Sunday, March 29, 2009

Nuclear Power: An Indispensable Climate Change Solution

I asked Edward Geist of Blogging About the Unthinkable for permission to cross post this post from his excellent blog. Geist is a graduate student who has limited time to blog, but when he does find time, his blogging is of very high quality. My interest is obvious, I have targeted Romm's grandiose renewable ideas on a number of occasions, as well as his misinformation on both renewables and his disinformation on nuclear energy. This post does an excellent job of pointing out flaws in Romm's thinking.

Nuclear Power: An Indispensable Climate Change Solution
By Edward Geist

Joe Romm clarifies his position on nuclear power:
Why not more than 1 total wedge of nuclear? Based on a post last year on the Keystone report, to do this by 2050 would require adding globally, an average of 17 plants each year, while building an average of 9 plants a year to replace those that will be retired, for a total of one nuclear plant every two weeks for four decades — plus 10 Yucca Mountains to store the waste. I also doubt it will be among the cheaper options. And the uranium supply and non-proliferation issues for even that scale of deployment are quite serious. See “An introduction to nuclear power.”

Note to all: Do I want to build all those nuclear plants. No. Do I think we could do it without all those nuclear plants. Definitely. Therefore, should I be quoted as saying we “must” build all those nuclear plants, as the Drudge Report has, or even that I propose building all those plants? No. Do I think we will have to swallow a bunch of nuclear plants as part of the grand bargain to make this all possible and that other countries will build most of these? I have no doubt. So it stays in “the solution” for now.
Romm's take on nuclear power is not particularlywell-informed, as I've discussed in the past. But examining its limited role in his proposed solution reveals that Romm has not seriously considered the physical limitations associated with his preferred energy options. For political, geographical, and practical reasons, nuclear power must ultimately play a vastly larger role in our energy future than predicted by Romm.

Romm describes his preferred future energy mix as follows:
1 of wind for power — one million large (2 MW peak) wind turbines
1 of wind for vehicles –another 2000 GW wind. Most cars must be plug-in hybrids or pure electric vehicles.
3 of concentrated solar thermal (aka solar baseload)– ~5000 GW peak.
3 of efficiency — one each for buildings, industry, and cogeneration/heat-recovery for a total of 15 to 20 million GW-hrs. A key strategy for reducing direct fossil fuel use for heating buildings (while also reducing air conditioning energy) is geothermal heat pumps.
1 of solar photovoltaics — 2000 GW peak
1/2 wedge of nuclear power– 350 GW
What's wrong with this picture?

4000 GW wind, 5000 GW solar thermal, 2000 GW solar photovoltaic. This is an increase of two orders of magnitude for wind and three for both types of solar. I notice that the capacity factor assumptions implied by Romm are quite high. Wind turbines are now a fairly mature technology, so its economics are increasingly apparent, but the costs solar thermal and solar photovoltaic are still unclear. But for the sake of argument I'm willing to grant Romm that maybe in 2050 these technologies will be cost-competitive. The important thing is that the qualitative limitations of these sources of energy go far beyond cost. With the possible exception of a handful of exceptionally well-endowed nations, investment in solar and wind can NEVER assure energy security.

Solar and wind generators depends on the ambient energy resources available in the locations where they are installed. There is, of course, no place on earth where the sun shines all the time, and not many where the wind always blows. So these are intermittent resources by nature. But some countries are better-endowed than others. Imagine, if you will, a future world of 2050 with the energy supply specified by Romm. Some nations, such as Russia, would be unable to meet their own generation needs through wind and solar power. They could import electricity from abroad, but they would have to compete with other markets such as India and China for it. Not only would this make energy expensive, but it would also place Russia at the mercy of its energy suppliers. Hostile states could cripple Russia's economy by interrupting its energy supplies. States exporting renewable energy would also have substantial incentive to underproduce to both encourage uncertainty and raise energy prices. There would be little incentive to produce enough energy for the have-nots, especially since electricity transmission would make them largely captive markets, unlike present-day oil importers. Countries without abundant renewable energy resources would therefore have a desperate need for more secure energy supplies.

Hence the reason why nuclear energy is likely to dominate our energy future. Because relatively few nations have the renewable resources needed to support their economies themselves (just how many depends on how these technologies develop), the most logical step for them to take to secure their post-carbon energy security is to invest in nuclear energy infrastructure. They would have every reason to doubt that other countries would build the infrastructure needed to provide them with affordable and reliable energy, as it would be in those states' interest to underfulfill their needs. Even in a world where renewable energy technology could fulfill all of the world's energy needs affordably, geographic realities would make nuclear power more attractive.

I do not actually believe that wind and solar power are cheaper than nuclear, but my point is that the barriers to a world powered by solar and wind are not merely technological, but geographical, political and economic. I do not expect that solar thermal electricity will cost less than nuclear electricity in 2050, but even if it did this would not translate into energy security for most of the world. Only the provision of non-intermittent energy sources with the ability to store months' or years' worth of energy will secure the interests of these nations. And nuclear power fits these requirements.

In 2050, I expect there to be far more than 350-700 GW of new nuclear plants in operation. In fact, I would not be surprised by 5000-6000 GW of new nuclear by this point. Most of this will probably consist of mass-produced Generation IV reactors, including ALMRs, PBMRs, and various kinds of MSRs. Not only can these technologies replace fossil-fuel electrical generation anywhere on earth at reasonable cost, but they also allow nations to stockpile decades or even centuries worth of fuel--meaning that even a war or natural catastrophe could potentially have minimal effect on energy production.

