ENERGY « nuclear-news

Is the new UK government prepared to rise to the challenge of investing in energy efficiency measures and reducing the country’s energy use?

Internationally, more recent UN assessments are placing much greater emphasis on changing demand for fuel, broadly supporting the CREDS’ analysis of the scale of the potential. The International Energy Agency consistently refers to energy efficiency as ‘the first fuel’, and the European Commission actively promotes ‘Energy Efficiency First’.

Is the new government prepared to rise to the challenge of investing in energy efficiency measures and reducing the country’s energy use? asks Andrew Warren.

The UK has a new government. It arrives determined to deliver the potential that greater investment in energy efficiency offers, and these are acknowledged to be ‘wins all round’ in economic, social and environmental terms. Every plausible scenario for delivering climate targets depends critically on delivering these improvements.

The key question remains – how best to deliver this potential? Fortunately, for the past six years, there has been a major project, funded by UK Research & Innovation, that has been exploring precisely these answers.

The Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions (CREDS) has been run by an Oxford University professor, Nick Eyre – a man with a very practical background in the subject. Prior to becoming an academic, he worked at a senior level for the Energy Saving Trust. An active County Councillor, he was a key figure seconded to the Cabinet Office, helping create the first energy White Paper for 30 years, launched by Tony Blair in 2003, which elucidated the entire case for an energy efficiency/renewables-based future.

And way back in 1989, he helped prepare the energy efficiency case for Margaret Thatcher’s government on the ‘greenhouse effect’. This included the identification of potential emission reductions of 477 Mt CO₂ within 30 years. These were deemed grossly over ambitious by the energy establishment at the time, but they have nonetheless been achieved. Practically half these savings have come from improvements in energy efficiency, which have been spread across the three major categories of energy use: electricity (32%, 123 Mt CO₂) heating (34%, 68 Mt CO₂) and transport (17%, 33 Mt CO₂).

Energy demand matters

A full analysis of what has actually been achieved to date can be found on the Centre’s website (www.creds.ac.uk/creds-research-findings/). In addition, there are approaching 500 other publications drawn from academics based throughout the UK involved in this initiative, the vast majority of these fully peer-reviewed. On the website, these have been grouped under nine different ‘themes’. The overall findings of the six-year project can be found in 15 one-page topic summaries, each of which provides links to the underlying evidence base.

The CREDS consortium has a wide range of perspectives. For a collection of academics this is inevitable, and healthy. But there are some insights that are commonly shared.

The first is that energy demand management matters. Use of energy is fundamental to a modern society, but it is currently the main cause of greenhouse gas emissions. The analysis confirms it has to be reduced, made more flexible and switched to decarbonised fuels. Reducing the amount of energy that needs to be decarbonised reduces the cost of the transition.

The work reasserts the importance of energy efficiency improvements, and importantly identifies the huge boost to its potential offered by electrification. But also established is that some of the broader benefits of demand reduction (e.g. for health, energy security and green employment) also require more fundamental change in the systems that drive energy use, in particular shifts to a circular economy.

Reducing consumption

Going forward, CREDS’ analyses show clearly that current UK energy consumption can be halved by 2050 – and, critically, the policy measures that need to be introduced, and enforced, to achieve this. The research has consistently found that fairness matters – not just because it is normatively important, but also because perceptions of fairness, or otherwise, affect public support for change.

All this means that managing demand for energy is central to the shift to sustainable energy within a zero emissions concept. Conceptualising changing energy demand purely in terms of ‘individual responsibility’, ‘greener choices’ or ‘behaviour change’ simply misses the point.

Just like changing energy supply, changing demand requires changes in infrastructure, technology and business models.

For many people, this may well be CREDS’ most surprising insight. It certainly also means that existing institutions and policies will not be adequate. Previous UK governments have failed to address this key conclusion. All significant change takes time and effort. Particularly in democracies, a ‘long march through the institutions’ is needed. And there are positive signs that these insights are beginning to have traction.

Efficiency first

Internationally, more recent UN assessments are placing much greater emphasis on changing demand for fuel, broadly supporting the CREDS’ analysis of the scale of the potential. The International Energy Agency consistently refers to energy efficiency as ‘the first fuel’, and the European Commission actively promotes ‘Energy Efficiency First’.

In the UK, some similar shifts can be seen in reports from the Climate Change Committee, the National Infrastructure Commission and the Government Office of Science. And there are positive signs in the Scottish and Welsh governments and many local authorities, as well as forward-thinking businesses and civil society organisations.

For research funders, the CREDS initiative has a clear message – inter-disciplinary approaches are still needed. They can be hard work, but the challenges of changing demand require multiple perspectives. As importantly, ‘changing energy demand’ is not a single topic; the challenges are diverse and require in-depth knowledge of specific sectors, technologies and energy services. Expertise matters and should be supported.

One of the biggest long term benefit of CREDS will be from the skills and commitment of the people its existence has brought together. They are part of the generation that will help government map the pathways through to complete decarbonisation.

As his professorship becomes ‘emeritus’, wise leaders in the new UK administration should be expressing considerable gratitude to Nick Eyre, for the very remarkable groundwork his foresight in creating the insightful CREDS initiative has provided for them.

