surely you are not suggesting that Democracy is but a myth perpetrated by tyrants with lots of money?
Just kidding, of course, trying to be agreeable to a guy that thinks anybody reports to Biden or Harris, sock puppets paid to distract you from the real masters of your universe…
It will reform. Renewable energy is proving politically and economically unsustainable. The boondoggle is past its sell-by date and is beginning to stink of corruption.
They have no choice but nuclear.
But notice: Nuclear power by 2050. All-electric cars, cooking, and home heating by 2035. Are the delegates that just agreed on having electricity to run those things in 2050 going to go home and change the other schedules?
NuScale has nuclear regulatory approval for their small scale modular (77 MW) that can be semi-trailer delivered and assembled in two years Permitting isn’t the big issue, yes, the obstructionist greens will use the courts to cause delays. But the major obstacle is the $billions required to get the first plant up and running. NuScale last month lost their only current potential customer.
Tom, the widening interest in nuclear by the Dark Side is driven by two things: a) niggling doubts about the crisis climate meme began to set in during the Dreaded Pause, followed by a horribly failed anomaly forecast made in 1990 that turned out to be 300% too hot by 2005! They really believed in the science until then.
How can we know this? By the desperate shifting shifting of goalposts, by wholesale jiggering of data (earlier, with a belief that business as usual CO2 would cause +5C or more by 2100, there was no need to help the meme along.) Also, the Dreaded Pause and a failed forecast caused a serious career ending neurosis among a large number of climate scientists that known as the Climate Blues.
They rationalized it as caused by seeing Armageddon bearing down on us and no one was listening to them! Actually it’s the well-known garden variety of psychological denial. The patient has ‘what if’ doubts arising that he doesn’t want to acknowledge. Having spent maybe 40yrs or so crusading, 25 -30yrs in school and many yrs in your practice, this is your life. It’s interesting that pushing the truth away can make you sick!
The second reason for Dark Side relenting on nuclear is the unacknowledged recognition among the consensus that their new energy plan is collapsing on all fronts. This is added on to the same fear that their Climate Blues brothers had concerning their ‘science’. Nuclear saving the day would allow them to claim they saved us in the nick of time, even though nothing bad was going to happen anyway.
The stakes are considerable. Trillions have been wasted and there can be no doubt that uncounted millions of casualties have occurred among people at the margin (millions in failed state of Sri Lanka alone) because of policies damaging to the fossil fuel industry, driving terrible inflation, ruining agriculture, shuttering industries, losing jobs… Without nuclear, it will become manifest that the whole thing, ‘The Science’, the meme, the phony New Deal, the politics is all a Big Lie. This round of the Climate Blues will be a doozy.
3×0=0.
Notable absences on the list of supporters- Germany, China, India and Australia.
I am surprised China is not supporting this because they have a solid Nuclear program already producing electricity.
A pivot to nuclear will dishearten manufacturers of wind and solar energy extractors. They were hoping for more “renewable” energy ambition. That is what Australia has put on the table.
Any business reliant on government organised theft from electricity consumers is on shaky ground.
Germany moved away from nuclear because of Fukushima. All those unexpected tidal waves which keep washing across Germany – you can understand the logic…
Not so, John. Germany moved away from nuclear a long time before Fukushima. There was a concerted effort by the KGB to stimulate antinuclear activity in Germany as a means of ensuring that Germany would buy the only product the USSR produced: oil and gas. The infiltration and influencing of German political parties and environmental groups by the KGB started in the early 1970s when it became aware that the Warsaw Pact bloc of nations produced nothing that anyone else wanted except oil and gas.
His success in creating and implementing this Soviet policy was why Yuri Andropov was appointed to be Leonid Brezhnev’s successor. To some extent, antinuclearism in Europe is a creation of the USSR. That’s why they bribed former German Chancellor Gerhardt
Schroeder with chairmanship of Nordstream Gas. This was payoff for his good services in making Germany untenable for nuclear. Traitors are only possible if they get their due.
Germany was massively Green and anti-nuclear long before Fukushima. That was just the excuse.
The anti-nuclear movement has been very successful in Australia there being formidable barriers to its use as it is banned under federal and state laws which is absurd as Australia holds the largest known uranium ore deposit by far (28 percent of world uranium resources) which is exported merrily.
china is only against every other country having nuclear and being energy independent
They act in their national interest – the rest of the world can GFY ala musk.
Russia’s program is much bigger than China’s
Did Russia turn up. They are not playing by the rules.
Russia is building more nuclear power plants than any other country in the world.
Russia does not need an idiot like Kerry to call for “tripling”
Russia showed up decades ago
It is what the West should have been doing instead of building windmills.
