Discussion Thread – can nuclear be kick started at lower cost?

Posted on 9 October 2010 by Barry Brook

I’ve split this discussion from Open Thread 6.

I want to use this post to focus comments on whether lower-cost Gen II+ (e.g. via the Chinese CPR-1000 and Indian PHWR) are a better current option to be pursuing than higher-cost Gen III+ (like the AREVA EPR and any US proposal that you’d care to think of right now). The other issue is whether Gen III+ reactors like the Westinghouse AP1000 and KEPCO APR-1400 can quickly become cost-competitive with Gen II+, as recent results from China and South Korea are suggesting…

Here is the Nucleonics Week piece that forms the fulcrum of this discussion, with South Africa as the case study (h/t to jaro at EfT):

Nucleonics Week October 7, 2010

South Africa seeking to restart nuclear program at lower cost

South Africa is poised to restart its stalled nuclear power program in the coming months, seeking a solution less costly than the Westinghouse and Areva bids it received in early 2008.

Among the possibilities the government is considering, according to South African and other officials interviewed last month, are reactors from China and South Korea that rivals say lack 21st century safety features. For the South Africans, those “Generation II+” designs have the benefit of support from major nuclear utilities — including, perhaps, France’s EDF — and the prospect of generous export financing. The CEO of state utility Eskom, Brian Dames, has said that South Africa “may not be able to afford” a Generation III reactor design, according to Clive Le Roux, chief nuclear officer and senior general manager, nuclear division of Eskom Holdings Ltd. Le Roux said in an interview September 20 that the government is taking an “open technology” approach and asked Eskom to evaluate “all PWR technologies based on the criteria used in 2006” to establish Eskom’s initial reactor tender, which ultimately failed on grounds of cost.

Read more »

Filed under: Nuclear Energy | 10 Comments »

IFR FaD 8 – Two TV documentaries and a new film on the Integral Fast Reactor

Posted on 6 October 2010 by Barry Brook

Want to know more about the Integral Fast Reactor technology from the comfort of your lounge room chair? Then these two fascinating videos, recently transcoded and uploaded by Steve Kirsch to the “ifr.blp.tv” website, are for you. You can watch online, or download in .MP4 format (choose the format and then the download link below) for offline viewing.

First, we have: Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor Actinide Recycle System, ”Energy for the 21st Century”

It is about 8 minutes long and cost the ALMR team about $40,000 to make in 1990 (according to Chuck Boardman).

This video was also highlighted on Atom Insights blog by fellow IFRG member Rod Adams. Rod said:

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 included language directing research and development of the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor (ALMR) with Actinide Recycle System. The above video is an explanatory (some might use the word “promotional”) production that explains the program and its goals from the perspective of the mid 1990s.

Read more »

Filed under: Emissions reduction, IFR Facts and Discussion, Nuclear Energy | 26 Comments »

Challicum Hills wind farm and the wettest September on record

Posted on 3 October 2010 by Barry Brook

I’m back on my BNC blog tonight, albeit briefly. You see, I’ve been on annual leave since Wednesday, and have spent the last few days on a motoring tour (with my parents and my two boys, Billy and Eddy, aged 11 and 8) around western Victoria — Castlemaine, Ararat, Lake Fyans, the spectacular Grampians National Park. Today I was touring around Hamilton and surrounds (Merino, Tahara, Branxholme), where I lived 25 years ago, for a few years. Not much has changed! It’s still the beautiful, rolling green country of Australia Felix that I remember from my boyhood.

We were in Ararat on Friday 1 Oct and took the opportunity to visit the 53 MWe (peak) Challicum Hills wind farm. Here is a picture of me out the front of it.

BNC Blog author Barry Brook at the edge of the 53 MWe (peak) Challicum Hills wind farm in western Victoria, 1 October 2010

The turbines were spinning gently (well, most of them), but the breeze was very light and that was reflected in the low capacity factor on that day, as reported on Andrew Miskelly’s “Wind Farm Performance” website (which graphically depicts performance of wind farms connected to the electricity grid in south-eastern Australia over a 24-hour period, showing output as a percentage of installed capacity and actual output in megawatts): Read more »

Filed under: Climate change Q&A, Renewable planet | 15 Comments »

SNE 2060 – thermal reactor build rates, uranium use and cost

Posted on 29 September 2010 by Barry Brook

Read this for the context.

The first set of scenarios looks at the possible build out of Gen II+/III/III+ thermal reactors (i.e., current and advanced water-moderated reactors: PWRs, BWRs, HWRs etc.), over a 50 year time frame (2011 to 2060). The focus of this exercise is not to predict which reactor type(s) will predominate. In the next 1-2 decades, I suspect (given current and announced installation schedules) that it will be dominated by a mix of monolithic designs, such as the AP1000, APR-1400, CPR-1000, EPR, ABWR, PHWR, VVER-1000, as well as some small modular reactors like the mPower and NuScale.

The starting installed capacity in 2010 is set at 376 GW (all power rates are expressed as electrical rather than thermal output). The projection model is based on 5-year blocks (2011-2015, 2016-2020, etc.), for which a growth rate (multiplier) is specified, through to 2056-2060. Four scenarios are considered:

1. NCOL: WNA Nuclear Century Outlook (NCO) Low (anchoring to 602 GW in 2030 and 1140 GW in 2060)

2. NCOH: WNA High scenario (1350 GW in 2030, 3688 GW in 2060)

3. TR1: A mid-growth scenario that tracks between NCO Low and High, but which peaks at around 2050 and slowly declines thereafter

4. TR2: A high-growth scenario that is identical to NCO High through to 2030, after which the relative growth rate slows only gradually (absolute number of GW per year continues to increase).

