nuclear undone
  • blog
  • about
  • contact

undo your thinking

listen to the facts

absorb new ideas

Climate change a hot topic at the ANS opening plenary

11/11/2013

14 Comments

 
The American Nuclear Society (ANS) Winter Meeting in Washington, DC, is underway with the opening plenary this morning featuring prominent speakers from  industry, government, and congress (former). A common topic between some of the speakers has been climate change, which is surprising because the ANS has traditionally not addressed the issue of climate change because we are a technical organization for nuclear technology, and do not research climate science. However, many ANS members strongly believe that nuclear energy needs to be a large part of the energy mix in order to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Picture
The opening plenary featured current U.S. Secretary of Energy, Ernest Moniz (pictured above), who outlined the President's action plan for addressing climate change. The three pillars of his plan are mitigation, adaptation, and international cooperation. Most notably, the plan is based entirely on existing authorities and not new legislation. This means that organizations within the government can use their current authority to institute rules or procedures to achieve the goals in the climate action plan. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making rules for power plants that include carbon capture. Also speaking in the opening plenary, James Rogers, the board chairman of Duke Energy (one of the largest nuclear power plant operators), has a different opinion. He states that addressing climate change should be the role of Congress and not the EPA and that new climate change and energy legislation is needed.

The American Nuclear Society recently issued a policy statement on Nuclear Energy's Role in Climate Change Policy which states:
"While the science of climate change is still maturing, the risks presented by rising temperatures across the globe are sufficiently large to justify enactment of policies at the national and international level."
Secretary Moniz cautions against usithe statement that the science of climate change is still maturing. We do not want to devalue the science that does exist and we need to make the point that actions on mitigating climate change need to happen now. Moniz also states that there is not one magic solution to meeting our energy needs and that we must take an "all of the above" approach. Low-carbon solutions will be different across the world and different in regions across the United States. What works for one area, like solar in the Southwest, will not necessarily work in other regions. The ANS also agrees that nuclear energy is not the solution, but rather that nuclear energy needs to be included in the energy mix in order to effectively mitigate climate change.

Do you think new legislation is needed to address climate change in the United States or are existing authorities (e.g. EPA rules) enough?
14 Comments
Jim Van Zandt
11/13/2013 01:22:31 am

I think legislation is definitely needed, to fund development of next-generation nuclear energy approaches, and to align economic incentives with the actual need (to reduce greenhouse gas emissions) rather than support for ethanol fuel and wind energy that pretend to fight climate change but are mainly aimed elsewhere (corn price supports and encouraging use of natural gas for power generation).

Reply
Lenka Kollar link
11/18/2013 05:30:35 am

As we have seen in the past couple of months,Congress is not very willing to work together. Should someone even try to pass legislation for climate change including nuclear?

Reply
Bas
11/13/2013 04:56:01 pm

Why not implement a speedy version of the German Energiewende?

As that will throttle CO2 much faster, with far less risks as well as less capital investment! And it will not add more heat to the planet, while nuclear does a lot, speeding up it warming.

Reply
david
11/14/2013 10:27:33 pm

Energiewende is the last direction the US should be going. I heard a talk by a German getting his PHd in Germany in renewable technologies and when he talked about the Energiewende he could not stop mentioning increasing costs. We more build more nuclear power like France, but we should manufacture SMRs to create cost-savings by utilizing series manufacturing advantages. A technology that is millions of times more energy dense than anything else will always be inherently superior to weak and intermittent renewables.

Reply
Bas
11/15/2013 07:13:42 am

David,
A nuclear power plant (NPP) needs ~1m2 land to produce 1KW.

Rooftop solar does not take land at all. It is enough that 50% of the houses cover their roof with PV-panels, to produce all electricity the country needs! So infinite more dense!

Offshore wind turbine doesn't use land either. So infinite more dense!

An 8MW onshore wind turbine takes about 100m2. Add 300m2 for the access road (mostly not needed as next to the road). That implies a power density of 20KW/m2. About 20 times more than a NPP!

So power density of renewable is superior!
____________________
The Energiewende creates substantial more jobs in Germany. Most German economists think that that is one of the reasons German economy does far better than that of nuclear countries such as France, etc. etc.

So France now decided a new target: 50% of the electricity generated by nuclear in 2025 (now ~70% is nuclear)!

NPP's, also the first SMR's, take ~10years to build. In 2023 PV-panel electricity will cost less than half of the present price (then ~$60/MWh, price going down). While electricity of new NPP will cost more than $120/MWh (even if SMR is involved)!
Only the big liability subsidies as well as other subsidies keep NPP's alive.