Their conversion to nuclear is to free up their gas and oil for export since, as some stated earlier, gas and oil are the only thing produced for which there is a global market.
Coal? world use 8.3 Billion metric tom/y
What on earth was that? Some knee-jerk russophobia?
… what rules? The ones Washington changes without notice, or the ones Brussels sprouts in the dark?
A proposal like this might make too much sense for the COP delegates since they can’t see beyond wind and solar, so nuclear and hydro are out of the question.
What is the biggest untapped hydroelectric site?
Probably in Nepal…
It won’t go down well with the ecofascists as their plan is to destroy capitalism not allow it to continue much as in the same way they don’t care about the environment.
Well at least now they have a plan that can work. There are still some obstacles to overcome: 1The people who hate fossil fuels also hate nukes. 2) What are you going to due withe the spent fuel rods? Right now plants are storing them in pools on site indefinitely.
American plants are as they have never had civilian reprocessing facilities after a federal ban. Other countries have had reprocessing facilities in use for decades and do not have spent fuel rods sitting around in pools.
Wasn’t there suppossed to be a permanent burial site for nuclear waste in NV but the Senator there didn’t want it- and he was the Senate leader.
That’s all true. Today, however, Senator Harry Reid is no longer the Senate leader, or a senator, or in a position to object – having died in 2021.
I liked Reid because he promoted “disclosure” of the UFO issue.
Yuks Mountain. PBS had a documentary called “glow trains”.
NOthing like revealing your extreme bias and ignorance in the name.
Reprocessing is better. Jimmy Carter put the kibosh on that.
We have a world class facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Opening it has nothing to do with safety, it’s entirely politics. No state or community should be forced to accept any complex technological facility. Nearly every other facility is won by the state and community that makes the facility most welcome. States and communities compete to get the tax base and jobs.
An EIS process for alternate sites would require 10 years. We’re locked into Yucca Mountain. Nuclear storage should have been handled the same competitive way that other major projects are awarded, but that’s history. How to get a state and community to want a nuclear storage site? First off, no property taxes in perpetuity within a 50-mile radius. Secondly, a negotiated fee for every pound shipped to the facility paid into the state coffers. It’s in the best economic interest of the USA to maximize nuclear energy so the property tax and storage fees should be paid by the Federal Treasury not the nuclear generating station owners.
Were there spent fuel rods sitting around in pools at Fukushima?
No those would have been sent to the Rokkasho Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Facility in Japan.
Yes, to an extent. It is simpler to store extremely hot rods ‘on site’ because they are then covered bt the same safety regime and do not involve transporting hazardous waste.
But ultimately theyu get transported to a reprocessing site.,
That would imply a level of radiation so low, we can block it with a layer of water?
As I understand it, modern plants produce less waste, in forms re-usable in other applications.
There is even a design for small reactors using the residual metals’ fairly rapid decay to power turbines, and the waste from that is reportedly somewhat benign and easy to handle.
People should be made more familiar with the actual meaning of words like Radio-active and Fission and Radiation. Fear is a natural response to that which we do not understand.
Just imagine how much basic physics we could have taught the general public, with all that money spent on teaching little kids to hate their t*tties.
Blame Jimmy Carter, who pushed a “once through” fuel cycle to “set a good example” for possible weapons proliferation. Which is egregiously silly, as power reactor byproduct plutonium has rather too much Pu 240 to make a stable bomb.
I am deeply ashamed I voted for him.
My plan for nuclear waste.
Try this again – it posted without me ever hitting the Post button.
My plan for nuclear waste.
The stuff that can’t be reprocessed has very short half lives.
Meanwhile in the UK:
quote:””The deal – which Lord Houchen has touted as “completely privately funded” – would see the four mini reactors installed near the mouth of the River Tees.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1841352/uk-us-nuclear-energy-deal
While in a far away place name of “La-La-Land:
quote:””Rishi Sunak has hailed a “massive” investment deal in a UK wind farm from COP28 in Dubai.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1841176/Rishi-Sunak-energy-wind-farm-Dogger-Bank
Tie him to one of the blades until he promises no more of the useless boondoggles.
Only one of them will ever produce electricity.
Only one of them will produce electricity that people can afford, when they need it.
Wind and solar both fail at that.
The recognition of the failure of wind and solar renewables is the biggest immediate impact of this change since it will take years to make any impact with nuclear in is present form. Small nuclear might be more useless in the short term.
Small nuclear will work. And be faster to deploy. I think that Rolls Royce reckon that the time from laying the first concrete to being connected to the grid could be as little as two years, the other 3-4 years are all about the regulatory regime.