Read more »

Filed under: Nuclear Energy, Scenario Analysis | 69 Comments »

Scenarios for nuclear electricity to 2060 – Context

Posted on 28 September 2010 by Barry Brook

Back in April 2010, I wrote a post “Nuclear century outlook – crystal ball gazing by the WNA”. It looked at an interesting study, undertaken by the World Nuclear Association, that made some low/high bound projections for electricity production between 2008 and 2100, including nuclear, new renewables, fossil fuels with CCS, etc. (see figure to the left). After describing the study in some detail, I noted the following:

One underlying problem with the NCO forecast … is the lack of explicit detail about technology type/role… What of the technological mix within the nuclear domain? (For instance, what is the likely proportion of Gen II, Gen III and Gen IV technologies, and how will that mix of contributions change over time?) What would such a massive nuclear build-out mean for uranium demand? How might nuclear power growth rates be constrained (or otherwise) by the availability of fissile material? On these seemingly rather important points, the NCO is, alas, silent. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t possible to make an informed guess as to the answers…

Well, motivated by some recent discussions, I am now going to write a series of posts on BNC to try and address these questions. (I’m not quite sure how many parts I’ll need to accomplish this!) The idea is that rather than doing a single (monolithic, detailed, lengthy, behind-closed-doors, indigestible) analysis, I want to treat this scenario mapping as an iterative and evolutionary exercise, where each new post builds on the last, and takes accounts of earlier comments and suggestions.

As such, this can be thought of as an Open Science experiment, conducted in the same spirit as those for oz-energy-analysis.org. For instance:

Open Science in its most basic form requires two things: (i) the clear and complete presentation of data and methods, and (ii) for the authors to care genuinely about the correctness of their work, and to act with due diligence in response to any mistakes or problems that arise, before and after publication… To practice Open Science is to embrace the critical analysis of your work by others, whoever they may be. This allows for fault finding in the first instance, and enables deeper understanding of the conclusions in the longer term.

I’ve also created a new category for this series, called ‘Scenario Analysis‘, and will, at some point, also back-edit some other past BNC posts that also fit with this theme.

Read more »

Filed under: Nuclear Energy, Scenario Analysis | 41 Comments »

Kakadu – a climate change impacts hotspot

Posted on 25 September 2010 by Barry Brook

When ecologists, policy makers, or the public, think about the visceral impacts of climate change on Australia’s natural systems, World Heritage listed Kakadu National Park (KNP), located in the seasonal tropics of the Northern Territory, is high on the at-risk list. But looking deeper into the human-driven processes now threatening KNP, there is actually a synergy of interrelated problems requiring simultaneous management – a situation common to most biomes threatened with global warming (Brook et al. 2008).


The big issues for KNP are changed fire regimes (impacting savanna and rain forest communities), rising sea levels (affecting the floodplain wetlands), and a suite of invasive weed and feral animal species, operating across all three major ecosystems. All three threats have a climate change component, although for fire and ferals, not wholly.

The savannas, which by area make up the largest part of KNP, are at first glance apparently intact. There has been relatively little clearance of the woody component (dominated by Eucalyptus tetrodonta and E. miniata); indeed analysis of historical aerial photography has documented vegetation thickening linked to elevated atmospheric CO2, which favours the growth of woody C3 species (Banfai & Bowman 2005). However, an emphasis by Park managers on avoiding hot late dry season fires, has meant that a large proportion of KNP is burnt during the dry season, with a return time of 1 to 5 years (Williams et al. 1999).

The impact of regular early season burning on the Park’s biota and on the structuring of understory vegetation, is a topic of ongoing debate and research. Nevertheless, some long-term studies have explicitly linked high fire frequencies to species declines (Pardon et al. 2003; Andersen et al. 2005). Climate change, via increased temperatures or shifts in the timing and intensity of monsoonal rainfall, will likely enhance future fire risk (Parry et al. 2007).

Read more »

Filed under: Ecological impacts, Hot news in climate science | 12 Comments »

TerraPower’s Travelling Wave Reactor – why not use an IFR?

Posted on 22 September 2010 by Barry Brook

There has been a lot of hype recently about the “Travelling Wave Reactor” (TWR), thanks largely to a very popular TED talk given recently by none other than Microsoft founder and multi-billionaire Bill Gates. In the 20 min talk, he describes the urgent need for cheap, abundant, low-CO2 energy, if we are to successfully mitigate climate change (a problem he takes very seriously). One key focus of Gates’ talk is nuclear power… new nukes. To quote:

At TED2010, Bill Gates unveils his vision for the world’s energy future, describing the need for “miracles” to avoid planetary catastrophe and explaining why he’s backing a dramatically different type of nuclear reactor. The necessary goal? Zero carbon emissions globally by 2050.

The ‘dramatically different’ type of nuclear reactor Gates refers to is the TWR, and he and Nathan Myhrvold are offering some financial backing for the concept. But is it a good bet? Here is a brief summary of the technology he’s talking about:

Wave of the future: Unlike today’s reactors, a traveling-wave reactor requires very little enriched uranium, reducing the risk of weapons proliferation. The reactor uses depleted-uranium fuel packed inside hundreds of hexagonal pillars (shown in black and green). In a “wave” that moves through the core at only a centimeter per year, this fuel is transformed (or bred) into plutonium, which then undergoes fission. The reaction requires a small amount of enriched uranium (not shown) to get started and could run for decades without refueling. The reactor uses liquid sodium as a coolant; core temperatures are extremely hot–about 550 ºC, versus the 330 ºC typical of conventional reactors.

