5333 private links
It’ll take a lot to transition the U.S. off fossil-based energy: money, political will, labor. But a new report shows it won’t take new technological innovation. The study, published in the journal Joule last week, shows U.S. electricity demand can be met with currently available carbon-free tech, like solar panels and wind turbines. And we can do it in just seven years.
GE Renewable Energy has made an agreement with Chicago-based Invenergy, a global clean energy developer and operator, to provide wind turbines for the 1.48 gigawatt North Central Wind Energy Facilities in Oklahoma.
On Thursday, Grant County’s Public Utility District agreed to take a giant leap forward towards ensuring carbon-free energy by 2045.
The utility signed a memorandum of understanding, which establishes a mutual partnership between it, Energy Northwest, and X-energy. //
The reactor has the potential to generate up to 320 megawatts of reliable, carbon-free energy.
Through the TRi Energy Partnership, the parties will evaluate each step of the project and identify the best approach to licensing, permitting, construction, operation, and ownership. //
As Washington state implements the Clean Energy Transformation Act – requiring 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045, new sources of reliable, affordable and emissions-free electricity will be needed across the region," said Brad Sawatzke, Energy Northwest chief executive officer. "Advanced nuclear energy can and should play a vital role in our state's clean energy future: it does not emit greenhouse gases, is available around-the-clock, pairs well with renewables, and provides numerous benefits essential to grid reliability."
Fast neutron reactors to burn up used fuel and breed additional fuel -- sodium or lead cooled
Our little nuclear European play apparently comes slowly but steadily to a happy ending, at least for those supporting the most controversial energy source in the history of the sector.
And that is, because according to a new JRC (Joint Research Center) report, after years of debates and disagreements between EU experts, nuclear power seems to pocket the green investment label. //
EU experts decided that more analysis was needed on the environmental impact of radioactive disposal. So, the commission asked its scientific expert “arm”, JRC to do what it does best. Research and report. And thus it did, coming to the conclusion that: “The analyses did not reveal any science-based evidence that nuclear energy does more harm to human health or to the environment than other electricity production technologies already included in the Taxonomy as activities supporting climate change mitigation”. Moreover, in another passage, JRC compares nuclear power to hydropower and renewable energy resources.
THE NUCLEAR ENERGY OPTION
Professor Emeritus Bernard L. Cohen University of Pittsburgh
Published by Plenum Press, 1990
Forward:
A book of this type must often get into discussions of scientific details. Every effort has been made to keep them as readable as possible for the layperson. The more technical details have been put into Appendixes at the end of the book. These can be ignored by readers with less interest in details. For readers with more interest in these, references are given which can be used as starting points for further reading. Personal inquiries about further information or references are always welcome.
Each chapter is broken up into sections. If a reader is not interested in the subject of a particular section or finds it to be too technical, it can usually be skipped over without loss of continuity.
The Duane Arnold Energy Center in eastern Iowa, the current site of a now-idle nuclear power plant, will soon host a 690-megawatt solar farm. The new solar farm plus storage will replace the single-unit, 615-megawatt nuclear plant, which powered more than 600,000 homes.
Owner NextEra Energy of Florida will build the solar farm across 3,500 acres at and near Duane Arnold in Palo, Linn County. NextEra also intends to include up to 60 megawatts of AC-coupled batteries for power storage.
The project is expected to bring in a $700 million project investment, $41.6 million in tax revenue, and around 300 construction jobs.
NextEra will negotiate leases with landowners in summer 2021 and begin construction in winter 2022. The company intends to have the solar farm online by the end of 2023. ///
3500 acres solar 8/24h vs. 600 acres nuclear 24/7
The No.5 nuclear power unit in Fuqing, southeast Fujian province. China’s first nuclear power unit using Hualong One technology, a domestically developed third-generation reactor design, was connected to the grid and started to generate electricity in November last year. Photo: Xinhua
Companies
- Success of nuclear reactor Hualong One suggests it can compete with wind and solar to drive China’s decarbonisation
- With the first Hualong reactor delivered on schedule, the costs have come down, says Xiamen University’s Lin Boqiang
- China has a clear advantage over European rivals in the sector //
China’s uninterrupted construction of nuclear plants over the past three decades and its well-established supply chain mean it has a clear advantage over European firms, which have struggled to re-establish their supply chains after a two-decade hiatus from building reactors. //
Despite the safety and cost concerns, nuclear power’s potential as a clean source of energy with high supply consistency should not be underestimated, said Pan Chin, chair professor of nuclear engineering at City University of Hong Kong. “Of course, cost is an issue. But if we can ensure nuclear power’s safety and reduce nuclear wastes through technology improvement, we can broaden the public’s acceptance of nuclear power and then its cost can be reduced,” he said.