SMRs are the sweet spot – small enough to be built in a factory and shipped, small enough not to need active cooling on SCRAM, small enough to be connected to the existing grid near demand centres to minimise impact on the grid. Yet large enough to use standard fuel, and about the size of a standard steam turbine.
I think that initial deployment will come by some large industries that need the power. Data centres that can power themselves and make money exporting surplus electricity – and possibly heat as well. Aluminium smelters.
Remember all this has to happen despite government, not because of it. No one in government has the faintest clue how to actually run a nation.
The necessary action is for government to stop interfering.
Progress. But in my opinion not best. Vogtle 3-4 and the ERF 3g fiasco in Finland both show adavanced 3G nuclear is not ready for prime time economically.
Wherever possible, the interim next 40 year warrantied answer is CCGT.
During this decades, examine all the various 4G proposals, slecect a couple, build them , and wring them out. Then do global 4G after we know what is what.
Premature nuclear is no better than impossible undispatchable renewables.
CCGT would be a good idea except that it’ll never get passed as long as this insane fascination with renewables persists. And I also agree that, due to anti-nuclear campaigns and fear, nuclear designs stalled somewhere around the early 80’s and haven’t advanced to the point where they can be deployed cheaply and commercially. However – unless we start building nuclear plants we will never advance the technology to that point; we have passed the ‘trial and error’ point with nuclear but we still need to build more in order to refine and advance the technology and designs, we can only learn what we need to know by building them now.
The 4 reactors built in Virginia in the early 70s are now licensed for 40 years (2) and 50 years with the added 30 pending (2).
So old technology good for a minimum of 80 years is not good enough?
All the insistence of needing 0 power for shutdown which creates much more expense. Apparently the NuScale reactor design uses a massive amount of concrete for the passive system “water bath” pricing it out of a viable construction cost.
So, add another layer of redundancy for the “electrical” safety systems of the 1970s designs at a much lower cost??
If the US had not had Democrats blocking nukes in the 70s and 80s, and oil and gas for the 90s, 2000 and 2010s and today, the US would have so much “energy” we wouldn’t need to meter homes (charge based of square footage and “efficiency” evaluation) and vehicle fuel costs would be 1/3 to 1/2 of what they are now.
Sorry, 80 years (Surry) and soon to be 80 years (N Anna) for the other 2.
I would expect that, if there is a need and an economic basis for refurbishment and life extension, no nuclear plant need ever be closed of the ones in operation today. With capital investment, they can all be life extended indefinitely.
That is a fairly debatable point. Theseus’ Ship etc. Once you have replaced the steam boilers, the steam turbines and the reactors, what is actually left of the original power plant?
A nuclear reactor has a finite life due to neutron bombardment that gradually changes high grade steel into Swiss cheese…
You are still here even though every single molecule of your body has been replaced multiple times since birth. Your argument is silly.
How would you do that replacement in a nuclear reactor where the parts that need to be replaced and everything around them is highly radioactive? Steam and gas plants can be shut down so workers can walk around inside and replace just the parts that are getting corroded or worn. In a nuke plant that’s been running for decades, all the work has to be done from outside – and with complete certainty that every pipe joint will be good as new and completely sealed before it’s pressure tested, because any leak will be spraying radioactive gas or liquid.
So you don’t do that. You overengineer the design so everything is guaranteed to last a certain time. You keep inspecting everything (that means sending robots or borescope cameras through where people would die if they walked) to make sure nothing is wearing, corroding, or cracking sooner than expected. Consistently good inspection results may allow re-evaluating and extending the life time. But eventually you reach the point where things that cannot be reached to repair are approaching failure, and you have to shut the reactor down.
BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN YOU HAVE TO CLOSE THE PLANT! Just build your new reactor right next to the old one, and move the wires a few feet to hook it up. For most of the nuclear waste from the old reactor, just seal it up where it lies and require the crew running the new reactor to keep watch.
State proof of that happening in nuclear plants!
Otherwise apologize for spreading rumors on this site
As you said, it is old technology, built in the 80’s or early 90’s I imagine. And that is part of the problem, there are far better and cheaper ways to build nuclear power plants today and we are still refining the technology. I don’t advocate scrapping existing, serviceable plants that are still useful but we need more, modern designs.
The early generation Magnox reactors in the UK died from neutron bombardment. They lasted a bit longer than the original estimated 40 years. Current AGRS are due to be phased out after a 40 year life. Modern reactors should be able to do 60 years. They (AGR) are being shut down because they require completely new reactors, and the steam plant they have is not suitable for PWR/BWR style reactors.