Further details are given here at NEI Nuclear Notes, and you can watch an animated video here.

For those who are regular readers of BNC, you’d be forgiven for thinking that this tech “sounds a lot like the IFR“. Well, it is similar, in many ways, and indeed is based on many of the same principles of sodium-cooled, metal-fueled fast reactors that have been developed by Argonne Labs and others over the last five decades. But there are also some fundamental differences, and this includes some ‘features’ that may seriously limit the ultimate usefulness of the TWR. Below, in another guest post, Dr George Stanford of SCGI takes a critical eye to the TWR vs IFR comparison, and draws some interesting conclusions…
———————-
Comments on TerraPower’s Travelling Wave Reactor (printable PDF version here)

By Dr George S. Stanford. George is is a nuclear reactor physicist, part of the team that developed the Integral Fast Reactor. He is now retired from Argonne National Laboratory after a career of experimental work pertaining to power-reactor safety. He is the co-author of Nuclear Shadowboxing: Contemporary Threats from Cold War Weaponry.

We hear from time to time about the Traveling Wave Reactor (TWR) that is being developed by TerraPower, an organization sponsored by Bill Gates. The developers are keeping many of the technical details to themselves. However, from the available info about the TWR, one can make some ball-park calculations. Some assumptions are necessary, because better numbers have not, to my knowledge, been revealed. If anyone has better info, please come forward.

Fact 1: In generating 1 GWe-yr of energy, any nuclear reactor necessarily fissions about 1 tonne of heavy metal, creating 1 tonne of fission products.

Fact 2: The TWR is based on the technology of the IFR (Integral Fast Reactor), developed at Argonne National Laboratory in the ’80s and ’90s — it uses metallic fuel and is cooled by liquid sodium. In effect, the TWR is a very large IFR (in size, not in GWe) that forgoes reprocessing, storing its fission products in the used part of the core (behind the traveling wave). This pushes the disposal problem perhaps 60 or more years into the future. Unlike the IFR, the TWR does not completely burn its fuel, and leaves behind a mixture of transuranic actinides — which perhaps eventually could be recycled (not clear).

Read more »

Filed under: Emissions reduction, Nuclear Energy | 30 Comments »

IFR FaD 7 – Q&A on Integral Fast Reactors – safe, abundant, non-polluting power

Posted on 18 September 2010 by Barry Brook

Back in 2001, Dr George Stanford conducted an interview with the National Policy Analysis Center on the IFR. Nearly ten years later, in September 2010, George has updated this material, which is pitched squarely a layman audience. I post the updated version below (7-page printable PDF version here), since it fits like a glove with the IFR Facts & Discussion series that I am gradually developing. It’s probably the single best introduction to the IFR for the totally uninitiated — but there’s also real value here for the nuclear veteran, so everyone, read on!

Q&A on Integral Fast Reactors – safe, abundant, non-polluting power

By Dr George S. Stanford. George is is a nuclear reactor physicist, part of the team that developed the Integral Fast Reactor. He is now retired from Argonne National

Laboratory after a career of experimental work pertaining to power-reactor safety. He is the co-author of Nuclear Shadowboxing: Contemporary Threats from Cold War Weaponry.

What is the IFR?

IFR stands for Integral Fast Reactor. It was a power-reactor development program, built around a revolutionary concept for generating nuclear power—not only a new type of reactor, but an entire new nuclear fuel cycle. The reactor part of that fuel cycle was called the ALMR—Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor. In what many see as an ill-conceived move, proof-of-concept research on the IFR/ALMR was discontinued by the U.S. government in 1994, only three years before completion.

You might also see references to the AFR, which stands for “Advanced Fast Reactor.” It’s a concept very similar to the IFR, with some improvements thrown in. GE-Hitachi has the plans for a commercial version they call PRISM.

How was the IFR idea different from the concepts underlying traditional nuclear-power fuel cycles?

All of those fuel cycles were derived from technologies developed to meet special military needs: naval propulsion, uranium enrichment, weapons-plutonium production, and plutonium separation. Waste disposal has been approached as “someone else’s problem.” The IFR concept is directed strictly to meeting the needs of civilian power generation. It is an integrated, weapons-incompatible, proliferation-resistant cycle that is “closed”—it encompasses the entire fuel cycle, including fuel production and fabrication, power generation, reprocessing and waste management.

Do we need a new kind of reactor? What’s wrong with what we have now?

IFRs could reduce or eliminate significant difficulties that beset thermal-reactor fuel cycles—problems or concerns with:

Read more »

Filed under: IFR Facts and Discussion, Nuclear Energy | 142 Comments »

Fast reactor future – the vision of an atomic energy pioneer

Posted on 14 September 2010 by Barry Brook

REACTOR PIONEERS — Some of those who worked on EBR-I posed in front of the sign chalked on the wall when EBR-I produced the first electricity from atomic power. Koch is front row, second from right.

When I was in Idaho Falls in August 2010, one of the places I visited was the Experimental Breeder Reactor I. It’s now a publicly accessible U.S. National Historic Landmark, and has some incredible experimental X-39 atomic aircraft engines sitting out the front (see little inset photo). I’ll talk more about this visit in a later BNC post, but one thing is relevant here. That is, there is a blackboard (now preserved permanently under glass) which includes the chalked signatures of the original EBR-I research crew. One of the names on that list is a young engineer called Leonard Koch — (see photo with him standing there almost 60 years before I looked at the same board!).