Reply
Bas
11/15/2013 07:14:52 am

David,
A nuclear power plant (NPP) needs ~1m2 land to produce 1KW.

Rooftop solar does not take land at all. It is enough that 50% of the houses cover their roof with PV-panels, to produce all electricity the country needs! So infinite more dense!

Offshore wind turbine doesn't use land either. So infinite more dense!

An 8MW onshore wind turbine takes about 100m2. Add 300m2 for the access road (mostly not needed as next to the road). That implies a power density of 20KW/m2. About 20 times more than a NPP!

So power density of renewable is superior!
------
The Energiewende creates substantial more jobs in Germany. Most German economists think that that is one of the reasons German economy does far better than that of nuclear countries such as France, etc. etc.

So France now decided a new target: 50% of the electricity generated by nuclear in 2025 (now ~70% is nuclear)!

NPP's, also the first SMR's, take ~10years to build. In 2023 PV-panel electricity will cost less than half of the present price (then ~$60/MWh, price going down). While electricity of new NPP will cost more than $120/MWh (even if SMR is involved)!
Only the big liability subsidies as well as other subsidies keep NPP's alive.

Reply
Bas
11/15/2013 07:16:40 am

David,
A nuclear power plant (NPP) needs ~1m2 land to produce 1KW.

Rooftop solar no land at all. It is enough that 50% of the houses cover their roof with PV-panels, to produce all electricity the country needs! So infinite more dense!

Offshore wind turbine doesn't use land either. So infinite more dense!

An 8MW onshore wind turbine takes about 100m2. Add 300m2 for the access road (mostly not needed as next to the road). That implies a power density of 20KW/m2. About 20 times more than a NPP!

So power density of renewable is superior!
------
The Energiewende creates substantial more jobs in Germany. Most German economists think that that is one of the reasons German economy does far better than that of nuclear countries such as France, etc. etc.

So France now decided a new target: 50% of the electricity generated by nuclear in 2025 (now ~70% is nuclear)!

NPP's, also the first SMR's, take ~10years to build. In 2023 PV-panel electricity will cost less than half of the present price (then ~$60/MWh, price going down). While electricity of new NPP will cost more than $120/MWh (even if SMR is involved)!
Only the big liability subsidies as well as other subsidies keep NPP's alive.

Reply
Bas
11/15/2013 07:18:59 am

David,
A nuclear power plant (NPP) needs ~1m2 land to produce 1KW.

Rooftop solar no land at all. It is enough that 50% of the houses cover their roof with panels, to produce all electricity the country needs! So infinite more dense!

Offshore wind turbine doesn't use land either. So infinite more dense!

An 8MW onshore wind turbine takes about 100m2. Add 300m2 for the access road (mostly not needed as next to the road). That implies a power density of 20KW/m2. About 20 times more than a NPP!

So power density of renewable is superior!
------
The Energiewende creates substantial more jobs in Germany. Most German economists think that that is one of the reasons German economy does far better than that of nuclear countries such as France, etc. etc.

So France now decided a new target: 50% of the electricity generated by nuclear in 2025 (now ~70% is nuclear)!

Nuclear power plants, take ~10years to build. In 2023 PV-panel electricity will cost less than half of the present price (then ~$60/MWh, price going down). While electricity of new NPP will cost more than $120/MWh!
Only the big liability subsidies as well as other subsidies keep NPP's alive.

Reply
Bas
11/15/2013 07:22:37 am

David,
A nuclear power plant (NPP) needs ~1m2 land to produce 1KW.

Rooftop solar no land at all. It is enough that 50% of the houses cover their roof with panels, to produce all electricity the country needs! So infinite more dense!

Offshore wind turbine doesn't use land either. So infinite more dense!

An 8MW onshore wind turbine takes about 100m2. Add 300m2 for the access road (mostly not needed as next to the road). That implies a power density of 20KW/m2. About 20 times more than a NPP!

So power density of renewable is superior!
------
The Energiewende creates substantial more jobs in Germany. Most German economists think that that is one of the reasons German economy does far better than that of nuclear countries such as France, etc. etc.

So France now decided a new target: 50% of the electricity generated by nuclear in 2025 (now ~70% is nuclear)!

Nuclear power plants, take ~10years to build. In 2023 solar electricity will cost less than half of the present price (then ~$60/MWh, price going down). While electricity of new NPP will cost more than $120/MWh!
Only the big liability subsidies as well as other subsidies keep NPP's alive.