The UK's Rolls-Royce and Estonia's Fermi Energia have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to study the potential for the deployment of small modular reactors in the Baltic country. The study will cover all aspects of deployment, including grid suitability, cooling, emergency planning, human resources, licensing feasibility, economics and the supply chain.
GE Steam Power announced today that it has designed and manufactured the largest-ever (75-inch) last-stage blade for its Arabelle low-pressure rotor. The blade will enable the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant under construction in Somerset, England to produce 3.2 GWe of CO2 free power, GE said. Once completed, this Arabelle steam turbine will be the most powerful nuclear steam turbine in operation. It was tested at GE's factory in Belfort, France. //
Inserted into a balancing pit specifically designed for large turbines, the 8-meter wide bladed module was rotated at a speed of 1500 revolutions per minute, similar to its future site conditions.
"This major turbine part is a first quarter 2021 milestone for Hinkley Point C achieved on time, despite the pandemic," said Guillaume Callewaert, EDF HPC programme director. "This large component will be delivered to site and support the mechanical and electrical ramp-up phase of our project in the coming months."
Last-stage blades are part of the low-pressure module in a steam turbine generator which converts steam into electricity in a nuclear power plant. Longer blades increase efficiency of a steam turbine and allow to further optimise backpressure, all of which contribute to greater power output from the nuclear power plant, GE Steam Power said.
Nuclear Energy and Global Climate Change are two controversial topics that are rarely debated in a professional or serious manner. Often political agendas take the front seat leaving citizens confused and frustrated. Today’s guest, Walter Horsting, is going to provide insight into the controversial side of these two issues; the side the mass media rarely discusses. He will share with us his views on why 4th generation Nuclear Energy is a positive move for society and why he believes the science shows that global warming is not occurring.
After listening to his talk, it becomes evident that the verdict is not clear on where these issues stand. It is important that we continue to discuss these issues in a professional scientific way to flush out flaws and to figure out where the science really takes us. The truth, no matter how inconvenient, is important for our future. It will enable us to make informed and reasonable decisions.
Scientific Documents and Links on the issues:
Climate Charts and Information:
Whats up with That: https://wattsupwiththat.com/
NoTricksZone: http://notrickszone.com
Ice Age Now: https://www.iceagenow.info/
CO2 the Climate Supriese: http://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/The-Climate-Surprise-CO2C.pdf
JoNova: http://joannenova.com.au/
Climate Depot: http://www.climatedepot.com/
Icecap: http://icecap.us/index.php
4th Nuclear Generation Molten Salt Reactors:
http://www.thoriumenergyworld.com/
http://terrestrialenergy.com/
http://www.thoriumenergycheaperthancoal.com/
http://flibe-energy.com/
When we say that nuclear energy is a key element for sustainable development, we mean that:
- It can meet global demand. The International Energy Agency reports that more than 1 billion people worldwide live without electricity. Without electricity, basic human needs like clean water, food security and educational opportunities are difficult to obtain. Nuclear technology can help bring reliable electricity infrastructure to help improve the health and quality of life for a growing number of communities that live in poverty.
* It protects our climate. In the U.S. alone, nuclear electricity prevents more than 506 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from entering our atmosphere every year. Nuclear facilities also require far less land than most other energy sources. - It is reliable and stable. Unlike intermittent energy sources, nuclear power supply is available 24/7. And when unforeseen events interrupt the energy supply chain, nuclear facilities stay on line to continue providing power to vulnerable populations.
- It is affordable. A comparison study from IAEA found that nuclear power is one of the most affordable sources of electricity worldwide.
- It promotes health and well-being. NASA and Columbia University found that nuclear power may have saved 1.8 million lives that otherwise would have been lost to pollution from emissions worldwide. Nuclear electricity promotes people’s well-being by improving air quality, providing jobs and stimulating economies.
