nuclear-news

Is big tech going all in on nuclear? Google and Microsoft have just pledged $45 billion on renewables

Sophie Vorrath, Dec 13, 2024, Renew Economy 
https://reneweconomy.com.au/is-big-tech-going-all-in-on-nuclear-google-and-microsoft-have-pledged-45-billion-spend-on-renewables/

Did you hear the one about big tech going nuclear? One of the lines being trotted out in support of nuclear power by shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien – and faithfully reproduced by the Murdoch press – is that everyone’s doing it, including global tech giants Google and Microsoft.

“Not only does Labor claim to know the economics of nuclear better than companies like Microsoft who signed a massive nuclear deal, but they also think they can run the numbers better than (US banks and financiers) who have come out in favour of nuclear energy,” O’Brien said in September.

Microsoft did announce, in September, a 20 year power purchase agreement with Constellation Energy to reboot one unit at the mothballed Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania and rebadge it as the Crane Clean Energy Centre.

Three Mile Island was, in 1979, the site of the worst commercial nuclear power accident in US history. It was shuttered in 2019 for economic reasons, with Constellation’s then parent company Exelon Corp, saying in 2017 that its closure was due to lack of financial rescue from the state.

This is not unusual. According to TechCrunch, in the last decade, seven nuclear reactors have been decommissioned in the US, while only two new ones have been switched on.

Notwithstanding the fact that restarting a nuclear plant that has been shut down for five years has never been done before (according to reports, Constellation Energy is reportedly seeking a taxpayer-subsidised loan it hopes will save it $122 million in borrowing costs) this somewhat baffling deal is expected to supply around 850 MW.

Google, meanwhile, in October announced plans to invest in small modular reactors to meet its own growing data centre needs and Amazon followed suit, with news of “three new agreements to support the development of nuclear energy projects,” again with a focus on the the as-yet commercially unproven SMR technology.

So, yes – all three of these companies have recently announced plans to invest in nuclear power – albeit in markets where it already exists (although not in the case of SMRs) and in technology and applications that are highly speculative.

Does this mean they have come over all Team Nuclear? Hardly.

Amazon, as it bragged in October, has been the largest corporate purchaser of renewable energy in the world for four years running, according to Bloomberg NEF, having invested billions of dollars in more than 500 solar and wind projects globally, which together are capable of generating enough energy to power the equivalent of 7.6 million US homes.

Amazon met its goal of sourcing 100% of the electricity its uses with renewable energy in 2023 – seven years ahead of the 2030 target.

Google announced just this week that it was funding $US20 billion ($A31 billion) worth of renewable power projects across the US, in a deal with Intersect Power and investment fund TPG Rise Climate to develop power to drive several gigawatt-scale data centers.

Microsoft, last week, joined a US investor Acadia Infrastructure Capital and other companies to launch the Climate and Communities Investment Coalition (CCIC) to develop a $US9 billion ($A14 billion) pipeline of renewable energy projects across the country, as reported in Reuters.

On its website, Microsoft says it invested in over 23.6 million megawatt-hours of renewable energy in 2023 financial year – “enough to power Paris with renewable electricity for about two years.”

Earlier this year, the company announced plans to procure some 9.5GW of solar panels from Qcells for PPAs through 2032 – adding about 1.5GW every year. In April Microsoft revealed in a job listing that it had more than 20GW of renewable energy under contract.

December 13, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | spinbuster | Leave a comment

Tony Blair think tank says UK needs to build new nuclear ‘at pace’.

“The latest example is today’s report for the Tony Blair Institute – which effectively ignores the poor comparative performance, costs and build times, of nuclear compared to zero carbon alternatives.“

“If it is inadvertently deceived by military pressures into ignoring the real growing obsolescence of nuclear power in the face of renewable alternatives, then
democracy itself is at risk.”

By Tom Pashby New Civil Engineer 2nd Dec 2024

The UK needs to build new nuclear “at pace” if it wants to remain competitive against similar countries pursuing nuclear power programmes, according to a report from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBIGC).

It structured its recommendations to the UK Government around
three main points. The first was that the UK should “create a modernised,
streamlined and efficient planning and regulatory regime for new nuclear
technologies. This would reduce delays and enhance the standardisation
required to unlock new low-cost projects at scale.”

It specifically called out the Office for Nuclear (ONR) Regulation, the UK Government’s
nuclear sector regulator, saying it recommended that the government require
the ONR “to regard approval of a single reactor as the basis for fleet
approval, to standardise design across deployment.” It also suggested:
“Introducing a two-year limit for the ONR and Environment Agency to
license nuclear reactors that are similar to previously licensed
designs.”