September 23, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

Global Solar Installations on Track for Another Record Year

Solar capacity around the world will be installed at a record pace in 2024,
as bargain panel prices help countries’ efforts to deploy cleaner energy.
Global additions are set to hit 593 gigawatts this year, a jump of about
29% from last year, London-based energy research firm Ember said in a new
report. The increase comes on top of a near doubling of new installations
in 2023, and largely matches a forecast from BloombergNEF.

Bloomberg 19th Sept 2024 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-18/global-solar-installations-on-track-for-another-record-year

September 23, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | renewable | Leave a comment

Three Mile Island nuclear reactor to restart to power Microsoft AI operations

Three Mile Island will also be renamed the Crane Clean! Energy Center

Pennsylvania plant was site of most serious nuclear meltdown and radiation leak in US history in 1979

Guardian, Richard Luscombe, 21 Sept 24

A nuclear reactor at the notorious Three Mile Island site in Pennsylvania is to be activated for the first time in five years after its owners, Constellation Energy, struck a deal to provide power to Microsoft’s proliferating artificial intelligence operations.

The plant was the location of the most serious nuclear meltdown and radiation leak in US history, in March 1979 when the loss of water coolant through a faulty valve caused the Unit 2 reactor to overheat. More than four decades later, the reactor is still in a decommissioning phase.

Constellation closed the adjacent but unconnected Unit 1 reactor in 2019 for economic reasons, but will bring it back to life after signing a 20-year power purchase agreement to supply Microsoft’s energy-hungry data centers, the company announced on Friday……………

As part of the agreement, Three Mile Island will also be renamed the Crane Clean Energy Center to recognize Chris Crane, the former chief executive of Constellation’s parent company………………….

Significant investment will be required to restore the plant, including replacing or refurbishing the turbine, generator, main power transformer and cooling and control systems, Dominguez said.

There will also be a comprehensive safety and environmental review by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission before it issues a permit for the restart of the reactor, which is scheduled to be online sometime in 2028. Constellation said it would seek licenses that will extend plant operations to at least 2054.

Tech giants including Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Meta and Apple are consuming ever-greater amounts of energy to power the boom in artificial intelligence. According to Goldman Sachs, demand will grow 160% by 2030, when data centers are expected to account for 8% of the power generated in the US.

With the spike in demand, however, comes rising concerns over the impact on the environment. An analysis by the Guardian published this week found that data center emissions of four of the biggest tech companies, Google, Microsoft, Meta and Apple, are probably about 662% – or 7.62 times – higher than officially reported. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/20/three-mile-island-nuclear-plant-reopen-microsoft

September 21, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY, USA | Leave a comment

As Biden deliberates, Ukraine’s nuclear plants are increasingly at risk

fear this coming winter may prove to be a breaking point for Ukraine in the energy war.

Stuck in the crosshairs are key substations feeding high voltage electricity to Ukraine’s still functioning nuclear power stations in Rivne, Khmelnytskyi and Yuzhnoukrainsk in southern Ukraine. Take these substations out and the reactors have to be shut down rapidly, or else it could provoke a “nuclear incident,” energy expert Mykhailo Gonchar told POLITICO. And “that’s what the Russians are aiming to do — hit the key substations.”

Paralyze the three nuclear power stations, though, and it’s game over for Ukraine in the energy war ,

The risk of Ukraine losing the war this winter has pushed Washington and London to reconsider how Kyiv uses Western-supplied long-range missiles, but the U.S. remains fearful of escalation.

Politico, September 15, 2024 , By Jamie Dettmer

KYIV — As the U.S. ponders loosening some of the restrictions on Ukraine’s use of Western-supplied long-range missiles to allow for the targeting of airfields and missile launch sites deeper inside Russia, Ukraine remains on tenterhooks.

As it stands, Washington doesn’t appear ready to take the gloves off entirely and allow Ukraine to target Russia’s airfields with long-range U.S. missiles quite yet — though it may withdraw restrictions on the U.K.’s Storm Shadows, which use U.S. technology.

“I would like to see a more forthright position coming from the Biden administration that says there’s no reason why Ukraine shouldn’t be fighting back,” former U.S. envoy to NATO Kurt Volker told POLITICO. “Russia’s the one attacking Ukraine from all these facilities across Russia. There’s no reason for there to be a sanctuary. But I don’t think we’re going to see Biden authorizing the use of U.S. missiles to strike at Russian airfields, although the British might be allowed to proceed without U.S. objection,” he added. “That won’t be enough.”

And if that’s really the outcome of these weeks-long intense negotiations, Ukraine’s energy officials will be among those most alarmed.

They fear this coming winter may prove to be a breaking point for Ukraine in the energy war. And that’s largely because Russian commanders are adapting their airstrike tactics, having learned from their previous failed bombing campaign to collapse the country’s energy system — and the recent shipments of Iran’s Fath-360 close-range ballistic missiles to Russia will help them do so.

Ukrainian officials expect Russia will use these missiles, which have a range limit of 120 kilometers, to complement their glide bombs in targeting logistics and communications hubs and ammunition depots in the rear of Ukraine’s front lines. That, in turn, will free Russia up to concentrate its own longer-range missiles on civilian infrastructure — particularly the energy system in a bid to break it.