Reply
Lenka Kollar link
11/18/2013 05:28:25 am

Hi Bas. I strongly believe that we do need a comprehensive approach to meet our energy needs. Wind and solar energy make sense in some regions, but not all. As is the case for nuclear.

My parents have solar panels on their house in Florida, which makes sense. They are able to power their home during the day and sell back extra to the grid. However, it would not have been economic for them to buy and install the solar panels without government subsidies.

Engineer-Poet link
11/15/2013 08:08:46 am

I'm the author of The Ergosphere blog and a contributor to The Oil Drum (now archived for posterity).

There is a great deal that could be done with nuclear power to address climate change. The electric power sector is more or less taken care of with existing technology, but it accounts for less than half of carbon emissions world-wide. De-carbonizing other sectors requires solutions for space heat, industrial process heat, and a host of other applications currently served by the combustion of coal, oil and natural gas.

Innovative solutions might help increase the pace of de-carbonization (and we have NO time to waste). For instance, if small modular reactors cooled by atmospheric-pressure liquids (like sodium or molten lead) can be made cheap enough, they might be used as direct replacements for coal-fired boilers in existing power, chemical and industrial plants. Today's water-cooled reactors are limited to 300 degrees C or so, but liquid lead is a fine coolant far beyond the 700 C temperatures of ultra-supercritical steam plants. The TRISO fuel used in the lead-cooled LEADIR concept holds its integrity to the boiling point of lead, and beyond. This suggests one way to replace a coal-fired boiler with a comparatively tiny reactor or set of reactors... and it's just one of many ideas, likely far from the best.

We need to get the ideologues* and regulators out of the way and let the scientists and engineers get back to knowledge-gathering and problem-solving. And above all, make it FUN to be a nuke again.

* Bas Gresnigt (posting here as Bas) is an ideologue. He is utterly impervious to facts and reason.

Reply
Lenka Kollar link
11/18/2013 05:24:37 am

It is fun to be a nuke! We have very unique challenges ahead of us and have the tools to solve them.

Reply
Eino
11/24/2013 09:07:13 am

There's no doubt that eventually they are going to have to build more nukes. New coal plants have already been killed in the US by the EPA. Windmills won't do it. Solar won't do it. They are like a promise to the native Americans, as long as the sun shines and the wind blows. The promise didn't help the Lakota keep the Black Hills and Solar and Wind will not provide adequate energy. Gas will be good for a short time, but we'll suck it all right out of the ground.

I've been reading about LFTRs. Energy from the sands of the Earth. There are said to be as many grains of sand on the Earth as stars in the sky. LFTRs may be an energy gift to us all. (Or maybe not)

Anyway, it's got to be Nukes to keep the beer cold.

It seems like nobody ever questions that it takes, say, 10 or 12 years to build a nuclear plant. I don't think it used to. Look at the history of the Monticello Nuke Plant. It was commissioned in 1966 and began operating in 1970. Was the World War II generation that much more hard working than the folks of today that they could get these things built so much faster? Just think, they had very primitive computers compared to what we have today. They used lead pencils and typewriters. I think the reason these plants began to take so long to build was that changes occurred while they were building them. Well, they've built quite a few of these now. Perhaps the plans on the drawing board could remain more stagnant as they are being built. Maybe, when it comes to building Nukes we could "Plan our Work & Work our Plan." & Get r done in less than 12 years. I think 4 years is a realistic target. It's been done before.

Reply
Lenka Kollar link
11/26/2013 08:27:17 am

It takes a long time to build nuclear plants right now because many of the components are manufactured abroad and regulations are more strict. Many of the people experienced in nuclear construction have also retired since it was booming in the 70s. I think and I hope that we can get back to the quick construction of plants that once was.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Picture

    Archives

    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    August 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013

    Categories

    All
    American Nuclear Society
    Climate Change
    Diversity In Stem
    Energy
    Environmentalists
    Fuel Cycle
    I'm A Nuke
    International
    IYNC
    Navy
    Nonproliferation
    Nuclear Energy
    Nuclear Energy
    Nuclear Engineers
    Nuclear Technology
    Policy
    Radiation
    Reactors
    Science Education
    Sustainability
    UAE
    Women In Engineering

    RSS Feed


    Follow on Bloglovin
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photos used under Creative Commons from Idaho National Laboratory, Jim.Richmond, Idaho National Laboratory, IAEA Imagebank