Well, Len, at 90, is still going strong, and recently sent the IFRG a speech he gave in 2005 in Russia on fast reactors and the future. It’s a terrific essay, and not available anywhere on the internet (until now — I transcribed his scanned copy). Len kindly gave me permission to post it here on BNC. He also said to me:

I am pleased that you visited EBR-I. It is pretty primitive compared to the very sophisticated plants that are being built today, but it got things started. The plane the Wright Brothers built was even more primitive but they got the airplane business started. The key is to get things started and persist.

Enjoy.

—————————–

Brief bio: A retired, “Pioneer”, Leonard Koch is probably the oldest continuing supporter and participant in the development of the original concept of nuclear power. He joined Argonne National Laboratory in early 1948 and participated in the development, design, construction and early operation of EBR-l as the Associate Project Engineer. He was responsible for the development, design and construction of the EBR-ll as the Project Manager. He wrote the book, “EBR-ll”, published by the American Nuclear Soceity, which describes that activity. More here.

Nuclear energy can contribute to the solution of global energy problems

Leonard J. Koch, winner of the 2004 Global Energy International Prize.

This paper was originally presented at the Programme of International Symposium “Science and Society”, March 13, 2005, St. Petersburg, Russia, the year after his prize was awarded, in recognition of the 75th birthday of Zhores Alferov, the founder of the Global Energy International Prize. A large number of Nobel Laureates and Global Energy Laureates participated in the symposium.

Energy has become a dominant, if not the dominant, field of science impacting society. In the last century, man’s use of energy increased more than it did in the entire previous history of civilization. It has resulted in the highest standard of living in history, but it has also created a global dependence on energy that may become very difficult to meet. That is the primary global energy problem. More specifically, it is the growing recognition that the increasing global demand for petroleum will exceed the supply.

Science has produced many uses for petroleum, but by far the most demanding of the unique capabilities of petroleum is its use for transportation of people and goods. Science has created a very mobile global society. Petroleum has made this possible because of its unique capability to serve as an energy source and as an energy “carrier”. Excluding natural gas, which I include in a very broad definition of “petroleum”, there is no alternative to petroleum that can serve both functions. There are energy sources and there are energy carriers, but no single alternative that can satisfactorily combine both capabilities.

It is generally agreed that the Earth was endowed with about two trillion barrels of oil and that about one trillion barrels have been extracted and used. Also, it is rather generally agreed that the present extraction rate of about 82 million barrels a day is at, or near, the peak rate that is achievable. Demand has been increasing and is expected to continue to increase. Although these figures would suggest that there is only a 35 year supply of petroleum remaining, of course, this is not what will happen, or what should be used for planning purposes. A long, gradual transition period will occur during which a variety of alternatives to petroleum in its various applications must be found and used. The challenge for science and technology is to endure that sufficient alternatives are acceptable, available and ready when needed.

Read more »

Filed under: Emissions reduction, Nuclear Energy | 37 Comments »

Do the recent floods prove man-made climate change is real?

Posted on 12 September 2010 by Barry Brook

I was asked by the Adelaide Advertiser newspaper to write a short piece last week which addressed the question “Does all the recent rain across the country prove man made climate change is real?“, in less than 500 words. My response, given below, appeared in the print edition on Thursday 9 September 2010:

————————————

Does all the recent rain across the country prove man made climate change is real? No.

As Dorothea Mackellar wrote over a century ago, Australia is naturally “A land… Of droughts and flooding rains”.

Putting the impossible issue of ‘proof’ aside, scientists certainly do expect climate change to lead to an increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. After all, a warmer planet holds extra energy, making today’s climate system more dynamic than when Mackellar penned her poem.

In short, as the Earth’s atmosphere traps more heat due to an increase in greenhouse gases, it triggers more evaporation of water from the oceans. Average global humidity and precipitation rise in response.

As such, climate scientists predict increasingly energetic storms, heavier bursts of rain, and more intense flooding. In many parts of the world, deeper droughts and longer, hotter heat waves are also forecast.

So, while it is impossible to attribute any one event solely to human-caused warming, a useful analogy is that “weather throws the punches, but climate trains the boxer”. Another way to look at it is that human impacts are “loading the climate dice” towards more unfavourable (and previously unlikely) outcomes.

Read more »

Filed under: Climate change Q&A, Ecological impacts | 83 Comments »

Another ZCA 2020 Critique – will they respond?

Posted on 9 September 2010 by Barry Brook

When I was at UNSW yesterday — prior to my debate with Mark Diesendorf — I met up with Ted Trainer, author of ‘Renewable Energy Cannot Sustain a Consumer Society“. We had a great chat, and I think I even inched him a little towards IFRs (ever the optimist). Anyway, Ted asked me to post up his (revised) critique of the Zero Carbon Australia 2020 renewable energy plan for critical feedback — see below. This piece nicely complements the already published critique by Martin Nicholson and Peter Lang (see here) and the initial BNC brainstorming session (550+ comments).

The question I now ask is, are the BZE team planning to respond to these two substantive pieces? I would be happy to publish their rejoinder here on BNC. The gauntlet is thrown down. Will they respond?

———————————

Comments on

Zero Carbon Australia, M. Wright and Hearps, Univ. of Melbourne, Energy Institute, August 2010.

by Ted (F.E.) Trainer, Social Work, University of NSW, Kensington.

