Sunday, June 7, 2015

An alternative analysis and timeline as requested by John Quiggin

this article grabbed my attention and a very brief twitter conversation between two different people sparked me to run to the closet, grab harness, gear up and charge. It's time for another couple of hours of mental exercise.

It was written by John Quiggin, a Professor no less, and he has challenged people to provide an alternative analysis and timeline regarding a possible implementation of nuclear energy in Australia. I'm going to widen the scope since this issue will be facing us all in the near future. Now who am I to oppose the views presented by John? A nobody!!! zero certifications, no accolades, nothing.

I will kick off by making a few assertions :
  • Reality will dictate what we [need to] do, economics and politics have to adapt
  • The energy demand will go up
  • Stress on water will go up
  • We are going to have a mass transition of fossil fuelled transportation to electrified transportation, putting more stress on energy generation and shifting the burden
More importantly reality will be this :
  • The absolute necessity of seriously mitigating [carbon] emissions to stave of the Anthropocene Mass Extinction
The basic question is : "What use will economics and politics be if they fail at restoring the biosphere that sustains life on Earth?"

And a nice quote from someone who tried to remind me of something "Reality always bats last". I think this paradigm has to and will change eventually.

John Quiggin is a professor at the university of Queensland and I have to admit that some very good and impressive work is being done at this University and I especially applaud them for an on-going series of videos they make available to the general public : UQx Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science Denial. I absolutely recommend watching these video's, they are put together very well and contain a wealth of knowledge.

Now let's hold the feet of this issue to the fire shall we? Nuclear energy has to be put into the context of worldly energy consumption.

The US Energy Information Administration annually produces International Energy Outlooks. Now these are pretty interesting because they gives u a yardstick on what we could expect in regards to energy consumption in the future. The extrapolations might come true, they might not come true, but in order to secure the future we have to make projections, not to be caught off guard.

"Total world energy use rises from 524 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) in 2010 to 630 quadrillion Btu in 2020 and to 820 quadrillion Btu in 2040 (figure 1)"

 
 
In 2009 the EIA predicted that energy consumption in 2020 would be 596 Quadrillion Btu, this has risen to 630 Quadrillion Btu in 2013. A rise of 34 Quadrillion Btu predicted at the same time in the future over a four year timespan. So far my second assertion is holding up.
 
let's wave a magic wand and suppose that everything we do has been electrified in 2040, we do not burn anything anymore. The EIA predicts that we would need 820 Quadrillion Btu to satiate the demand.
 
Since the EIA is an American administration I suppose that they use the short-scale quadrillion, which is 1.000.000.000.000.000 This gives me the stupefying number of 820.000.000.000.000.000 Btu of energy required by 2040. And it is even possible that it will be far more than that. But i'll settle for 820 Quadrillion Btu. How much TWh would this be?
  • 820 Quadrillion Btu = 240.318 TWh (I cheated by using a conversion tool.)
Let's have a look at the average production per unit
  • A nuclear power plant @ 862 MW / 90% generates 6.8 TWh in a year
  • A coal-fired power plant @ 750 MW / 60% generates 3.94 TWh in a year
  • A wind turbine @ 5 MW / 35% generates 0.01534 TWh in a year
  • A 550 MW PV plant generates roughly 1.21 TWh in a year (avg. Calif. household electricity consumption)
Now these are three serious contenders and the one force we want to do away with. Let's quantify the number units required to satiate a 240.318 TWh demand.
  • Nuclear : 35.000 reactors
  • Coal :  61.000 generators (factor 9x of currently existing capacity)
  • Wind : 15.600.000 wind turbines
  • Solar : 200.000 - 550 MW plants OR 1.787.490.000.000 individual solar panels / 1.8 Trillion.
How about 2/3rds of 240.318 TWh :
  • Nuclear : 23.500 reactors
  • Coal :  40.000 generators
  • Wind : 10.400.000 wind turbines
  • Solar : 133.500 - 550 MW plants
How about EOL time?
  • Nuclear : 50~60 years
  • Wind : 20~25 years
  • Solar : 20~25 years
Yes that's right... over a period of fifty years you need to produce at least twice the amount required. 3.6 trillion solar panels or 30 million wind turbines.
 
