Thanks for calculating this BUT Nuclear has proven to be:
UNAFFORDABLE
(Always over budget, while Renewables keep dropping in price, even with the addition of better storage)
UNINSURABLE
(In 2013 Canada, PM Harper raised liability limits to $500M - expected settlement of Lac Mégantic rail crash. Who’d pay to move PA NY ON & QC if Three Mile Island had been uncontrolled?)
UNDISPOSABLE
(After 76 years, how do we safely store radioactive
- concrete & steel 10,000 years
- spent fuel 300,000 years)
UNREPLACEABLE
(Nuclear builds worldwide are over budget/bankrupt while Renewable costs fall. SMRs are 2 decades from use.)
UNDEFENDABLE
(Witness the current Russian invasion of Ukraine and pray for military mercy.)
“Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad” (proud!)
~ancient Greeks
-/-
Other interesting calculations would be:
How much Renewable Energy is needed to replace Nuclear Electricity?
Ditto for FossilFuel?
Methinks we are in a quandary IF the CAGW people are correct that CO2 is The cause of worldwide regional ClimateChange.
I enjoyed your essay, Roger. Yes, it is doable, but only if there is the cultural and political will. We still suffer from the propaganda of the 50s and 60s. Big lies often trump reality.
On a lighter note, I smiled after reading your last paragraph. As a species, we will never achieve net zero carbon emissions until we all stop breathing 🙂
I see that the chart title is presented as "net", but what is meant by "net" numbers? I'd assume that for the nuclear power, it is delivered electricity into the grid. For gas, is it gas energy delivered into the reticulation network, or is it truly net energy delivered to consumers (in whatever form that ultimately takes). I.e. if the gas were (say) used for gas fired power stations, residential and industrial boilers, then they are probably only around 30 - 40% efficient (depending on application). I.e. you don't need to replace 1 PJ of gas with 1 PJ of electricity to get the same net output.
Have you made any attempt to address the imbalance between the constant "baseload" supply of nuclear energy (dictated by both safety concerns and economic concerns) with the extremely variable demand for natural gas, especially for space heating? If your analysis is just about the annual totals of supply and demand, I'm afraid it reminds me of the old saw about the economist who walked across a river of 3-foot average depth... and drowned.
As I understand it, newer nuclear power plants have the built in ability to operate in flexible mode using frequency control and load following. Existing nuclear power plants can be modified for flexible operation also.
Thanks for calculating this BUT Nuclear has proven to be:
UNAFFORDABLE
(Always over budget, while Renewables keep dropping in price, even with the addition of better storage)
UNINSURABLE
(In 2013 Canada, PM Harper raised liability limits to $500M - expected settlement of Lac Mégantic rail crash. Who’d pay to move PA NY ON & QC if Three Mile Island had been uncontrolled?)
UNDISPOSABLE
(After 76 years, how do we safely store radioactive
- concrete & steel 10,000 years
- spent fuel 300,000 years)
UNREPLACEABLE
(Nuclear builds worldwide are over budget/bankrupt while Renewable costs fall. SMRs are 2 decades from use.)
UNDEFENDABLE
(Witness the current Russian invasion of Ukraine and pray for military mercy.)
“Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad” (proud!)
~ancient Greeks
-/-
Other interesting calculations would be:
How much Renewable Energy is needed to replace Nuclear Electricity?
Ditto for FossilFuel?
Methinks we are in a quandary IF the CAGW people are correct that CO2 is The cause of worldwide regional ClimateChange.
Part of the problem in Europe, is plans to replace gas with unreliable windmills instead of the sensible and reliable solution of Nuclear power.
I enjoyed your essay, Roger. Yes, it is doable, but only if there is the cultural and political will. We still suffer from the propaganda of the 50s and 60s. Big lies often trump reality.
On a lighter note, I smiled after reading your last paragraph. As a species, we will never achieve net zero carbon emissions until we all stop breathing 🙂
70kWh in the form of petrol give an autonomy of 100 km. For an electric vehicle, the same can be achieved with approx. 20 kWh from the grid.
To replace 300 kWh in the form of natural gas to heat a house, 100 kWh are required from the grid to run a heat pump (with PAC=3).
Are such ratio taken into account in the estimate of what power is needed to decarbonize by electrifying?
I see that the chart title is presented as "net", but what is meant by "net" numbers? I'd assume that for the nuclear power, it is delivered electricity into the grid. For gas, is it gas energy delivered into the reticulation network, or is it truly net energy delivered to consumers (in whatever form that ultimately takes). I.e. if the gas were (say) used for gas fired power stations, residential and industrial boilers, then they are probably only around 30 - 40% efficient (depending on application). I.e. you don't need to replace 1 PJ of gas with 1 PJ of electricity to get the same net output.
Have you made any attempt to address the imbalance between the constant "baseload" supply of nuclear energy (dictated by both safety concerns and economic concerns) with the extremely variable demand for natural gas, especially for space heating? If your analysis is just about the annual totals of supply and demand, I'm afraid it reminds me of the old saw about the economist who walked across a river of 3-foot average depth... and drowned.
Not a real problem. Existing Nuclear generators deal with the Diurnal cycle already. Especially in France which is 70% nuclear.
As I understand it, newer nuclear power plants have the built in ability to operate in flexible mode using frequency control and load following. Existing nuclear power plants can be modified for flexible operation also.
this one; https://grist.org/energy/nuclear-powers-big-new-idea-is-really-small/
Thank you for the link Victor.