The only things they have that are useful are planning permission and reasonable grid connections.
It’s ironic that the coolant used in the UK’s AGRs is carbon dioxide!
Drake, you state, “Apparently the NuScale reactor design uses a massive amount of concrete for the passive system “water bath” pricing it out of a viable construction cost”.
Np one seems to be concerned about the concrete for 15 each 5 MW wind turbines to equal the 77 MW NuScale modular that runs 3 times as often and lasts 3 times longer.
Here in the US the motivation for SMR is to provide a low carbon alternative for those voters who are afraid of CO2. As Richard reports, CCGT’s provide electricity at a fraction of the cost, and will for decades. The shale horizontal drilling and fracking technology destroyed any rational reason to persist with the W&S folly.
The thing is Rud, that while that may work for the USA which is full of gas, us benighted Europeans and the Japanese, to name but two, simply don’t have that option unless we are content to be run by Russia, Qatar or Saudi Arabia.
Nuclear reactors of exactly the same design as those that have been nightmares to complete in Europe are up and running already in the Far East. There is nothing wrong with the technology, everything wrong with the absurd regulatory hoops they are required to jump through.
I thought several European countries had the gas, but outlawed fracking which would make it economical to drill.
The Netherlands has the biggest gas deposit in mainland Europe but it stopped drilling because of extreme subsidence – apparently the rock under the Netherlands is pretty bad for extraction so the choice is either evacuate the whole of the Netherlands and surrounding areas then watch the land sink by several metres or don’t drill. There is gas and oil under the Black Sea shared by Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine but it’s not been fully explored and I think only Ukraine has drilled. There isn’t much.
Joe, In Germany it was ruled illegal to even build a pilot scale technology horizontal drilling/hydraulic fracking project..
Leo, 100% correct but the long construction times in The West need to be avoided because the opponents can force delays and economic destructive regulatory change during construction and commissioning; that’s not going to change. Our only option is cookie cutter identical, one design fits all, factory assembled, semi-trailer delivered, up and running in two years, small scale modular reactors.
“This shift recognizes
nuclear power’s potentialthe failure of wind and solar to produce stable and abundant energy production,contrarywhich has been the alarmist rhetoric often dominating these discussions.”fixed it
The science of nuclear energy has been remarkably consistent over the last century. It’s the so-called ‘settled science’ of Climate Change that’s been all over the map. So, why is this ‘science’ now telling us to triple our nuclear electricity production after decades of fear and loathing? It’s not real science, it’s political science, worthy only of scorn for the political scientists.
Of course, The worst people to run a nation or the world are politicians.
Their only virtue is that they can be sacked, except in Russia, China, the EU, North Korea…
It’s debatable as to whether the politicians actually run any country.
More and more it’s the bureaucrats who run a country, and the way the laws have been written, sacking the is all but impossible.
Please show me one American congressthing so much as slapped on the wrist for any of the crimes against humanity that bunch elected-for-life bureaushitz have perpetrated in the last decade?
Before you insult anyone, first explain Hillary… or just even just J6.
Coming to their senses or realizing the wind and solar scam isn’t viable? I say they (as in the AGW/Marxist cabal) can see the people know the renewable plan has run its’ course and there’s diminishing returns ahead for them. NetZero is a fools plan but going nuclear will still get them closer to their imaginary goal.
If you are an alarmist who says AGW is an existential threat and you don’t support nuclear, you are either disingenuous or a political hack … or both.
Given that few in the AGW crowd support nuclear energy clearly demonstrates to the thinking person that AGW is not an existential threat but just a convenient political position to push a leftist agenda.
Or fundamentally stupid.
Or any combination. or all of the above…
Russia building more nuclear reactors than any other country, IAEA data show
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england
According to the IAEA, a total of 412 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with their total capacity at about 370.2 gigawatts
Russia is building more nuclear reactors that any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The data show a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia. A plant may have up to 4 reactors, usually about 1,200 MW each
Rosatom is doing the most construction of international nuclear power units.
In Egypt, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion is about $6,250/kW, which includes financing by Egypt $5 billion and by Russia $25 billion
That cost is at least 40% less then US/UK/EU
In Turkey, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion is about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom
Rosatom usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems
Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions
They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years
Nuclear do not require counteracting plants, because they can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France
Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and near CO2-free
They have about 0.45 CFs, and last 20 to 25 years
They require a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, plus major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers.
Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.
They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.
If we talk about the Americans and Europeans, they are lagging behind by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.
Russia is a sub-zero winter heck hole of a collapsed empire ruled in the style of a Middle East oil dictatorship. It would be more persuasive to build arguments for nuclear power that don’t flatter Russia.