You'll get the picture, at least I suppose you do.
 
Stuff like Hydro, Gas-fired, Wave and Geothermal have been left out of the equation. Hydro is already pretty much maxed out. Geothermal has some potential but it doesn't amount to much in terms of deployability and Gas-fired will be one of the bridging technologies. Electricity/Heat to gas conversion systems are a waste of time, batteries won't make a difference and the hydrogen idea neither. These amount to nothing.
 
Now let's be reasonable, shall we? This is the amount of energy capacity that would be required to satiate the sum total demand. This is a complete zero-carbon-burning economy by 2040. How'd you think we get there? Do we want to get rid of fossil fuels before that? Is it even reasonable to expect that we will manage to do it? Do we have enough materials on Earth to do it? Do we have the required feedstock?

Let's take a look at the clock, is time running out? It seems so... This is what reality looks like :


We have to supplant the grey, green and orange. Why? It's very simple :
  1. We don't want the average temperature to rise more than two degrees or we will be certain that we will precipitate a mass extinction event.
  2. We will run out resources within decades.
    • Coal 100 years
    • Gas 60 years
    • Oil 40 years
Even if we would triple fuel economy by next year and onwards, oil would still  only last for 120 years, gas 180 and coal 300. There are no miracle solutions.

Let's look at it from a different perspective "Topaz" (the 550 MW form) claims to "remove" the emissions [?] created by 73.000 cars. Now there are over a billion cars in the world, I'll settle for a billion. In order to "mitigate" all the emissions from all cars we would need 13698 of them... I don't exactly get what these people try to prove with this, but there's no logic in it, at least there's no way of verifying what they mean with 73.000 cars...
I might be stupid, but I simply don't get the "cars removed" argument. These cars are probably still driving around... So there's no real solution here, it's simply painting a prettier picture than it really is.

This is what a 550 MW solar farm looks like btw, imagine the sheer volume of concrete, steel, aluminium and highly purified silicon required to build it... Let's remember, these solar and wind farms don't get "magicked" into place.


Nuclear has a clear head start over "other renewables". Renewables are being held to a ridiculously low standard, the amount of jobs, the amount of transportation, mining, purification, production that goes on in this sector is stupefying but it doesn't deliver. Now these processes are true for any energy industry, however the scale in which these processes are done is what matters. Installing a trillion eight solar panels is a far more energy intensive process than building 35.000 682 MW nuclear reactors.

What's the nuclear promise? Mind you this is taking it through from a mixed fuel cycle in contrast to a solid fuel cycle. The currently widely championed Molten Salt Reactor approach guarantees 90+% fuel efficiency. This helps us secure at least a couple of thousand years worth of nuclear energy.

Even though there might be some hurdles that need to be overcome, I'm pretty sure that we have no other choice. We can't go all-in, we simply lack the materials and feedstock required. We are in a very tight spot indeed, our resources are literally running out. The only sustainable way to fuel the future is nuclear fusion. Either we find a way to make it happen, or we have to accept the fact that we need extra-terrestrial activities to maintain a human civilisation for the next 500 years or so.

Why would I address this from a worldly standpoint and not simply an Australian one? The world doesn't care about borders. Australia could go 100% renewable, it would only be shifting the burden. If China, India, Europe or America don't drop their coal-fired capacity significantly, we're in big trouble, regardless of what happens in Australia. Australia on the other hand could easily set an example. As a well-stocked, reasonably educated country you could easily transition from a coal-fired economy to a nuclear powered economy. This requires will-power and a well thought out plan. It has been proven in the past that if a country commits its resources, efforts and people to solving a big problem, they can. Simply look at the Manhattan project, the Apollo missions, The way France completely decarbonized their energy industry. A blank cheque could easily be given for a project of a magnitude that would save humanity and the Earth's biosphere. It is a matter of surviving as a society, it is ultimately a matter of existence.