Stuck in the crosshairs are key substations feeding high voltage electricity to Ukraine’s still functioning nuclear power stations in Rivne, Khmelnytskyi and Yuzhnoukrainsk in southern Ukraine. Take these substations out and the reactors have to be shut down rapidly, or else it could provoke a “nuclear incident,” energy expert Mykhailo Gonchar told POLITICO. And “that’s what the Russians are aiming to do — hit the key substations.”

Currently, 55 percent of Ukraine’s energy is generated by its three operating nuclear power stations — the one in Zaporizhzhia, which is the largest nuclear plant in Europe, was captured by Russia in 2022 and has largely been shut down. Russian missile and drone strikes have destroyed 9 gigawatts of the country’s electrical generating capacity — that’s half of the peak winter consumption — with 80 percent of thermal generation from coal- and gas-fired power plants and a third of hydroelectric production capacity wiped out by bombing.

Last year, Russia tried to isolate these nuclear power plants, focusing on degrading Ukraine’s energy transmission. It targeted distribution to consumers and businesses but was met with characteristic Ukrainian ingenuity and confounded by improvised repairs and rerouting.

Paralyze the three nuclear power stations, though, and it’s game over for Ukraine in the energy war , diminishing its war-fighting capacity, crashing the economy and weakening its position if peace negotiations do ever commence.

And according to officials in Kyiv, it’s the fear of this happening that’s been one of the factors driving the Biden administration to reconsider the restrictions, including on U.S. ATACMS and British Storm Shadows. Washington sat up when Russian airstrikes started targeting the main substations feeding operational electricity to the nuclear power plants in late August. “That concentrated minds,” said one Ukrainian official who asked not to be identified in order to speak freely………………………………………………………………………………………………

Burns also stressed no one should underestimate the risk of escalation and admitted his agency genuinely feared Russia might resort to tactical nuclear weapons in 2022. And while Biden and British Prime Minister Kier Starmer brushed off Putin’s threats on Friday, the U.S. administration still appears to be trapped between two worries — fear of how Moscow might respond if Western-supplied missiles start striking Russian airfields, and wreck projects for peace talks to get going, and alarm over the prospect of Ukraine losing power……………………………………………………………… https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-ukraine-nuclear-plants-energy-war-joe-biden-united-states-nato/

September 18, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY, safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Die Welt predicts a mass exodus of people from Ukraine in winter

▪️ The article states:

Rolling power outages are already occurring across the country. In the summer, they are perhaps a minor inconvenience, and only cause real problems when it comes to refrigeration units or storage facilities. However, in the winter, such a situation could lead to a large-scale catastrophe. Millions of people would flee en masse.

▪️ The publication notes that only half of Ukraine’s energy production capacity remains, and the situation could become extremely difficult by winter.

September 15, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Nuclear vs Energy Storage

The Chair of the Nuclear Free Local Authorities has made a plea to the new
Minister of State for Energy for the Department of Energy Security and Net
Zero to prioritise investment in energy storage capacity alongside
renewables as a key component in making Britain a Net Zero nation. Energy
storage, both short- and long-term, is often an unsung, but essential,
element to achieving – as is the Labour Government’s stated ambition
– the goal to make the UK a ‘clean, green energy superpower’.

Numerous academic studies have demonstrated that this is not only possible
solely through investment in renewables, but that it can be achieved at a
cost to the taxpayer that is £100 billion lower than one which embraces
nuclear energy.

The NFLA’s Scotland Policy Advisor Pete Roche has just
written an excellent briefing published under the No2 Nuclear banner
titled, ‘Energy Storage and Flexibility in a 100% Renewable Energy
System’, which highlights its criticality in capturing the surplus energy
often generated, but unused, by renewables as well is in more effectively
managing energy demand against supply.

Dr. M.V. Ramana, the Simons Chair in
Global Disarmament and Human Security at the University of British
Columbia, described the balance between generation, storage and management:
“We have learned how to manage grids with high proportions of renewable
sources. To balance this variability, we must invest in a mix of renewable
energy technologies across various regions, and in battery and other
storage technologies to store excess energy. In addition, we need to shape
electricity demand to more closely match supply.”

NFLA 12th Sept 2024

https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/nflas-make-plea-to-minister-to-prioritise-unsung-side-of-renewable-energy-equation/

September 14, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

Renewables beat nuclear – even with full balancing included

RENEW EXTRA WEEKLY, 9 Sept 24

A new Danish study comparing nuclear and renewable energy systems (RES) concludes that, although nuclear systems require less flexibility capacity than renewable-only systems, a renewable energy system is cheaper than a nuclear based system, even with full backup: it says ‘lower flexibility costs do not offset the high investment costs in nuclear energy’.

It’s based on a zero-carbon 2045 smart energy scenario for Denmark, although it says its conclusions are valid elsewhere given suitable adjustments for local conditions. ‘The high investment costs in nuclear power alongside cost for fuel and operation and maintenance more than tip the scale in favour of the Only Renewables scenario. The costs of investing in and operating the nuclear power plants are simply too high compared to Only Renewables scenario, even though more investment must be put into flexibility measures in the latter’.