China, a “country full of stupid people”, is flattering Russia by copying its designs, and so is India
All three have about 3 billion stupid people
Nice strawman you built there, did your handlers teach you the technique.
Kevin said nothing about anyone being stupid. He did talk about Russia being a dictatorship. I notice you had nothing to say about that.
Right now, the “collapsed empire” is destroying the NATO weaponry provided to Ukraine.
Ukraine is running out of younger, experienced people to operate those weapons,
About 40% of the population has left since 2014, the year of the US-financed/instigated, glorious, color coup d’Etat.
The current population, in areas still under Kiev control, is about 22 million, of which 10.6 million are retired and on a pension
The pensions are paid by the EU and US in the form of Ukraine government budget “support”
VanDerLeyden wants 50 billion euro for Ukraine budget “support”, pay, troops, pensions, etc., for the next 5 years, but Hungary and Slovakia say no.
I read many sources
Ukraine had a population of 43 million in 2013, before the Coup d’Etat in 2014, many people went east and west
Now, Kiev controls areas with only about 21 million people, of which 10.7 million are pensioned retirees. This info directly from Ukraine sources, translated to English
Are you paid to distribute Russian propaganda?
It is always good to see wider support for nuclear energy. Coming from these scoundrels it is less satisfying but still helpful. They know they are losing and we are winning. They are desperately trying to find anything that they can hitch their wagons to that will actually work. Don’t get me wrong I don’t think any more of these scoundrels but we need to get busy building nuclear generators, if they can move the plan forward that is a good thing.
Do you worry that they may be setting up an old foe for failure?
I don’t expect much to come of this. The regulatory and litigation situation in the USA is such that major projects of any sort dissuade private investors and the National government is already broke but inflating the costs of everything. Within a few years (12 ?) the debt reckoning will make new initiatives unsupportable.
“More than 20 nations including the United States called for …”
Can a nation call for something? A person can. I don’t think 400 million people can call for anything.
Ah that’s a rookie mistake I’m afraid – you’re confusing the actual population of the countries with the, so-called, ‘leaders’ of those countries who lied, cheated (and stole, probably) in order to get there.
Meanwhile, the European Commission still does not recognize nuclear power as low-carbon energy production and is making France pay fines because it does not have enough wind turbines :
It’s more than 20 years that the French Greens (“helped” by German lobbies and Greens) are working to destroy the nuclear energy production in France and even now that we all can see the German energy ideological desaster they continue to push this suicide, as does the EU commission, obeyed by Macron, who planned to close 14 nuclear power plants just after being elected, and actually closed Fessenheim in 2020.
The irony : the French Nuke strategy (and also its territories which may avoid being further devastated by useless wind turbines) may be saved by the COP28 … against Macron and the EU commitment …
Classic lefty head fake. They promised Reagan border security for amnesty in 1986. Pretty obvious how that worked out.
Nuclear renaissance part XXII: Dying industry needs more money edition
You miss-spelled ‘Renewable’ as Nuclear – we do need that edit button back, don’t we, if only to avoid obvious mistakes like yours.
I see you still can’t tell the difference between government action and market forces.
Well who said COP gathering were ineffectual? Here we have positive proof to the contrary. It only took 28 years of meetings, meeting that host tens of thousands of participants each year for them to come up with this. Sixteen of the near two hundred member countries have concluded, expanding the only energy option that is reliable, safe consistent and none weather dependent. It is discrete occupying the smallest area with the greatest energy output of any controlled energy generating system. It has a power density so overwhelmingly attractive, produces next to zero CO2 the sixteen nations feel it would be beneficial to expand the use of nuclear by 2050.
COP meetings eh, and we all thought they were just a waste of time money and tax payer funded high end living parties in far flung places.
How wrong were we…..?
Munich, Germany had a 16” snowfall
All the solar panels were covered with snow, plus after the snowfall, there was hardly any wind
Going the expensive wind/solar/battery route is a one-way ticket to physical and financial hell
The German people has been soooo screwed, since 2000
Nuclear energy is only pragmatic to the extent that it’s regulations are.
The US regulations have been created by known opponents of the technology who have been appointed to lead the regulation bodies.
LNT and ALARA kneecap the industry and inflate costs. They are based on fever dreams, not science.
LNT = Linear, No Threshold
ALARA = As Low As Reasonably Achievable?
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/alara.html
First time I’ve seen the second.
Winston Churchill may have once observed that Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else.
https://tinyurl.com/4bppu68t
NPR
Sitting where I sit with no influence or insight into what is happening at COP28, I’m guessing that a small number of reasonable rational see-the-light leaders did some behind-the-scenes and come-to-Jesus arm twisting to get this through. Possibly also a promise of money …
“This was our plan all along, but we didn’t believe that the technology was ready … and now that it is we will move forward and invest in nuclear power.”