Let's paint a picture, let's magic the lignite and coal away and make Australia [but dare I say it : the world] a nuclear country [disclaimer : these are fables and myths, stories of a kind I cannot possibly substantiate, but there seems to be a lot of that going on nowadays] :
  • At some point the message will be clear, we cannot go on, we're on a path that leads nowhere. The basic truth of math rears its head everywhere.
  • 2018 The political acknowledgement of the need of nuclear energy.
  • 2019 Current global affairs necessitate the implementation of nuclear energy
  • 2020 Start of the "new nuclear generation" education
  • 2022 Collaborating with other nuclear agencies to set up a framework for quick deployment of nuclear energy. (AP-1000's & MSR's) and provisions in place for future MSR and/or Fusion deployment.
  • 2024 Implementation safety framework
  • 2024 Start building first AP-1000's = Bridging capacity 1.1GW each
  • 2026 Start building the first MSR's
  • 2030 Delivery of first AP-1000's in countries that have adopted this approach
  • 2031 Deployment of first MSR's in countries that have adopted this approach
I think it would be reasonable to expect that we would have supplanted at least half of all the coal-fired energy generation by 2030 ~ 2035 and let's face it, if we haven't by that time we're in big trouble.

The thing about nuclear power plant construction, this is mainly done by civil engineers, building specialists in concrete, welding, construction, iron workers, etc. Nuclear Engineers and Physicists arrive late in the game. There's enough expertise in this world to set up a framework by which we can build this new energy infrastructure.
 
Let's be honest with each other, even though it might be a hard thing to do in the current context, we have a herculean task ahead of us. If we cannot settle this debate, we'll be in great trouble even before the 2030's are over. You and I will probably agree on that.

I hope you can accept my brutal honesty and my lack of etiquette, the time of reverence is behind us. We first have to acknowledge the reality of things and then necessity requires of us to join forces and solve this final conundrum of humanity. I want my children to grow up in a stable, beautiful and prosperous place, here on Earth.
 
Do we hate this planet?
 
Copyright : Spencer Platt, Getty Images

 Source : wiki
 
Or do we love it?

4 comments:

  1. As I said on Twitter, there is zero time allowed here for site selection. That is, it is necessary to locate a greenfields site, deal with all the usual issues of environmental impact and so on, then deal with the issues that arise with a new nuclear power plant. That would presumably include definition of a surrounding exclusion zone, acquisition of property, evacuation plans and so forth. All of these would require an extensive process of community consultation, almost inevitable litigation, protests and so on. I allowed 5 years, which is incredibly optimistic. Add the same to your timeframe and you get to 2035, which is only a little ahead of my schedule.

    In this context, it's hard to see how you sustain the claim that "nuclear has a clear headstart over renewables". Wind and solar are adding over 100 GW a year capacity right now, and those numbers are increasing steadily. Even allowing for different capacity factors, it's clear that the share of electricity generated by new renewables will overtake existing (and currently under construction) nuclear within 10 years. Pointing out that solar plants take up a lot of land is not a serious response to the evidence of what is actually happening/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "As I said on Twitter, there is zero time allowed here for site selection."

      Well, I like to move the goalposts around a bit, since we are talking hypothetically anyway. As said earlier, reality will dictate what will happen. The reality has been sketched in the article, we're simply running out of resources. there's roughly 9158 TWh worth of coal-fired energy generation in the world and the generation capacity is growing, not shrinking. Supplanting this capacity can be done by building 1400 nuclear power plants or 610.000 windmills.

      As said earlier, this isn't going to be enough, we're running out of [burnable] resources and there will be a massive shift in transportation, seriously increasing the stress on electricity generation, requiring such capacities that we would be incredibly foolish to discard nuclear energy, simply because the bureaucratic chain of events would be to long. There are ways around it...