The real-world alternative to this is NOT an idealistic future of cooperation, windmills, and solar panels. It is a dystopian nightmare where most of the world continues to burn coal because they lack the ability to domestically produce or import environmentally benign energy. It is a world wracked by war, catastrophe, and want. Even if the myriad technological problems of renewable energy were solved, the simple geographic fact remains that some nations lack sufficient energy resources, be they oil, gas, sunshine, or wind. For this reason, nuclear power is indispensable for averting climate catastrophe. Those who pretend otherwise, such as Romm, are fooling themselves.

Note: I commented on Edwatd's original post:
What is most amazing about Joe Romm's plan is his utter disregard for cost. Reported costs for wind installations last year ran from $2200 to $2800 per kW, with 2009 estimates running as high as $3000 per kW. Four million MWs of wind generating capacity would run to $12 trillion. That is without storage.

The current cost of ST facilities without storage runs to $4000 per kW. 5000 GWs of St power would cost $20 trillion, again without storage.

Geothermal heat pumps are too expensive for more householders to afford, but probably would work for industrial and commercial buildings. Air Source heat pumps work better for residences.

God only knows how much the PVs will cost. So we get a price tag on Joe's energy plan of $40 trillion or so dollars, without assured 24 hour a day electrical reliability. Is that crazy or what?


abetterenergyplan said...

great article. thanks for attempting to dispell the fabrications of a save-all renewables revolution. It obviously work. Love your blog and your por- nuclear stance. keep it up!!!

Anonymous said...

Neophobia, Cainophobia, Cainotophobia, Cenophobia, Centophobia, Kainolophobia, Kainophobia - An abnormal and persistent fear of anything new including new things, ideas or situations, of novelty.

Technophobia - fear of technology.

Radiophobia – from fear of radioactivity or X-rays to a general opposition to the use of nuclear energy.

In the general course of wide-ranging discussions with certain environmentalists, it sometimes becomes apparent that a logical argument does not bear upon the subject at hand. The thought that passes through ones mind is that the other party in the discussion is unreasonable in the extreme. In the vernacular the thought is expressed as follows: “This guy must be nuts”.

In point of fact, this conclusion might be true. I propose a theory which postulates that those individuals that suffer from various forms of neuroses and psychosis gravitate toward the more extreme and stubborn manifestations of the environmental movement.

The proclivity to reject modern technical solutions to pressing environmental problems in favor of reworked and upgraded applications of the classic aboriginal approaches centered on earth, wind, sun and water might be a projection a deep rooted fears into their system of problem solving.

For example, at the extreme edge of this pathology is the Unabomber: Theodore (Ted) John Kaczynski. His manifesto: “Industrial Society and Its Future”, begins with Kaczynski's assertion that "the Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.”

The first sections of the text are devoted to psychological analysis of various groups—primarily progressives and scientists—and of the psychological consequences for the individual and his life within the "industrial-technological system".

The later sections speculate about the future evolution of this system, arguing that it will inevitably lead to the end of human freedom, calling for a "revolution against technology", and attempting to indicate how that might be accomplished.

As his psychosis grows deeper, he moves into a remote 10 foot by 12 plywood shack he builds himself in Lincoln, Montana where he lives a simple monastic life of self denial on very little money, without electricity or running water. When needed, Kaczynski works odd jobs and receives financial support from his family, which he uses to purchase his land and, without their knowledge, would later use to fund his bombing campaign.

Kaczynski's pathological fantasies drove him to move out to a secluded and God forsaken place and become self-sufficient so that he could live autonomously. He began to teach himself survival skills such as tracking, edible plant identification, and how to utilize primitive technologies such as bow drills in preference to matches.

However, he quickly realized he cannot escape the modern world and that it was not possible for him to live the way he wants. He watches the wild land around him get destroyed by development and industry.

In reaction, he performed isolated acts of monkey wrenching initially, targeted at the developments near his cabin. The ultimate catalyst which drove him to begin his campaign of bombings was when he went out for a walk to one of his favorite wild spots and it had been destroyed and replaced with a road.

When faced with this breed of mindset; be it not as extreme as that of the Unabomber, but more cunning and subversive and increasingly more highly placed; how can rational men proceed?

The affairs of modern man are being increasingly subverted by neurotic irrationality. The progressive arguments that demonstrate quantitative value are not effective against a pathology that minimizes a clear path forward in favor of illusory protection offered by archaic and primordial ways and means.

Is it conceivable that these nuvo- anarcho-primitivists fearing destruction of their fanciful illusions of the wild and untamed wilderness are striking out and “monkey wrenching” modern society to obstruct and undermine development and industry.

A very disturbing manifestation of this perverted philosophy is “Earth Hour” where the catch phrase is “through a switch to save the earth”. Over one billion people all over the earth are expected to respond to this perverted propaganda. If they only realized and fully grasped the malevolent foundations of this campaign and the disastrous results implied it its progression and the ill intentions of the neurotic men that purvey it.


Charles Barton said...

So Axil is what you are trying to tell us is that Ted Kaczynski = Joe Romm = William Adama = Google energy solutions?

Anonymous said...

An Isomorphic polymorphism.


Anonymous said...

“This guy must be nuts”.

Yes, Axil.

People like Romm are nuts. Contra Kaczynski, they are perfectly functional as individuals in society but their ideas, their value systems, their "worldviews" are stone cold nuts.

As I read elsewhere, nucleophobia, or radiophobia if you will, is to the left what creationism is to the right.

- Friakel Wippans


Blog Archive

Some neat videos

Nuclear Advocacy Webring
Ring Owner: Nuclear is Our Future Site: Nuclear is Our Future
Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet
Get Your Free Web Ring
Dr. Joe Bonometti speaking on thorium/LFTR technology at Georgia Tech David LeBlanc on LFTR/MSR technology Robert Hargraves on AIM High