Take a look at the backboard of the second image (Kerry with his hand pointing to your wallet). This implies “the plan” was hatched months ago and the signage ordered and erected before folks flew in for the party. A scoffer might think this was done to distract from having the party in the land of oil wealth.
Of course it was hatched months ago. It’s impossible to get 20 nations to agree to anything in less time unless the ICBMs have already been launched.
My view is that there have always been cooler heads in favor of nuclear power, but they knew which way the wind was blowing and that it was going to be a long and difficult sale. It’s easier to sell something to someone who already might want it.
J.J. Cale
Hmmmm . . . a noticeable increase in savage, world-wide terrorism + a world-wide increase in the number of nuclear power plants . . . what could possible go wrong with this mix?
What is your proposed solution? Wind+Solar obviously are not going to work. You don’t want nuclear, gas or coal.
What do you want to do? Take a particular country. The UK is a good one because there is so much data instantly available. How are you going to deliver the 30-45GW the country is using now? Or, if you are going to reduce that, how low are you going to take it, and how? And what generating mix will you end up with?
Get serious, make a sensible contribution, stop just throwing off odd snide remarks all the time.
Hah! You should first ask yourself: “What is the postulated problem?”
Fossil fuels have been amply demonstrated to have met mankind’s needs for plentiful, reliable and generally safe energy since before the beginning of the Industrial Age. Claims that fossil fuel-generated CO2 emissions are harmful to Earth’s climate are specious at best . . . there is nowhere near a “preponderance of scientific evidence” to support such alarmism.
Even the postulation that global temperatures are driven to increase by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is easily falsified by paleoclimatology evidence and, more recently, these intervals:
— a 1880-1913 global cooling (a 33-year interval),
— a 1946-1976 global cooling (a 30 year interval),
— a 2004-2023 global warming “pause” (an 8+year interval),
all occurring while atmospheric CO2 continued unabated on its exponentially rising trend since the beginning of the Holocene.
Then too: (a) both NASA and NOAA acknowledge increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been the direct cause of Earth “greening” by some 10-20% over the last 20 or so years, thereby directly increasing the food supply for humans just when it is most needed, and (b) overall global warming is net beneficial to mankind as world-wide excess deaths due to cold are about a factor of 10 higher than are excess deaths due to heat.
With the current use rate and known reserves, the world is estimated to have:
— about 47 years of oil remaining, before it has to begin tapering off use,
— about 51 years of natural gas remaining, before it has to begin tapering off use,
— about 133 years of coal remaining, before it has to begin tapering off use.
— thousands of years of hydropower remaining
With continuing improvements in energy use efficiency, and impossible-to-estimate discoveries of new reserves of the above-mentioned categories of fossil fuels, there will likely be sufficient fossil fuels to meet the world’s current—and even realistic projections of future increasing—energy needs for at least the next 200 or so years.
One currently untapped-but-exploitable fossil fuel source is methane hydrates/clathrates in certain areas of ocean floors:
“There are now thought to be 1,500 to 15,000 billion tons of carbon locked up in hydrates around the world — comparable to the 5,000 billion tons of carbon in all the planet’s oil, gas, and coal. Even though only a fraction of this is mineable, in the United States it has been estimated that exploiting hydrates could bump up that country’s natural gas deposits seven-fold.”
— https://e360.yale.edu/features/the-world-eyes-yet-another-unconventional-source-of-fossil-fuels-methane-hydrates
Given the exponential rate of increase of technology innovation and development seen over just the last 100 years, I have no doubt humanity will be able to smoothly and “cleanly” transitions off fossil fuels as the main source of its energy needs without a panic now to build and untold number nuclear power plants.
It is the height of hubris exhibited by our current generation of “leaders” to claim that continuing use of fossil fuels is an existential threat and/or current catastrophe for mankind . . . that we must drop use of fossil fuels now to “protect” future generations . . . without even being able guess the capabilities of those future generations!
OK, you would carry on using coal and gas and look at hydrates as either a supplement or alternative, in preference to nuclear.
There are arguments on both sides, but its a reasonable position. One understands why people are uneasy about fission as a generation technology.
Have a look at this, one of many, attacks on an electric facility:
Moore County power: Investigators are zeroing in on 2 possible motives centered around extremist behavior in NC power stations attacks, sources say | CNN
A dozen such facilities such as this could be taken off-line in a day by a single individual. A coordinated attack by a terrorist cell could cripple a regional grid in 8 hours of work. Nuclear facilities are extremely difficult to damage.