The ZCA report argues that Australia could run entirely on renewable energy by 2020.

I think this lengthy and detailed report is a valuable contribution to the energy discussion, containing much up to date information and many ideas and proposals that are promising.  I believe it heads in the general direction Australia should take.  However I think the report is quite mistaken in its optimism, that is in its conclusion that Australia can convert to renewables.  This conclusion is based on a number of assumptions, some of which seem to me to be highly challengeable.

My current understanding of the global (not Australian) situation is summarised in “Can renewables etc solve the greenhouse problem — The negative case.”  Energy Policy, Aug. 2010,  (which I will refer to below as CAN).  ZCA has helped me to see some mistakes in my analysis, which will enable improvement of my current attempt to apply the general approach to the Australian situation.

Read more »

Filed under: Emissions reduction, Renewable planet | 51 Comments »

IFR FaD 6 – fast reactors are easy to control

Posted on 7 September 2010 by Barry Brook

There are many topics in the IFR FaD series that I want to develop in sequence — and in some detail. But for the moment, here’s a little diversion. People often complain that sodium-cooled fast reactors are about as easy to control as wild stallions — at least compared to the docile mares that are water-moderated thermal reactors. The experience on the EBR-II (which I’ll describe further in future posts) certainly belies this assertion, but for now, I want to go to another source.

Here are comments from Joël Sarge Guidez, written in 2002, who Chairman of International Group Of Research Reactors (IGORR), Director of Phénix fast breeder reactor (a 233 MWe power plant which operated in France for more than 30 years, with an availability factor of 78 % in 2004, 85% in 2005 and 78% in 2006), and President of the club of French Research Reactors:

—————————

A reactor that’s easy to live with

Pressurised water reactor specialists are always surprised how easy it is to run a fast reactor: no pressure, no neutron poisons like boron, no xenon effect, no compensatory movements of the rods, etc. Simply, when one raises the rods, there is divergence and the power increases. Regulating the level of the rods stabilises the reactor at the desired power. The very strong thermal inertia of the whole unit allows plenty of time for the corresponding temperature changes. If one does nothing, the power will gradually decrease as the fuel ages, and from time to time one will have to raise the rods again to maintain constant power. It all reminds one of a good honest cart-horse rather than a highly-strung race horse.

Read more »

Filed under: IFR Facts and Discussion, Nuclear Energy | 71 Comments »

Open Thread 6

Posted on 4 September 2010 by Barry Brook

Open Thread 5 has spooled off the BNC front page, so it’s time for new one.

The Open Thread is a general discussion forum, where you can talk about whatever you like — there is nothing ‘off topic’ here — within reason. So get up on your soap box! The standard commenting rules of courtesy apply, and at the very least your chat should relate to the broad theme of the blog (climate change, sustainability, energy, etc.). You can also find this thread by clicking on the Open Thread category on the left sidebar.

Given the recent discussion on BNC in various threads, a topic worth collecting up here is the merits/demerits of imposing a price on carbon, rather than simply pursuing policy to lower the costs (and regulatory burdens) of low-carbon energy sources. In reference to past discussions on BNC about the form a carbon price might take, read about cap-and-trade vs carbon tax and fee-and-dividend. An argument NOT to impose a carbon price is given here. An argument FOR a carbon price is outline here.

Finally, for those in Adelaide, I here’s a head’s up to a couple of talks I’m giving in the near future:

On Thursday 16 September 2010 at 7.30 pm I will be talking on “Sustainable energy solutions for successful climate change mitigation” at the Campbelltown Function Centre, 172 Montacute Road, Rostrevor (rear of Council Offices). Click on picture for details — it’s a free event.

On 18 October, I will be teaming up with Ziggy Switkowski at the Hilton Hotel, Adelaide, to talk about the near- to medium-term  future of nuclear power in Australia, and also to discuss some of the key technologies that will likely underpin this next-generation revolution in atomic energy, and chart a possible course for their development and deployment over the next 40 years. Details are in a flyer you can download here. This is also a FREE public lecture, so don’t miss it!

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

Filed under: Emissions reduction, Open Thread | 492 Comments »

Does wind power reduce carbon emissions? Counter-Response

Posted on 1 September 2010 by Barry Brook

About 1 year ago, I posted on BNC two important pieces by Peter Lang – “Does wind power reduce carbon emissions?” and a follow-up reply. Together, these stirred up considerable discussion (about 500 comments to date) and raised important questions about the ability of wind-energy to reduce emissions from burning fossil fuels, when natural gas usage for backup is properly factored. Below is a response sent to me by Michael Goggin, Manager, Transmission Policy, American Wind Energy Association. I look forward to the ongoing debate this will foment on this key topic — I certainly look forwards to joining in.

I’d also like to flag, for those in Adelaide, that #3 in my series “Thinking Critically About Sustainable Energy” is on tonight at the RiAus. Tonight’s topic is “Future Renewables“, covering engineered geothermal, ocean energy and next-generation biofuels. Hope to see some BNC readers there! And for those who can’t make it, there are always the videos.

————————————–

The Facts about Wind Energy’s Emissions Savings

Guest Post by Michael Goggin. Michael represents the wind industry on transmission matters, coordinates member input on the development of policy positions, facilitates the exchange of information between members, handles press inquiries on transmission-related issues, and advocates policy positions that advance wind industry interests. Through these activities, he works to promote transmission investment and advance changes in transmission rules and operations to better accommodate wind energy in the power system while maintaining system reliability. Prior to joining AWEA, he worked for two environmental advocacy groups and a consulting firm supporting the U.S. Department of Energy’s renewable energy programs. Michael holds a B.A. with honors in Social Studies from Harvard College.