What can get D.C. politicos and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, environmentalists and business leaders, conservatives and liberals, national security experts and celebrities to finally agree?
Clean, reliable nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy provides nearly 20 percent of America’s electricity, all without carbon emissions. It powers and propels our way of life, protecting national security and clean air, providing millions of dollars in economic benefits and a pathway to sustainable development.
That must be why it unites a vast coalition of supporters from both sides of the aisle and across the country.
See what everyone is saying about America’s largest clean energy source.
As the proportion of wind and solar photovoltaics (PV) in an electrical grid extends into the 50-100% range a combination of additional long-distance high voltage transmission, demand management and local storage is required for stability [1, 2]. Pumped Hydro Energy Storage (PHES) constitutes 97% of electricity storage worldwide because of its low cost.
We found about 616,000 potentially feasible PHES sites with storage potential of about 23 million Gigawatt-hours (GWh) by using geographic information system (GIS) analysis. This is about one hundred times greater than required to support a 100% global renewable electricity system. Brownfield sites (existing reservoirs, old mining sites) will be included in a future analysis. //
An approximate guide to storage requirements for 100% renewable electricity, based on analysis for Australia, is 1 Gigawatt (GW) of power per million people with 20 hours of storage, which amounts to 20 GWh per million people [2]. This is for a strongly-connected large-area grid (1 million km2) with good wind and solar resources in a high-energy-use country. Local analysis is required for an individual country. For example, Australia needs about 500 GWh (and has storage potential that is 300 times larger) and the USA needs about 7000 GWh (and has storage potential that is 200 times larger).
Finding PHES sites
Potential sites for off-river PHES are identified using GIS algorithms [4] with defined search criteria. The surveyed latitude range is up to 60 degrees north and 56 degrees south [5]. For each reservoir the following attributes are identified:
- Latitude, longitude, and elevation of the reservoir
- Area of the reservoir (in hectares)
- Water volume of the reservoir (in Gigalitres)
- Length of the dam (in meters)
- Dam wall height (in meters): the maximum height of earth and rock wall; different wall heights will produce different dam and reservoir shapes and volumes
- Volume of rock in the dam wall (in Gigalitres) based on a 3:1 upstream and downstream slopes
- Water-to-rock (W/R) ratio: ratio between volume of the stored water and volume of rock in the dam wall; reservoirs with higher water-to-rock ratio are economically more competitive.
When you hear the words “nuclear energy,” what do you think of? Perhaps an image comes to mind of a nuclear bomb, or a nuclear energy crisis like Chernobyl or Fukushima. If this is your image of nuclear power, you might be surprised to learn that nuclear energy is actually considered one of the most environmentally friendly forms of energy production in the world. With fewer emissions and greater efficiency, there are many pros and cons of nuclear energy to consider. //
On our list of the pros and cons of nuclear energy, this pro is quite astounding. Nuclear fission (the process used to generate nuclear energy) releases much greater amounts of energy than simply burning fossil fuels like gas, oil, or coal. How much more efficient? Nuclear fission is nearly 8,000 times more efficient at producing energy than traditional fossil fuels. That’s a considerable amount of energy density. Because nuclear energy is more efficient, it requires less fuel to power the plant and therefore creates less waste as well.
Our paper focuses specifically on situations in which real-world constraints mean strategic choices must be made on resource allocation between nuclear or renewables-based electricity.
Our research explores this dilemma retrospectively, examining past patterns in the attachments (i.e. investments) of different countries to nuclear or renewable strategies. Our paper addresses three hypotheses:
A “nuclear climate mitigation” hypothesis: that countries with a greater attachment to nuclear power will tend to have lower overall carbon emissions.
A “renewables climate mitigation” hypothesis: that countries with a greater attachment to renewables will tend to have lower overall carbon emissions.
A “crowding out” hypothesis: that countries with a greater attachment to nuclear will tend to have a lesser attachment to renewables, and vice versa.
Across the study countries as a whole we found that the “nuclear climate mitigation” hypothesis is not sustained by the evidence at an appropriate level of statistical significance. The renewable climate mitigation hypothesis is confirmed with substantial significance. And the crowding out hypothesis is also significantly sustained.