Except as shown by the Three Mile Island accident, the UK Windscale reactor fire, and the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear power plant disasters, albeit none of these being the result of terrorist attacks.
In whatever world you inhabit, there have never been accidents at non-nuclear powered plants?
As far as Fukushima goes, if your terrorists are capable of causing earthquakes and tsunamis, then whatever happens at nuclear power plants are the least of our worries.
That comment can be taken to be either the logical fallacy of the strawman argument, or as just pure deflection. You can decide which.
All of those attacks are on the plants connection to the grid. Connections that all power plants share.
Anything can be destroyed by terrorists. Nuclear power plants are extremely tough, much tougher than many of the things terrorists are already targeting.
Thank you. I rest my case.
The point is that there are many, many targets that are a lot softer than nuclear power plants.
Resting your case when you are so far behind is your best strategy.
Terrorism is, of course, purely a function of government. This is why Russia has now installed anti-aircraft guns and air defence missiles on the roofs of their nuclear power stations. Luckily, so far, the American missiles have failed to penetrate…
I have been to a nuclear power station, my friend, you and your whole crew ain’t not gettin’ near no nuffin’, without a formal invite and you move every step accompanied by a humourless escort. It would take a government’s usAID to afford the needed long-range weaponry.
“It would take a government’s usAID to afford the needed long-range weaponry.”
Or perhaps just a cruise missile donated by, oh, Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran and smuggled into the US via clandestine power boat, some 54,000 miles of shoreline being available for such along the west coast of the lower 48 states plus that from Texas, around Florida, and up to Maine.
You may have heard of how difficult cruise missiles are to track, let alone shoot down.
And I need not respond to your simplistic statement that “Terrorism is, of course, purely a function of government” since news from around the world clearly falsifies that.
Ok I’ve heard enough. Nurse! He’s not taking his meds again, Nurse.
There have been Nuclear Power Stations in France and Germany during some intense terrorist activities, none were ever targeted. There were Nuclear Power Stations in Russia during the intense Chechen terrorist activities, none were ever targeted. There were Nuclear Power Stations in the UK during the intense IRA terrorist bombing campaigns, none were ever targeted. So why the hell do you suddenly think that if you build some in America, every terrorist from New York to San Francisco and all other place are going to want to attack it? 9/11 certainly never involved attacking Nuclear Power Stations so where did you get this idea from?
“In the early hours of 4 March 2022 the Zaporizhzhia plant in southeastern Ukraine became the first operating civil nuclear power plant to come under armed attack.”
— https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/ukraine-russia-war-and-nuclear-energy.aspx
There’s nothing like meds to restore one’s sense of reality . . . you should try it sometime. 😳
Also . . . ever heard of the phrase: “That was then, this in now.”
Ooops, typo: “That was then, this is now.”
That phrase is usually accompanied with some evidence to demonstrate that now is different from then.
On the other hand, most people with an IQ above room temperature don’t need a demonstration to know how much global terrorism and regional conflicts have changed for the worse over more than two decades since September 11, 2001.
You are so intent on promoting your own nightmare, you don’t even realise how you contradict yourself. You try insult me, then post a link proving the only nuclear power station ever to be attacked, was by Yankee proxies using Yankee weaponry; just like my comment tried to explain to you.
Grow up, stop believing the pictures on your screen, and remember: Don’t believe mutually contradictory things, it will drive you insane. Look at the guys on CNN…
And please stop your hateful stirring against anyone that disagrees with you (we’ve just shown that it includes yourself).
cilo, please provide any facts—even examples—to go with that statement. Particularly the “hateful stirring” part.
IOW, your remote armchair psychoanalysis is worth exactly what I paid to get it.
Russia is a US proxy and is using US weapons?
That was an act of war, committed by the armed forces of Russia, and even they had trouble knocking the plant offline.
The same level of effort would have been enough to knock several fossil fuel plants offline.
Read, and learn, boyo!
https://greenpets.co.za/index.php/en/paranoid-goy/214-bomb-times
cilo,
Nice try, but there’s no way on God’s green earth that I’m going to click on a URL having a domain name of “greenpets.co.za”.
I think you have mistaken me for being a fool.
Even if it is a real site, there’s no way that a site named greenpets is going to have any data worth knowing regarding anything.
I have not heard that cruise missiles are hard to shoot down. Out here in the real world, lots of countries have had a lot of success in shooting them down.
If I had a cruise missile under my control, attacking a nuclear power plant is one of the last places I would attack. A few hundred pounds of high explosives would only knock a small divot out of the containment vessel.