In the Danish case, it says that ‘the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour.’ It goes on ‘to achieve a more cost-efficient system based predominantly on nuclear power- the investment costs would have to drop to 1.55 MEU/MW. This is significantly below any current or future cost projection for nuclear power. Such a high cost-margin indicates that a combination of low-cost RES and sector coupling presents a cost-effective energy transition making it very hard for nuclear power to deliver a competitive alternative’…………………………………………………………………………….

Interestingly, in the UK context, Lord Turner, Chair of the UK Energy Transitions Commission, has also said that costly new nuclear plants may not be needed for net zero, since there are cheaper, low-carbon alternatives that could back up intermittent renewables. Hydrogen fuel or gas power plants fitted with CCS could fill the gap when wind or solar was not enough to keep the lights on. ‘I don’t think it is the case that you need new nuclear to balance the system. The systems of the future don’t absolutely need a base load.’ The power system ‘can work on a combination of intermittent variable renewables, wind & solar plus some hydro. I think the challenge for new nuclear is that it is just expensive. Bluntly, new nuclear can play very little role in a 2030 target.’

Well maybe that’s why there seems to have been some second thoughts about the new EPR reactor proposed for Sizewell in the UK, with the final investment decision for the Sizewell C nuclear plant evidently facing delays. Initially, EDF, the project’s developer, aimed to secure funding by the end of this year, but the timeline may now extend into 2025.

The prospect for nuclear do seem a bit uncertain, with the case for it these day relying in part on the claim that it can back up renewables and help avoid climate change. But that also seems to be uncertain, as is argued in a new comprehensive review of nuclear issues by academics from Germany and Finland, arguing that it has no role to play in responding to climate change. It says that it is ‘not a sustainable and affordable source of energy for the low-carbon energy transformation’ given its ‘cost-intensive nature, coupled with safety considerations’. And crucially it says that it is ‘characterized by very long construction times, and even longer developments of new technical generations, too far away and uncertain to contribute to climate change mitigation anytime soon’.

In addition ‘from an energy system perspective, nuclear power is not compatible with a system based on renewables, but rather hinders its expansion. Last but not least, nuclear power is particularly unfavorable in a future with higher temperatures and weather extremes and more military threats’.

That sounds pretty damning, even leaving aside radioactive waste handing, and also weapons proliferation and terrorism-related issues, with, as Prof. Ramana discusses in his recent powerful overview book ‘Nuclear is not the solution’, in addition to its other problems, reliance on civil nuclear power making ‘catastrophic nuclear war more likely’. Even if, hopefully, we can avoid that, there are still concerns about nuclear blackmail. And all this just to generate expensive energy.

Yes, going for renewables does mean we have invest in flexible balancing technology and energy storage, but that is cheaper overall and it also getting even cheaper, with many new options emerging. As Ramana says, to balance the variability of renewables, ‘we must invest in a mix of renewable energy technologies across various regions, and in battery and other storage technologies to store excess energy. In addition, we need to shape electricity demand to more closely match supply.’ In common with the German and Finnish researchers, he too sees that as the way ahead. https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2024/09/renewables-beat-nuclear-even-with-full.html

September 10, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | EUROPE, renewable | Leave a comment

The massive new projects propelling South Australia towards 100 per cent net renewables

The season of renewable records has begun early in Australia, sending
average coal power down below 50 per cent for the first time, establishing
new records for wind output, and sending grid demand to new lows across the
main grid.

The state at the forefront of the country’s energy transition
is, without a shadow of a doubt, South Australia. It kicked out coal in
2016, and is steadily reducing its dependence on gas. When a new
transmission link to NSW is completed in the next two years, the state
expects to run at 100 per cent net renewables – reducing gas to a support
role and becoming the first multi-gigawatt scale grid in the world to reach
such a milestone through wind and solar, rather than more conventional
renewable sources.

Big industry is lining up to build new factories and
production facilities to take advantage of cleaner power and lower
wholesale prices, and BHP is talking of doubling its mining production at
the giant Olympic Dam – and its smelting and refining capacity. The
latest data shows that wind and solar provided enough power to meet more
than 70 per cent of the state’s electricity demand in the last 12 months
– although the government says it is 75 per cent.

Over the past 30 days
it has been 86.4 per cent, and over the past week it has been more than 105
per cent. Rooftop solar now supplies the equivalent of all state demand on
occasions, presenting a complication for the market operator which prefers
to run the grid with assets it can control. It’s working on that solution
with new inverter standards and grid protocols, including solar
switch-offs. South Australia also led the country, and the world, in the
installation of the first big battery, the original “Tesla Big Battery”
now properly known as the Hornsdale Power Reserve.

Renew Economy 6th Sept 2024

https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-massive-new-projects-propelling-south-australia-towards-100-per-cent-net-renewables/

September 8, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, renewable | Leave a comment

Hokkaido more plugged in to renewable energy than rest of Japan

Hokkaido had over 40% of its electricity generated by renewable energy
sources in fiscal 2023, nearly twice the national average and already above
the maximum share that the central government is looking to achieve by
2030.

With use of renewables — especially wind power — expected to grow
further, the local government has set a goal of getting 60% of its
electricity from solar, on and offshore wind, biomass, hydropower,
geothermal and some nuclear energy by 2030.

For all of Japan, the average
goal is to have between 36% and 38% of electricity be from renewables by
then.