Put plainly – if countries want to lower emissions as substantially, rapidly and cost-effectively as possible, they should prioritise support for renewables rather than nuclear power. Pursuit of nuclear strategies risks taking up resources that could be used more effectively and suppressing the uptake of renewable energy.
What might explain these patterns? Technologically, nuclear systems have been prone to greater construction cost overruns, delays, and longer lead times than similarly sized renewable energy projects. Thus, per dollar invested, the modularity of renewables projects offers quicker emissions reductions than large-scale, delay-prone, nuclear projects.
Furthermore, renewables tend to display higher rates of “positive learning” where increased deployment results in lower costs and improved performance, especially for wind farms and solar energy parks. This contrasts with the experience of nuclear power in France which has been prone to “negative learning,” rising costs or reduced performance with the next generation of technology.
In terms of policy, the incidents at Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986), and Fukushima (2011), all resulted in significant tightening of regulatory requirements for nuclear reactors.
All energy sources have negative effects. But they differ enormously in size: as we will see, in all three aspects, fossil fuels are the dirtiest and most dangerous, while nuclear and modern renewable energy sources are vastly safer and cleaner. //
From the perspective of both human health and climate change, it matters less whether we transition to nuclear power or renewable energy, and more that we stop relying on fossil fuels. //
Let’s consider how many deaths each source would cause for an average town of 187,090 people in Europe, which – as I’ve said before – consume one terawatt-hour of electricity per year. Let’s call this town ‘Euroville’.
If Euroville was completely powered by coal we’d expect 25 people to die prematurely every year as a result. Most of these people would die from air pollution). This is how a coal-powered Euroville would compare with towns powered by other energy sources:
Coal: 25 people would die prematurely every year;
Oil: 18 people would die prematurely every year;
Gas: 3 people would die prematurely every year;
Nuclear: In an average year nobody would die. A death rate of 0.07 deaths per terawatt-hour means it would take 14 years before a single person would die. As we will explore later, this might even be an overestimate.
Wind: In an average year nobody would die – it will take 29 years before someone died;
Hydropower: In an average year nobody would die – it will take 42 years before someone died;
Solar: In an average year nobody would die – only every 53 years before someone would died.
Death rates from energy
production per TWh
Death rates are measured based on deaths from
accidents and air pollution per terawatt-hour
(TWh).
Carl-Ake Utterstrom
Mar. 13 07:36 pm JST
Renewable do not have a chance to fill the requirement for electric demand in the future. We need definitely nuclear.
In 2045 the Swedish requirement according to Danish research will be 500 TWh. Wind power have been built for €20 bln and resulted in 17 TWh which means that we need 26 times as much wind power to cover the requirement besides of water power and no nuclear.
The video "planet of the humans" has found out that renewable do require a huge demand of raw material and do have short life lengths and do destroy huge land areas and the operator just leave the area as restoring of nature depends on area owner.
In ten years we built nuclear resulting in 75 TWh output.
In cold weather the installed wind power of 10 000 MW just delivered 1 300 MW. Oh oh was the opinion. But why The Swedish Power Net have in many year informed that the nominal output in summer is 6 percent and in winter 11 percent. That is still 200 MW output less than expected.
For Sweden the amount of 2 MW wind power plants are therefore 91 000. But the main reason is that the yearly demand is 4 550 plants as effect of the low life length. In several years the erection of wind power have resulted in 3 500 plants for €20 bln. .
The waste from wind power is 50 percent higher than the nuclear waste if we calculate 300 wind power plants will give 9 000 m^3 waste while the total acumulated waste from nuclear are 6 000 m^3.
This is waste that never will be environmentally friendly and the epoxi exposures are strongly cancer activating,
In total 41 persons have been killed in nuclear accidents mainly Tjernobyl where the actual radiation is 800 mSv where still 200 persons live within restricted area. The worst radiation in Fukushima is yeardoses of 120 mSv which means one percent higher risk for lungcancer. A university in Ukraine have developed a unit for measuring the accumulated radiation an astronaut will be exposed for 350 mSv which according to the University increase the risk for lungcancer with three percent.
Norwegian Nuclear workers where evacuated with special chartred air transport to Norway as effect of the accident pity they landed in higher background radiation in Norway and Norway have had quite less deaths in Corona than Sweden. In India highly populated areas do have 200 mSv in background radiation.
In the face of climate change, some environmentalists are fighting not to close power plants but to save them.