Recent data and analyses have made it clear that the emissions savings from adding wind energy to the grid are even larger than had been commonly thought. In addition to each kWh of wind energy directly offsetting a kWh that would have been produced by a fossil-fired power plant, new analyses show that wind plants further reduce emissions by forcing the most polluting and inflexible power plants offline and causing them to be replaced by more efficient and flexible types of generation.

At the same time, and in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the fossil fuel industry has launched an increasingly desperate misinformation campaign to convince the American public that wind energy does not actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions. As a result, we feel compelled to set the record straight on the matter, once and for all.

The Fossil Fuel Industry’s Desperate War Against Facts

Not to be deterred by indisputable data, numerous refutations, or the laws of physics, the fossil fuel lobby has doubled down on their desperate effort to muddy the waters about one of the universally recognized and uncontestable benefits of wind energy: that wind energy reduces the use of fossil fuels as well as the emissions and other environmental damage associated with producing and using these fuels.

Read more »

Filed under: Emissions reduction, Renewable planet | 83 Comments »

Peak Oil Discussion

Posted on 29 August 2010 by Barry Brook

Given the flurry of heated discussion on the topic of ‘peak oil‘ on another BNC post, I invited one of the protagonists, Dave Lankshear (a.k.a. “Eclipse Now” — see here for his blog), to write up a summary piece which described his position on the topic. This is given below, and should provide a good context for discussion; I also hope that this thread will help corral comments on this topic to a central point.

For earlier posts on BNC regarding peak oil (all done, incidentally, prior to BNC’s nuclear awakening), see:

Michael Lardelli on peak oil

Olduvai theory – crackpot idea or dawning reality?

Earth as a magic pudding and

Beyond peak oil – will black gold turn green?

I made some comments on the other comments thread about my position. To paraphrase: a fundamental problem with arguing that authorities like the IEA, EIA and ABARE are overlooking the looming ‘peak oil crisis’ is that so far, they have been correct — at least in the sense that it hasn’t yet happened, just like they predicted (or at least if it has, its ramifications to date on oil prices and availability have been minimal). As such, their predictions which ignore peak oil are, on the bald face of it, justified. Peak oil HAS happened in limited jurisdictions (including the US), but has always, to date, been compensated for by imports, or gas substitutes, other technological improvements etc., such that no nation has so far gone from being an high oil consumer to a low oil consumer on the back of peak oil.

Now I’m not making the argument here that peak oil is an invalid concept — at least regionally — and I’m not even arguing that it’s not a potentially serious future issue for which we ought to be preparing to counter now. But as far as authoritative energy bodies have been concerned, they currently have nothing to hang their heads in shame over in that regard. They’ve got it right. If they are right by luck, and misfortune is about to strike Australia and other industrial nations any time soon, then we may well curse their lack of foresight. But that’s a big IF, and there are many eminent people, including Prof Richard Hillis at my own University, who argue that by the time rising oil prices is a really serious issue, alternatives and substitutes will have been found, as they always have before. Price, they argue, will always be the principal driver of innovation. (In passing I note that this is the reason I argue that full recycling of used nuclear fuel has not yet taken hold with any real enthusiasm — mined uranium is still too cheap).

Anyway, now on to EN’s comprehensive primer, from a ‘peakist’s’ perspective…

——————————-

On peak oil authorities

by David Lankshear (Eclipse Now), Peak oil activist since 2004

Background

Recent debate on BNC has focussed on the issue of the reliability of government energy authorities in regards to the global peak oil debate. As someone with a mere Social Sciences background and no technical training, I was asked to submit an article on why I have the audacity to hold certain ‘energy authorities’ with a high degree of suspicion. Was it all just paranoid conspiracy theories I absorbed from the net? Or is there something fundamentally wrong with the way our governments have been informed regarding our most important resource, oil?

Introduction to peak oil

In the last 5 years a handful of new government sponsored reports and agencies have suddenly sprung to address an urgent question. Are we suddenly facing the final oil crisis? Are we only years from the beginning of the end of the oil age? Has it already begun? With Scientific American just today predicting global peak oil by 2014 [1], how did we come to be asking such an important question so late in the picture?

Read more »

Filed under: Emissions reduction, Future shock | 137 Comments »

Pebble Bed Advanced High Temperature Reactor at UC Berkeley – low cost nuclear?

Posted on 25 August 2010 by Barry Brook

When I visited California earlier this month, Tom Blees and I paid a visit to Prof Per Peterson and Prof Jasmina Vujic at the Nuclear Engineering Department of UC Berkeley. After chatting over lunch, Per took us on a personal tour of his lab, which was quite an experience. Per’s research focuses on development of a high-temperature reactor with an incredibly high power density. Why? In short, it’s about the money. Per’s argument — and a quite persasive one — is that if the costs of advanced reactors can be brought way down, below that of pressurised and boiling water reactors (PWRs and BWRs), then their scaled-up deployment is highly likely. The following post owes a lot to Per’s insights on this critical issue.

Currently, one the most frequently cited criticism of nuclear energy, especially with reference to Europe or North America, involves economics. High construction costs for Advanced Light Water Reactors (ALWRs) have emerged as the number one issue limiting near-term deployment, and it now appears that the $18.5 billion in loan guarantees now available will fund no more than 2 or 3 new plants. The major area of anti-nuclear emphasis today is on preventing an expansion of this loan guarantee volume to the $50 to $100 billion level that the nuclear industry believes could be productively used in the near term. Even with loan guarantees, cited nuclear construction prices in the US remain high enough that nuclear remains marginally competitive and most utilities are slowing down their plans for new nuclear construction. Really, nuclear is getting nowhere very fast in the US at present, despite its great promise. AREVA France is now facing similar issues. China, happily, is not.