Japan Times 26th Aug 2024

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/08/26/japan/society/hokkaido-renewable-energy/

August 29, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Japan, renewable | Leave a comment

AI’s insatiable energy demand is going nuclear

Yahoo.com, Rachelle Akuffo, Host, Mon, Aug 26, 2024

On the surface, the deal indicates Amazon’s ambitious expansion plans. But dig deeper, and the company’s purchase of a nuclear power facility speaks to a broader issue that Amazon and other tech giants are grappling with: the insatiable demand for energy from artificial intelligence.

In Amazon’s case, AWS purchased Talen Energy’s Pennsylvania nuclear-powered data center to co-locate its rapidly expanding AI data center next to a power source, keeping up with the energy demands that artificial intelligence has created.

The strategy is a symptom of an energy reckoning that has been building as AI has been creeping into consumers’ daily lives — powering everything from internet searches to smart devices and cars

Companies like Google (GOOG, GOOGL), Apple (AAPL), and Tesla (TSLA) continue to enhance AI capabilities with new products and services. Each AI task requires vast computational power, which translates into substantial electricity consumption through energy-hungry data centers.

Estimates suggest that by 2027, global AI-related electricity consumption could rise by 64%, reaching up to 134 terawatt hours annually — or the equivalent of the electricity usage of countries like the Netherlands or Sweden.

This raises a critical question: How are Big Tech companies addressing the energy demands that their future AI innovations will require?

The rising energy consumption of AI

According to Pew Research, more than half of Americans interact with AI at least once a day.

Prominent researcher and data scientist Sasha Luccioni, who serves as the AI and climate lead at Hugging Face, a company that builds tools for AI applications, often discusses AI’s energy consumption.

Luccioni explained that while training AI models is energy-intensive — training the GPT-3 model, for example, used about 1,300 megawatt-hours of electricity — it typically only happens once. However, the inference phase, where models generate responses, can require even more energy due to the sheer volume of queries.

For example, when a user asks AI models like ChatGPT a question, it involves sending a request to a data center, where powerful processors generate a response. This process, though quick, uses approximately 10 times more energy than a typical Google search.

“The models get used so many times, and it really adds up quickly,” Luccioni said. She noted that depending on the size of the model, 50 million to 200 million queries can consume as much energy as training the model itself.

“ChatGPT gets 10 million users a day,” Luccioni said. “So within 20 days, you have reached that ‘ginormous’ … amount of energy used for training via deploying the model.”

The largest consumers of this energy are Big Tech companies, known as hyperscalers, that have the capacity to scale AI efforts rapidly with their cloud services. Microsoft (MSFT), Alphabet, Meta (META), and Amazon alone are projected to spend $189 billion on AI in 2024.

As AI-driven energy consumption grows, it puts additional strain on the already overburdened energy grids……………………………………………
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ais-insatiable-energy-demand-is-going-nuclear-143234914.html

.

August 26, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY | Leave a comment

Tech Companies Are Racing to Harness Nuclear Power

Oil Price, By Felicity Bradstock – Aug 18, 2024

Tech companies are investing heavily in nuclear energy to power their AI operations.
Regulatory challenges and utility opposition are hindering the development of new nuclear projects.

With the demand for power increasing rapidly, tech companies are looking for innovative solutions to meet the demand created by artificial intelligence (AI) and other new technologies. In addition to solar and wind power, several tech companies are investing in nuclear energy projects to power operations. The clear shift in the public perception of nuclear power has once again put the abundant clean [!] energy source on the table as an option, with the U.S. nuclear energy capacity expected to rise significantly over the coming decades. ……………………………

Tech companies have invested heavily in wind and solar energy to power their data centers and are now looking for alternative clean power supplies. In 2021, Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, invested $375 in the nuclear fusion startup Helion Energy. Last year, Microsoft signed a deal to purchase power from Helion beginning in 2028. Altman also chairs the nuclear fission company Oklo. Oklo is planning to build a massive network of small-scale nuclear reactors in rural southeastern Idaho to provide power to data centers as the electricity demand grows. It is also planning to build two commercial plants in southern Ohio.

However, getting some of these nuclear projects off the ground is no easy feat. Oklo has found it difficult to get the backing of nuclear regulators. In 2022, the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (FERC), which oversees commercial nuclear power plants, rejected the firm’s application for the design of its Idaho “Aurora” project, for not providing enough safety information. …………………………………………

In addition to the red tape from regulators, many utilities are opposing new nuclear projects due to their anticipated impact on the grid. Some data centers require 1 GW or more of power, which is around the total capacity of a nuclear reactor in the U.S. PJM Interconnection, the biggest grid operator in the U.S., recently warned that power supply and demand is tightening as the development of new generation is falling behind demand. However, some tech companies are proposing to connect data centers directly to nuclear plants, also known as co-location, to reduce the burden on the grid.

However, several U.S. utilities oppose co-location plans……………………………………………………… more https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Tech-Companies-Are-Racing-to-Harness-Nuclear-Power.html

August 20, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY, technology | Leave a comment

Amazon Vies for Nuclear-Powered Data Center

The deal has become a flash point over energy fairness

1EEE Spectrum, Andrew Moseman, 12 Aug 2024

When Amazon Web Services paid US $650 million in March for another data center to add to its armada, the tech giant thought it was buying a steady supply of nuclear energy to power it, too. The Susquehanna Steam Electric Station outside of Berick, Pennsylvania, which generates 2.5 gigawatts of nuclear power, sits adjacent to the humming data center and had been directly powering it since the center opened in 2023.