Opinions on the subject, especially from those out in the real world with relevant experience, differ:
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-hard-to-shoot-down-a-cruise-missile
You obviously don’t understand the capability of today’s cruise missiles.
The US Tomahawk cruise missile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile) ) has a “conventional” warhead of 1,000 pounds (450 kg) high explosive or submunition dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or PBXN. It is also capable of carrying a W80 tactical nuclear warhead, with yield of 5 to 150 kilotonnes of TNT, but that warhead has been “retired” from use on this cruise missile.
The Russian Kh-101/-102 cruise missile (https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/kh-101-kh-102/ )
“. . . was developed as a long-range, standoff cruise missile to replace the aging Kh-55 and Kh-555 ALCMs. It travels on a low altitude flight path beneath infrared and radar systems, and its use of radar absorbing composite material makes the missile challenging to detect . . . The Kh-101 carries a conventional 450 kg warhead, and can be equipped with high explosive, penetrating, or cluster/submunition warheads. The Kh-102 reportedly carries a 250 kt nuclear warhead, but some report the warhead could be larger, up to 450 kt.”
A small divot, eh?
Russia is putting anti-aircraft guns on it’s nuclear power plants to protect against American missiles. Really.
Tell me, are there any neurons inside your skull that survived childhood?
Beware of doing something for the wrong reasons, because you might just wind up with a wrong result.
Nice to read,
Recognizing the importance of financing for the additional nuclear power capacity needed to keep a 1.5°C limit on temperature rise within reach;
Recognizing the need for high-level political engagement to spur further action on nuclear power;
Meanwhile, NuScale (NY stock exchange SMR) the only hope for the US to get in on the nuclear renaissance that small modular reactors will bring has lost their only potential customer, Idaho Power, because of cost escalation.
The $200 million of financial support from the Biden Administration was welcome, but even $2 billion may not be enough to save NuScale and their regulatory approved design.
The cost advantage of factory assembled, cookie cutter identical, semi-trailer delivered small scale modulars (77MW) is not captured until the factory is up and running. Getting there will require a serious government infusion of capital together with the same mandates and subsidies that have been showered on wind and solar for decades. Don’t doubt it.
Time for a reality check:
Also according this 2021 WUWT article by Willis Eschenbach,
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/21/the-latest-co2-fantasy/ ,
considering the goal of reducing CO2 emissions of just the United States by 2030 to half of what they were in 2005 via increased use of nuclear power plants only:
“. . . means we need to find sites, do the feasibility studies, get the licenses and the permits, excavate, manufacture, install, test, and commission two 2.25 gigawatt nuclear power plants EVERY WEEK UNTIL 2030, STARTING THIS WEEK.”
Now, let’s scale that up to whole world’s needs for energy up to year 2050.
Hey, any of you COP28 talking heads paying attention???
A bad place to build a nuke plant is close to a 200 year coal reserve.
Large commercial LWR are doing fine. The biggest detergent to new nuke plants is cheap coal and gas when transportation costs are considered.
There are other good reasons to build nuke plants but one is not CO2.
How’s this for an idea on how the US can go nuclear: create a nuclear development agency modeled after the old TVA? Make all nuclear plants under government ownership and site them on military bases to provide power to the base and design in enough surplus capacity to sell to the grid. If it’s under government/military control it can escape much of the onerous regulatory environment and get on line a whole lot faster. AND, we have a 60+ year experience base in operating military reactors.
And the increase in the military budget to do such would be how many extra $trillions?
And you think such spending will get through the totally dysfunctional US Congress?
The lights are slowly coming on in some of the dimmest minds on Earth (i.e. a majority of Western political leaders and bureaucrats). Realizing that nuclear energy is one of the safest, most reliable and enduring sources of electrical energy to power society is a great step forward if only a few decades late coming.
Now if they could catch up on some of their facts everything would be rosy. Facts such as:
The basic problem that you overlooked is that nuclear energy today is the most expensive means of producing electrical power at commercial scale. A recent comprehensive study of the relative costs of electricity per MWh, using the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) accounting approach, by the financial advisory firm Lazard is available for free download at https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ .
I have attached a key summary graph from that study, and it shows that for 2023, a MWh of electricity from a nuclear power plant was about 1.5 times as expensive than one from a coal-fired power plant and about 2.6 times as expensive as one from a natural-gas fired power plant.
Of course, such financial considerations are not issues for bureaucrats and politicians and others that believe money grows on trees or just spills out of printing presses.
The only reason why nuclear power is so expensive is because of the excessive regulations imposed by those who either have an irrational fear of anything nuclear, or who have other agendas.