David, I’ve always been impressed by your pro-nuclear advocacy. This article is slightly dated, but strikes me an equally persuasive counter-argument. Can you point to any flaws in his reasoning or evidence?
By Martin Bush Policy Options September 1 2023 > > > https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/september-2023/renewables-not-nuclear-electric-canada/# > ( > https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/september-2023/renewables-not-nuclear-electric-canada/ > ) > > > > > ***************************************************************** > Focus > on renewables, not nuclear, to fuel Canada’s electric needs > ***************************************************************** > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Relying on nuclear power goes against the evidence. The smart money is on > renewables. Solar and wind energy make much more sense. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > The demand for electricity continues to rise ( > https://about.bnef.com/blog/global-electricity-demand-increase-57-2050/ ) as > countries transition to an electrified economy. To ensure an adequate and > reliable supply during peak hours, governments must decide which energy > technologies should be prioritized and developed to help with this > transition. > > > > Nuclear power is certainly in the running for providing this essential > service, but it’s not the best option. Refurbishing aging CANDU reactors > and investing in unproven nuclear technology, such as small nuclear > reactors (SMRs), will waste money that could otherwise be invested in > renewable energy solutions. > > > > That’s where the smart money is – renewables – and all the evidence points > to why. Electricity from nuclear energy is too expensive. > > > > According to the World Nuclear Industry 2022 Status Report ( > https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/wnisr2022-v3-lr.pdf ) , nuclear > energy’s share of global electricity generation in 2021 was 9.8 per cent – > its lowest level in four decades – and substantially below its peak of > 17.5 per cent in 1996. > > > > Nuclear energy is being outpaced by non-hydro renewables, which in 2021 > increased their share of global power generation to 12.8 per cent. > > > > Between 2009 and 2021, utility-scale solar energy costs plummeted by 90 > per cent, while similar wind energy costs dropped by 72 per cent. In > contrast, nuclear costs increased by 36 per cent. The cost of electricity > generated by solar and onshore wind is in the range of 2.4 to 9.6 U.S. > cents per kilowatt hour, (¢/kWh) while the cost of electricity from > nuclear is estimated as anywhere between 14 and 22 ¢/kWh. It’s not even > close ( > https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ > ). > > > > In 2021, total investment in non-hydro renewable electricity capacity > reached a record US$366 billion, 15 times the reported global investment > in nuclear power plants of US$24 billion. Investments in solar energy were > 8.5 times and wind six times the investments in nuclear energy ( > https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/wnisr2022-v3-lr.pdf ). > > > > Globally, the cost of renewable-produced electricity is now significantly > below not only nuclear power but also gas. According to an analysis by > Bloomberg New Energy Finance, wind and solar power are now the cheapest > form of new electricity in most countries, including Canada. Bloomberg > anticipates it will be more expensive to operate existing coal or fossil > gas power plants within five years ( > https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-19/wind-solar-are-cheapest-power-source-in-most-places-bnef-says#xj4y7vzkg > ) than to build new solar or wind farms. > > > > Unsurprisingly, it is wind farms and large solar installations that are > being built in record numbers. In 2021, wind added 92 GW of new capacity > while solar-installed capacity grew by 138 GW. Compare these numbers with > the net decrease of 0.4 GW in operating nuclear power capacity. > > > > It’s not just the cost of electricity from nuclear power plants that makes > them uneconomical and a poor choice for power utilities. They also take > years to build and even longer to decommission. The decommissioning of the > Gentilly-2 reactor in Quebec, shut down in December 2012, is expected to > take 40-50 years. ( > https://www.hydroquebec.com/data/production/pdf/schedule-of-main-decommissioning-activities.pdf > ) > > > > In Canada, the promotion of SMRs started in 2017, when the federal > government funded the Canadian Nuclear Association to “identify the > opportunities” for them in Canada. ( > https://smrroadmap.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/SMRroadmap_EN_nov6_Web-1.pdf > ) > > > > As requested, the association produced a document that highlighted all the > supposed benefits of SMRs, including a vision to bring the technology to > Canada as a “source of safe, clean, affordable energy ( > https://smrroadmap.