After striking the deal, Amazon wanted to change the terms of its original agreement to buy 180 megawatts of additional power directly from the nuclear plant. Susquehanna agreed to sell it. But third parties weren’t happy about that, and their deal has become bogged down in a regulatory battle that will likely set a precedent for data centers, cryptocurrency mining operations, and other computing facilities with voracious appetites for clean electricity.

Putting a data center right next to a power plant so that it can draw electricity from it directly, rather than from the grid, is becoming more common as data centers seek out cheap, steady, carbon-free power. Proposals for co-locating data centers next to nuclear power have popped up in New Jersey, Texas, Ohio, and elsewhere. Sweden is considering using small modular reactors to power future data centers.

However, co-location raises questions about equity and energy security, because directly-connected data centers can avoid paying fees that would otherwise help maintain grids. They also hog hundreds of megawatts that could be going elsewhere.

When Amazon Web Services paid US $650 million in March for another data center to add to its armada, the tech giant thought it was buying a steady supply of nuclear energy to power it, too. The Susquehanna Steam Electric Station outside of Berick, Pennsylvania, which generates 2.5 gigawatts of nuclear power, sits adjacent to the humming data center and had been directly powering it since the center opened in 2023.

After striking the deal, Amazon wanted to change the terms of its original agreement to buy 180 megawatts of additional power directly from the nuclear plant. Susquehanna agreed to sell it. But third parties weren’t happy about that, and their deal has become bogged down in a regulatory battle that will likely set a precedent for data centers, cryptocurrency mining operations, and other computing facilities with voracious appetites for clean electricity.

Putting a data center right next to a power plant so that it can draw electricity from it directly, rather than from the grid, is becoming more common as data centers seek out cheap, steady, carbon-free power. Proposals for co-locating data centers next to nuclear power have popped up in New Jersey, Texas, Ohio, and elsewhere. Sweden is considering using small modular reactors to power future data centers.

However, co-location raises questions about equity and energy security, because directly-connected data centers can avoid paying fees that would otherwise help maintain grids. They also hog hundreds of megawatts that could be going elsewhere.

“They’re effectively going behind the meter and taking that capacity off of the grid that would otherwise serve all customers,” says Tony Clark, a senior advisor at the law firm Wilkinson Barker Knauer and a former commissioner at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), who has testified to a U.S. House subcommittee on the subject.

Amazon’s nuclear power deal meets hurdles

The dust-up over the Amazon-Susquehanna agreement started in June, after Amazon subsidiary Amazon Web Services filed a notice to change its interconnection service agreement (ISA) in order to buy more nuclear power from Susquehanna’s parent company, Talen Energy. Amazon wanted to increase the amount of behind-the-meter power it buys from the plant from 300 MW to 480 MW. Shortly after it requested the change, utility giants Exelon and American Electric Power (AEP), filed a protest against the agreement and asked FERC to hold a hearing on the matter…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Costs of data centers seeking nuclear energy

Yet such arrangements could have major consequences for other energy customers, Clark argues. For one, directing all the energy from a nuclear plant to a data center is, fundamentally, no different than retiring that plant and taking it offline. “It’s just a huge chunk of capacity leaving the system,” he says, resulting in higher prices and less energy supply for everyone else.

Another issue is the “behind-the-meter” aspect of these kinds of deals. A data center could just connect to the grid and draw from the same supply as everyone else, Clark says. But by connecting directly to the power plant, the center’s owner avoids paying the administrative fees that are used to maintain the grid and grow its infrastructure. Those costs could then get passed on to businesses and residents who have to buy power from the grid. “There’s just a whole list of charges that get assessed through the network service that if you don’t connect through the network, you don’t have to pay,” Clark says. “And those charges are the part of the bill that will go up” for everyone else.

Even the “carbon-free” public relations talking points that come with co-location may be suspect in some cases. In Washington State, where Schneider works, new data centers are being planted next to the region’s abundant hydropower stations, and they’re using so much of that energy that parts of the state are considering adding more fossil fuel capacity to make ends meet. This results in a “zero-emissions shell game,” Clark wrote in a white paper on the subject.

These early cases are likely only the beginning. A report posted in May from the Electric Power Research Institute predicts energy demand from data centers will double by 2030, a leap driven by the fact that AI queries need ten times more energy than traditional internet searches. The International Energy Agency puts the timeline for doubling sooner–in 2026. Data centers, AI, and the cryptocurrency sector consumed an estimated 460 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2022, and could reach more than 1000 TWh in 2026, the agency predicts.

Data centers face energy supply challenges

New data centers can be built in a matter of months, but it takes years to build utility-scale power projects, says Poorvi Patel, manager of strategic insights at Electric Power Research Institute and contributor to the report. The potential for unsustainable growth in electricity needs has put grid operators on alert, and in some cases has sent them sounding the alarm. Eirgrid, a state-owned transmission operator in Ireland, last week warned of a “mass exodus” of data centers in Ireland if it can’t connect new sources of energy. ……………………………………………………………………………………..more https://spectrum.ieee.org/amazon-data-center-nuclear-power—

August 19, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY, technology | Leave a comment

Data centers want to tap existing nuclear power. Is that good or bad?