      Necessity speeds up the process, so since I've omitted site selection, let's parallel park it in 2022 where I had It in mind. There are plenty of sites where these reactors can be build, Let's look at South Australia for instance. There are two coal-fired power plants in SA with a nameplate capacity of 760 MW. Am I supposed to believe that in a country of 983,482 km² or 379,725 sq mi there's not a single spot where these two coal-fired plants can be supplanted with a nuclear power plant? I think you're seriously compounding the problem.

      "That is, it is necessary to locate a greenfields site, deal with all the usual issues of environmental impact and so on, then deal with the issues that arise with a new nuclear power plant. That would presumably include definition of a surrounding exclusion zone, acquisition of property, evacuation plans and so forth. All of these would require an extensive process of community consultation, almost inevitable litigation, protests and so on. I allowed 5 years, which is incredibly optimistic. Add the same to your timeframe and you get to 2035, which is only a little ahead of my schedule."

      Will-power moves mountains, once you've established necessity you can speed up any process. We're not addressing un[inter]changeable dichotomies. Bureaucratic pathways are malleable, interchangeable or removable.

      2018 The political acknowledgement of the need of nuclear energy.
      2019 Current global affairs necessitate the implementation of nuclear energy

      Delete
    2. "In this context, it's hard to see how you sustain the claim that "nuclear has a clear headstart over renewables"."

      As far as Australia is concerned, you are right, since there is no nuclear there. But in a Worldly context things are more nuanced. The nuclear energy industry isn't stagnant. New capacity is being added every year. The average generating capacity is going up. Not to mention that there's a strong push for new nuclear power by countries like the UAE, India, China, Russia, South Korea. From a world-wide perspective the capacity is there while the renewable energy sector is still catching up, so nuclear has a head start.

      "Wind and solar are adding over 100 GW a year capacity right now, and those numbers are increasing steadily."

      As we speak 50 GW of nuclear is under construction, and new GW's are planned each year. Now 100GW's on a worldly scale is a drop in the bucket, especially if the transportation burden will shift from fossils to electricity generation.

      100 GW capacity @ 25% brings about 219 TWh of energy generation a year. Supplanting 9158 TWh with these kinds of capacity is going to take us 37 years. That's supplanting existing coal today, not expected coal tomorrow. Plus we still have Oil and Gas to contend with.

      Does it start to sink in? I sincerely hope that humanity becomes smarter and finds more efficient ways to deal with the gargantuan conundrum we've precipitated for ourselves...

      Plus there are over 45 countries that don't have nuclear capabilities where the debate is ongoing but there's an indication that they will be pushing to go for nuclear.

      http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Others/Emerging-Nuclear-Energy-Countries/

      "Even allowing for different capacity factors, it's clear that the share of electricity generated by new renewables will overtake existing (and currently under construction) nuclear within 10 years. "

      Based on the assumption that there will be no significant push to increase nuclear capabilities. Which is something that I find highly unlikely. Are you aware of the developments in the MSR field? http://www.thoriumenergyreport.org/

      Once these MSR's can be implemented on a commercial scale, you'll see a strong push for them. They are that good.

      Let's have a look at this presentation by Robert Hargraves about the economics of Molten Salt Reactors : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOoBTufkEog

      He thinks we can supplant coal by 2058...

      "Pointing out that solar plants take up a lot of land is not a serious response to the evidence of what is actually happening."

      That wasn't the point I was trying to make. The area footprint of solar isn't what bothers me, although it does give a clear indication of the vast amounts of resources required to produce them. What bothers me is that proponents of renewables have no grasp of the immensity of the materials and emissions footprint of said technologies. The amount of CO2 per KW are grossly underestimated. The lifecycle of said technology isn't transparent, waste issues remain unaddressed, very limited life spans, decommissioning issues, re-usability of materials is questionable.

      It takes 9 million PV panels to build a 550MW solar farm. Have you any idea how energy intense the PV production process is? How much fossil fuel is used in said process? Inefficiency is not going to help us build a prosperous future for humanity.

      Delete
    3. I don't know if you now James Hansen, he's a former NASA scientist. He gives a really reasonable argument for Nuclear Energy.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZExWtXAZ7M

      Delete