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/SMRroadmap_EN_nov6_Web-1.pdf > ).” > > > > Since that time, the federal government has awarded several million > dollars to Terrestrial Energy and Moltex Energy Canada, two companies that > are pursuing molten-salt reactor designs, plus additional funding to > Westinghouse to support another concept. > > > > New Brunswick’s utility company, NB Power, announced it was working with > Moltex and a company called ARC Resources to advance their technologies to > be deployed in New Brunswick ( https://smrnb.ca/ ). However, the province > is favouring two reactor designs – molten-salt reactors and sodium-cooled > fast reactors – that have well-documented problems. > > > > Molten-salt reactors have technical challenges, while sodium-cooled fast > reactors have never been commercially viable, and the use of molten sodium > (a very difficult material to handle) means they are prone to leaks and > shutdowns. ( > https://theconversation.com/nuclear-power-why-molten-salt-reactors-are-problematic-and-canada-investing-in-them-is-a-waste-167019 > ) > > > > Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and SaskPower have selected GE Hitachi > Nuclear Energy’s BWRX-300 for potential deployment. OPG plans to construct > a reactor of this type at the Darlington CANDU nuclear site, with hopes > that it could be operational ( > https://www.ontario.ca/page/powering-ontarios-growth ) by 2028. > > > > This reactor was first submitted for licensing to the U.S. Nuclear > Regulatory Commission in 2005 but it wasn’t approved until 2014 after the > design was changed nine times. In Ontario, the reactor now under review ( > https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/BWRX-300-completes-Phases-1-2-of-Canadian-pre-lice > ) for licensing, will be built by Candu Energy. This will be North > America’s first grid-scale SMR ( > https://www.canadianconsultingengineer.com/energy/snc-lavalin-to-develop-canadas-first-grid-scale-smr-for-opg/1003415954/ > ) when it commences operations. > > > > Just like the larger-scale reactors operating in 32 countries, SMRs are > certain to generate substantial cost overruns and multi-year-long delays. > It is the nature of nuclear technology. > > > > In the case of the new fleet of SMRs proposed in North America and Europe > – all of which are new designs (or substantially revised ones) – it is > unlikely the estimated costs and delivery dates will be met by the > industry. > > > > Canada’s SMR roadmap proclaims: “SMRs have numerous advantages ( > https://smrroadmap.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/SMRroadmap_EN_nov6_Web-1.pdf > ) compared to large nuclear power plants, such as lower capital costs, > modularity, economies of multiples, simpler designs, and potential shorter > construction schedules.” > > > > But this is misleading. It’s the cost of electricity produced by the SMRs > that counts, and this is certain to be higher. > > > > The industry itself has acknowledged this, admitting that the cost of > electricity produced by the first SMRs to generate power is probably going > to be twice the cost ( > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040619022000483 ) of > electricity produced by full-scale reactors. Yet, nuclear-generated > electricity is four times more expensive than solar energy and wind > turbines. > > > > Because they are intermittent sources of energy, solar and wind power > installations require batteries that can store electricity. While battery > storage systems were once small and expensive, the technology has changed > and the equipment is now larger and becoming less expensive. > > > > Simply put, combining energy storage with solar energy and wind-power > electricity generation increases capital costs, but the cost of > electricity is still less than fossil fuel- power generation with carbon > capture, or electricity from nuclear power. > > > > There are also strategies that reduce the variability of solar and wind > systems without using batteries for storage. Interconnecting electricity > transmission systems that can handle greater levels of power provides > security when the supply of renewable energy from geographically dispersed > regions is shared with areas that are experiencing a shortfall. > > > > In 2019, at least six countries were generating all of their electricity ( > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040619022000483 ) from > renewable power, while 32 more produced at least 90 per cent of their > electricity from renewable sources of energy. During the first six months > of 2019, Scotland generated so much electricity from wind that it could > have powered the nation ( > https://www.sciencealert.com/scotland-s-wind-turbines-are-now-generating-double-what-its-residents-need > ) twice over. > > > > The supposedly impossibly large areas of land required for solar energy > and wind power have been used as an excuse to not fund renewables. But > raising solar panels and growing crops underneath shows promise ( > https://cleantechnica.com/2023/07/14/nrel-partners-with-black-farmers-collaborative-to-plan-solar-panels-for-florida-farms-churches/ > ). Offshore wind farms have no such limitation. > > > > In short, nuclear power should not be part of Canada’s energy future. > Investing in nuclear power while ignoring renewable energy is a waste of > federal and provincial monies. > > > > Refurbishing Ontario’s fleet of aging CANDU reactors (including a new > full-scale nuclear reactor at the Bruce site) and investing millions more > in SMR technology that has never proven its cost-effectiveness is not > supported by evidence. It is time to stop ignoring Canada’s very > substantial resources of renewable energy, particularly both onshore and > offshore > wind ( > https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/february-2022/canada-offshore-wind-power/ > ). > > Do you have something to say about the article you just read? Be part of > the Policy Options discussion, and send in your own submission ( > https://policyoptions.irpp.org/article-submission/ ) , or a letter to the > editor. ( https://policyoptions.irpp.org/letters-to-the-editor/ ) > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#35175): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/35175 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/111104123/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