Tech giants are working to divert round-the-clock nuclear power to massive new data centers. Regulators and climate advocates are concerned.

Canary Media, By Jeff St. John, 14 Aug 24

Across the U.S. East Coast, nuclear power plant owners are proposing marriages to tech giants who are both desperate for electricity to fuel their massive data-center expansion plans and publicly committed to using clean energy. The proposals go like this: Build data centers that connect directly to our round-the-clock, carbon-free nuclear power, and secure long-term financial and clean-energy benefits for the both of us.

The companies looking to tie the knot say these are matches made in heaven. But a growing number of critics are objecting at the altar.

The first such announcement came in March, when Amazon Web Services agreed to spend $650 million to buy an existing 960 megawatt data center campus that’s already hooked up to Talen Energy’s 2.5 gigawatt Susquehanna nuclear power plant in northeastern Pennsylvania. Several similar proposals are in the works, with nuclear power plant owners Constellation Energy, Vistra, Dominion Energy, and Public Service Enterprise Group eyeing prospects, according to company statements and analyst reports.

Nuclear energy and tech company trade groups say these “colocation” projects will bring stability to a nuclear industry that provides the country’s largest share of zero-carbon energy. By allowing data centers to circumvent the overtaxed U.S. grid and get online faster, these linkups will also bolster U.S. competitiveness in artificial intelligence and other high-tech fields, they say, positioning the deals as a partial solution to the problem of meeting fast-rising electricity demand from industrial customers.

…mounting scrutiny from energy analysts and climate advocates, who fear that a rush to divert existing zero-carbon nuclear energy to power-hungry data centers could end up raising ratepayer bills, reducing grid reliability, and increasing power sector emissions overall.

Those are the risks outlined in a July blog post by Jackson Morris, director of state power sector policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We’re not anti–data center and anti–load growth,” Morris told Canary Media. “But we want to make sure that actions being taken don’t lead to negative impacts in terms of emissions reductions or costs to consumers.”

Lawmakers and regulators in Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania are raising similar concerns……………………..

When a new data center comes online, new electricity generation has to be built — either to support the facility directly or to plug the massive hole created when the data center siphons off electricity from an existing power source.

Unless those data center owners can build enough clean energy to make up that gap, that replacement power will largely come from existing fossil-fueled power plants………………………………………………………………………………………………….more https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/data-centers-want-to-tap-existing-nuclear-power-is-that-good-or-bad

August 16, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY | Leave a comment

How French nuclear output has declined faster in France than Germany

French decline may be caused by having to ‘load follow’ renewables

David Toke, Aug 09, 2024, https://davidtoke.substack.com/p/how-french-nuclear-output-has-declined
Whatever one thinks of the German decision to phase-out nuclear power, a really strange thing is that the French are coordinating an unintentional phase-out of nuclear energy. At the same time as Germany has been running down its nuclear production. Much attention has focussed on criticising German policy, but much less on criticising what is a continuing failure of French energy policy.

For sure French non-fossil energy production is still much higher than most countries, but this lead is seriously declining. The proportion of non-fossil electricity production is now little higher than a country such as non-nuclear Denmark which has built up its renewables from virtually nothing in recent times. Talk of building half a dozen more French nuclear plant is – just talk.

Plans for new nuclear plant have been bullish for decades- the term ‘nuclear renaissance’ has been doled out for 20 years. However, in practice, little gets built. On the other hand France is failing to develop its renewable energy industry at anything like a good enough speed to make up for the decline in nuclear production. You can see the comparison of nuclear decline in France and Germany in the graph below [on original], which takes its data from the Energy Institute ‘s Statistical Review of World Energy, see HERE

As can be seen in the graph, from 2011 French nuclear production declined by 104 TWh, whilst in Germany it declined by 101 TWh. Yet it has been the decline in German nuclear production (following the decision to phase out nuclear in 2011) that has been much more of a long-term talking point.

Certainly, the dominant message in the press in the UK, spread by politicians from Labour and Conservatives, is that the failure to stop the decline in nuclear production which has also occurred in the UK is because of political failure. But this story ought to be wearing thin, after so many years of so-called nuclear renaissance and its promotion. Might it just have something to do with the failing nature of the technology itself? This seems obvious to independent observers, but it does not detract from our leaders’ desire to throw immense sums after technology that takes almost forever to deliver.

I discuss these issues in my recently published book Energy Revolutions, Profiteering versus Democracy’ (Pluto Press) (see HERE). But a few salient points can be made here to attempt to explain the decline in nuclear power in France. One can hypothesise a couple of reasons why French nuclear production may be declining. One factor may well simply be that the French nuclear industry did a bad job and built a lot of sub-standard power plant.

There is another possibility which may be adding to the problems caused by the first suggested reason. The French nuclear power stations may be accelerating their own demise because of the technical damage caused by the balancing role they are being forced to play in the French power market. Nuclear power plant in France have been forced to ‘load-follow’ ie, often reduce their output, because of variations in solar and wind power that is generated across the continental electricity system. #

The continental electricity interconnectors use AC transmission equipment which means that France cannot just disconnect when there is too much electricity coming into the French system. French power plant have to power down, and since nuclear forms such a dominant part of French generation, the nuclear power power plant has to regularly ramp up and down.