The main issue with Generation IV reactors such as the IFR or LFTR is the general expectation that they will be more expensive than ALWRs — at least in the early stages of deployment. Increasing the cost of new nuclear construction can hardly be viewed as a winning strategy these days.

For instance, a lot of design work was done by GE on the S-PRISM, after Department of Energy support ended, to bring down the cost. But it still needs to be updated to take into account new construction technologies and requirements (including aircraft crash). It would be very helpful to be able to argue convincingly that IFR technology will be less expensive than ALWRs. If this could be shown to be the case, one could also expect more substantive commercial interest and investment, such as a willingness to cost-share the Design Certification and to construct a prototype reactor outside the federal appropriations process (for example, under loan guarantees with some federal contract for procuring fuel irradiation services for transmutation fuel development and demonstration). Members of SCGI are working behind the scenes on these key issues, and progress is being made, but it’s naturally a protracted process.

Read more »

Filed under: Nuclear Energy | 87 Comments »

Accuracy of ABARE Energy Projections

Posted on 22 August 2010 by Barry Brook

Download the printable 13-page PDF (includes appendix) here.

By Peter Lang. Peter is a retired geologist and engineer with 40 years experience on a wide range of energy projects throughout the world, including managing energy R&D and providing policy advice for government and opposition. His experience includes: coal, oil, gas, hydro, geothermal, nuclear power plants, nuclear waste disposal, and a wide range of energy end use management projects.

Introduction

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) is an Australian government economic research agency that provides analysis and forecasting of, among other things, our energy production and usage. ABARE’s projections have been criticized by some hoping for large scale changes in our energy sector as unreliable, biased towards the fossil fuel industry, and as underestimating the contributions that will be achieved in the future by renewable energy, energy efficiency, smart grids and the like.

To test these criticisms I have compared ABARE’s projections [1] for the year 2004-05 with the actual figures for 2004-05 [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].  I have compared the following: primary energy production, electricity consumption, resource reserves, and CO2 emissions.  I also comment on what was being advocated by green energy proponents in 1990, and point out how little has changed.  The same arguments are being repeated again now by the same sorts of groups with similar beliefs and agendas.

The reason I’ve used the year 2004-05 for the comparison is because ABARE’s 1991 projections were for the period 1990-91 to 2004-05.  I have my own hard copies of that and earlier reports but not of later reports so I used this readily available source.

I make two points:

  1. ABARE’s projections are the best we have to work with.  We can’t do better than follow their projections.
  2. The arguments about what can really be achieved with renewable energy, energy efficiency improvements, smart grids and the like, have all been had before.  Twenty years later, nothing has changed.

These ideas proved excessively optimistic in the past, as shown here, and people with sound engineering judgement and experience are warning against repeating the same mistakes.  The effective solution is not to try to apply draconian methods.  The priority should be on developing rational policies, largely aimed at facilitating rational fuel switching.

Read more »

Filed under: Emissions reduction, Renewable planet | 228 Comments »

Climate change basics III – environmental impacts and tipping points

Posted on 19 August 2010 by Barry Brook

The world’s climate is inherently dynamic and changeable. Past aeons have borne witness to a planet choked by intense volcanic activity, dried out in vast circumglobal deserts, heated to a point where polar oceans were as warm as subtropical seas, and frozen in successive ice ages that entombed northern Eurasia and America under miles of ice. These changes to the Earth’s environment imposed great stresses upon ecosystems and often led to mass extinctions of species. Life always went on, but the world was inevitably a very different place.

We, a single species, are now the agent of global change. We are undertaking an unplanned and unprecedented experiment in planetary engineering, which has the potential to unleash physical and biological transformations on a scale never before witnessed by civilization. Our actions are causing a massive loss and fragmentation of habitats (e.g., deforestation of the tropical rain forests), over-exploitation of species (e.g., collapse of major fisheries), and severe environmental degradation (e.g., pollution and excessive draw-down of rivers, lakes and groundwater). These patently unsustainable human impacts are operating worldwide, and accelerating. They foreshadow a grim future. And then, on top of all of this, there is the looming spectre of climate change.

When climate change is discussed in the modern context, it is usually with reference to global warming, caused by anthropogenic pollution from the burning of fossil fuels. Since the furnaces of the industrial revolution were first ignited a few centuries ago, we have treated the atmosphere as an open sewer, dumping into it more than a trillion tonnes of heat-trapping carbon dioxide (CO2), as well as methane, nitrous oxide and ozone-destroying CFCs. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is now nearly 40% higher than at any time over the past million years (and perhaps 40 million years – our data predating the ice core record is too sketchy to draw strong conclusions). Average global temperature rose 0.74°C in the hundred years since 1906, with almost two thirds of that warming having occurred in just the last 50 years.

What of the future? There is no doubt that climate predictions carry a fair burden of scientific ambiguity, especially regarding feedbacks in climatic and biological systems. Yet what is not widely appreciated among non-scientists is that more than half of the uncertainty, captured in the scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is actually related to our inability to forecast the probable economic and technological development pathway global societies will take during the twenty-first century. As a forward-thinking and risk averse species, it is certainly within our power to anticipate the manifold impacts of anthropogenic climate change, and so make the key economic and technological choices required to substantially mitigate our carbon emissions. But will we act in time, and will it be with sufficient gusto? And can nature adapt?

Read more »

Filed under: Climate change Q&A, Ecological impacts | 59 Comments »

Science Educator award, Sydney talk, BNC 2 years old

Posted on 15 August 2010 by Barry Brook

On Friday night, 13th August, I was awarded the 2010 Community Science Educator of the Year. On September 8, 2010, I will be speaking on nuclear and solar energy at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. The BraveNewClimate.com blog is 2 years old! Details below…

—————————-

I got back from China at midday on Saturday and spent the next 24 hours in bed recovering from a stomach bug. It often happens after a long haul of travelling, and, after 3 weeks abroad, it’s great to finally be home. I’m now on the road to recovery — enough to enjoy reading the blog comments and to see what an impact the BNC readers made in Tassie, Vic and NSW in this year’s Walk Against Warming. Great work guys! I still have 300+ emails to wade through and reply to, however. Anyway…

A little over 2 years ago, on 7 August 2008, the Brave New Climate blog, later to be shorthanded to BNC, was born. Little did I foresee the evolution it would take over the next 290 posts and 20,000 comments (although John Morgan turned out to be quite prescient). It’s been a real learning experience for me, and has been thoroughly enjoyable (albeit exhausting and exasperating at times, in about equal measure). I’ve been helped greatly along the way by talented guest posters, including regulars Peter Lang, Geoff Russell, Tom Blees and many others. My sincere thanks — and here’s to another year of trials and tribulations, as we, together, think critically about sustainable energy and climate change.

In part recognition of the blog’s influence in educating the general community, I was very proud to be awarded the title of ‘Community Science Educator of the Year‘ for 2010, at the SA Science Excellence awards:

Read more »

Filed under: Climate change Q&A, Nuclear Energy, Renewable planet | 22 Comments »

‘Zero Carbon Australia – Stationary Energy Plan’ – Critique

Posted on 12 August 2010 by Barry Brook

‘Zero Carbon Australia – Stationary Energy Plan’ – Critique

Download the printable PDF here

[An addendum on wind farm and solar construction rates, by Dave Burraston]

————————

Edit: Here are some media-suitable ‘sound bytes’ from the critique, prepared by Martin. Obviously, please read the whole critique below to understand the context:

  • They assume we will be using less than half the energy by 2020 than we do today without any damage to the economy. This flies in the face of 200 years of history.
  • They have seriously underestimated the cost and timescale required to implement the plan.
  • For $8 a week extra on your electricity bill, you will give up all domestic plane travel, all your bus trips and you must all take half your journeys by electrified trains.
  • They even suggest that all you two car families cut back to just one electric car.
  • You better stock up on candles because you can certainly expect more blackouts and brownouts.
  • Addressing these drawbacks could add over $50 a week to your power bill not the $8 promised by BZE. That’s over $2,600 per year for the average household.

By Martin Nicholson and Peter Lang, August 2010

1. Summary

This document provides a critique of the ‘Zero Carbon Australia – Stationary Energy Plan’ [1] (referred to as the Plan in this document) prepared by Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE). We looked at the total electricity demand required, the total electricity generating capacity needed to meet that demand and the total capital cost of installing that generating capacity. We did not review the suitability of the technologies proposed.  We briefly considered the timeline for installing the capacity by 2020 but have not critiqued this part of the Plan in detail.

In reviewing the total energy demand, we referred to the assumptions made in the Plan and compared them to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) report on Australian energy projections to 2029-30 [2]. The key Plan assumptions we questioned were the use of 2008 energy data as the benchmark for 2020, the transfer of close to half the current road transport to electrified rail and transfer of all domestic air travel and shipping to rail which could have a devastating impact on the economy. In the Plan, total energy demand was reduced by 63% below ABARE’s assessment. We recalculated the energy demand for 2020 without these particular assumptions. Our recalculation increased electricity demand by 38% above the demand proposed in the Plan.

We next turned our minds to the amount of generator capacity needed to meet our recalculated electricity demand. We assumed that the existing electricity network customers would require the same level of network reliability as now. At best the solar thermal plants would have the same reliability and availability of the existing coal fleet so the network operators would at least require a similar proportion of reserve margin capacity as in the existing networks. We kept the same proportion of wind energy as in the Plan (40%) and recalculated the total capacity needed to maintain the reserve margin. The total installed capacity needed increased by 65% above the proposed capacity in the Plan.

The Plan misleadingly states that it relies only on existing, proven, commercially available and costed technologies. The proposed products to be used in the Plan fail these tests. So to assess the total capital cost of installing the generating capacity needed, we reviewed some current costs for both wind farms and solar thermal plants. We also reviewed ABARE’s expectation on future cost reductions. We considered that current costs were the most likely to apply to early installed plants and  that ABARE’s future cost reductions were more likely to apply than the reductions used in the Plan. Applying these costs to the increased installed capacity increased the total capital cost almost 5 fold and increases the wholesale cost of electricity by at least five times and probably 10 times. This will have a significant impact on consumer electricity prices.

We consider the Plan’s Implementation Timeline as unrealistic.  We doubt any solar thermal plants, of the size and availability proposed in the plan, will be on line before 2020.  We expect only demonstration plants will be built until there is confidence that they can become economically viable. Also, it is common for such long term projections to have high failure rates.

Read more »

Filed under: Renewable planet | 314 Comments »

Next Page »