There are relatively few publicly available discussions of the possibilities for reactor damage in such load-following activities. Such discussions as they are, seem to be side-shows to ascertaining whether load following by nuclear reactors is possible, rather than the long-term damage involved. But there are some pointers in the discussions that are available.

One academic thesis commented, on a simulation based on a Swedish reactor, that: ‘The mechanisms for the damages are for example erosion-corrosion, fatigue, vibrations and wear. In the reactor core, there are also limitations for the rate of how quickly the power decrease and increase can be performed and how low the power can be reduced before problems with xenon poisoning and PCI occur……………….An increased usage of the pumps and valves was shown, which will give an added risk of wear and tear’ (Bjurenfolk, 220, 9 see HERE) . A study published by the Nuclear Energy Agency for the OECD commented: ‘Load cycling leads to variation in the coolant temperature, and thus in the temperatures of different components (see Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4). These periodic temperature variations lead to cyclic changes in the mechanical load in some parts of the equipment, and could induce localised structural damage (fatigue) of these elements if the temperature gradients are large.’ OECD/NEA 2011, 41, see HERE

Of course in the UK no such problems of damage due to load-following will ever occur for the simple reason that in the UK nuclear power has a privileged position. Despite increasing international interconnection, the interconnection is through DC transmission systems which offer much greater control over imports. Nuclear power plants are allowed to generate as much as they can, and it is renewable energy that has to power down in cases where there are grid constraints or an excess of supply compared to demand.

In the case of Hinkley C, when it eventually comes online, the contracts given to EDF encourage it to carry on generating, not load follow. In the UK it is windfarms that bear political blame for compensation paid to them for lost production when they have to switch off (very often to protect nuclear production). This has been documented by 100percentrenewableuk in the case of Scotland, see HERE.

However, turning back to France, the French Government’s recent press releases on building future nuclear power obscure the fact that it has taken around two decades to build one plant. Meanwhile, the amount of solar and wind power production added in France since 2011 is rather less than the decline in nuclear production. To cap it all EDF has called for subsidies for solar pv to be reviewed (see HERE).

Yes, solar pv may be inconvenient for nuclear power, but it does seem that unless France develops renewables, including solar pv, much more quickly than has been done since 2011, the French electricity system will (at recent rates of nuclear decline) gradually collapse.

Certainly, the dominant message in the press in the UK, spread by politicians from Labour and Conservatives, is that the failure to stop the decline in nuclear production which has also occurred in the UK is because of political failure. But this story ought to be wearing thin, after so many years of so-called nuclear renaissance and its promotion. Might it just have something to do with the failing nature of the technology itself? This seems obvious to independent observers, but it does not detract from our leaders’ desire to throw immense sums after technology that takes almost forever to deliver.

I discuss these issues in my recently published book Energy Revolutions, Profiteering versus Democracy’ (Pluto Press) (see HERE). But a few salient points can be made here to attempt to explain the decline in nuclear power in France. One can hypothesise a couple of reasons why French nuclear production may be declining. One factor may well simply be that the French nuclear industry did a bad job and built a lot of sub-standard power plant.

There is another possibility which may be adding to the problems caused by the first suggested reason. The French nuclear power stations may be accelerating their own demise because of the technical damage caused by the balancing role they are being forced to play in the French power market. Nuclear power plant in France have been forced to ‘load-follow’ ie, often reduce their output, because of variations in solar and wind power that is generated across the continental electricity system. #

The continental electricity interconnectors use AC transmission equipment which means that France cannot just disconnect when there is too much electricity coming into the French system. French power plant have to power down, and since nuclear forms such a dominant part of French generation, the nuclear power power plant has to regularly ramp up and down.

There are relatively few publicly available discussions of the possibilities for reactor damage in such load-following activities. Such discussions as they are, seem to be side-shows to ascertaining whether load following by nuclear reactors is possible, rather than the long-term damage involved. But there are some pointers in the discussions that are available.

One academic thesis commented, on a simulation based on a Swedish reactor, that: ‘The mechanisms for the damages are for example erosion-corrosion, fatigue, vibrations and wear. In the reactor core, there are also limitations for the rate of how quickly the power decrease and increase can be performed and how low the power can be reduced before problems with xenon poisoning and PCI occur……………….An increased usage of the pumps and valves was shown, which will give an added risk of wear and tear’ (Bjurenfolk, 220, 9 see HERE) . A study published by the Nuclear Energy Agency for the OECD commented: ‘Load cycling leads to variation in the coolant temperature, and thus in the temperatures of different components (see Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4). These periodic temperature variations lead to cyclic changes in the mechanical load in some parts of the equipment, and could induce localised structural damage (fatigue) of these elements if the temperature gradients are large.’ OECD/NEA 2011, 41, see HERE

Of course in the UK no such problems of damage due to load-following will ever occur for the simple reason that in the UK nuclear power has a privileged position. Despite increasing international interconnection, the interconnection is through DC transmission systems which offer much greater control over imports. Nuclear power plants are allowed to generate as much as they can, and it is renewable energy that has to power down in cases where there are grid constraints or an excess of supply compared to demand