The report continued in its recommendations: “Second, the UK
government should use the conclusion of its ongoing SMR competition to help
kick-start the SMR pipeline.” It said this would “create options” for
the government to buy SMR capacity for use on the national grid.

And third, it said: “The government should deepen the UK-US partnership on SMR and
the deployment of advanced modular reactors (AMRs), also known as Gen IV
reactors, including cooperation on fuels, financing and supply-chain
development.”

Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLAs) says it is “the
voice for local authorities opposed to civil nuclear power and in favour of
renewables.” NFLAs policy adviser Pete Roche said: “Tony Blair’s
Institute is clearly not keeping up with the latest research which shows
that 100% renewable energy scenarios are perfectly feasible, require less
energy, cost less and create more jobs than business as usual scenarios.

“Instead it has fallen for a fantasy promoted by the nuclear industry
which can only increase our electricity bills and will fail to reduce
carbon emissions in time to protect us from rising temperatures.”

Academic says case for nuclear ‘at its weakest’ University of Sussex
professor of science and technology policy Andy Stirling said: “Whatever
opinion is held on issues around nuclear power, the same simple question
pops up, ‘Why has support for nuclear power grown most noisy, just as the
case is at its weakest?’

“The latest example is today’s report for
the Tony Blair Institute – which effectively ignores the poor comparative
performance, costs and build times, of nuclear compared to zero carbon
alternatives. “Over the past two decades, the relative competitiveness of
nuclear power and renewables-based zero carbon strategies has shifted
massively in favour of the latter.

As a recent Royal Society report
confirms, there is no level of nuclear contribution to UK electricity
supply that does anything other than raise electricity prices.” Stirling
went on to say it is “increasingly only in situations dominated by
entrenched military interests or shadily-funded thinktanks, that the
clamour of emotive nuclear outbursts is most loudly heard. “For media
coverage to become skewed by this noise threatens more than just energy
futures and the future efficacy of climate action.

“If it is inadvertently deceived by military pressures into ignoring the real growing
obsolescence of nuclear power in the face of renewable alternatives, then
democracy itself is at risk.”

 New Civil Engineer 2nd Dec 2024
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/tony-blair-think-tank-says-uk-needs-to-build-new-nuclear-at-pace-02-12-2024/

December 6, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | spinbuster | Leave a comment

Nuclear hype ignores high cost, long timelines

November 18, 2024, Dennis Wamsted and David Schlissel,   https://ieefa.org/articles/nuclear-hype-ignores-high-cost-long-timelines?fbclid=IwY2xjawGqDMZleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHa4pEgK_ocKG9gTiE0qK663dfc6SmO8F381Rlg6kefl44j9IUxx51qLUkg_aem_lYNxB1cdtOXGZOwGA6HDYQ 

Nuclear options are years away, while solar, wind, storage and geothermal are clean, cost-effective options ready now

Key Takeaways:

Nuclear power is being touted as a solution to meeting electricity demand spurred by the growth of artificial intelligence and data centers.

Announcements of new SMR plans have one thing in common: They’ve been very short on details.

Solar and geothermal plants are being built for less money and in much less time than even the most optimistic SMR designs.

Increasingly, nuclear power is being touted as a solution to meet growing electricity demand, but a new briefing note from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) shows that the hype is ignoring the fact that nuclear projects are expensive and take too long to get online.

The growth of artificial intelligence (AI) and data centers is creating increased demand for electricity, and announcements that the need will be met with nuclear—specifically, small modular reactors (SMRs)—have been coming quickly. The nuclear announcements are not only short on details, but also gloss over the fact that SMRs will not come online soon enough to meet the growing demand.

“It is time for companies and investors to stop and take a deep breath,” said Dennis Wamsted, IEEFA energy analyst and co-author of the report. “Restarting a limited number of recently closed conventional reactors is entirely different than building unproven and unlicensed SMRs. While some SMRs might bring additional power down the road, the reality is that solar and geothermal plants are being built for less money and faster than even the most optimistic SMR designs.”

The rush for electricity to power rising AI and data center demand is an issue that needs addressing now. SMRs are a next-decade resource, at best. Clean, cost-effective power options are available today for big tech and additional electricity needs. Utilities, developers, and large power users need to focus there and stop betting on expensive, unproven nuclear technologies that will not generate meaningful amounts of power for years to come.

November 21, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | spinbuster | Leave a comment

Dangerous Hype: Big Tech’s Nuclear Lies

M.V. Ramana, November 1, 2024,  https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/11/01/big-techs-nuclear-lies/

In the last couple of months, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, in that order, made announcements about using nuclear power for their energy needs. Describing nuclear energy using questionable adjectives like “reliable,” “safe,” “clean,” and “affordable,” all of which are belied by the technology’s seventy-year history, these tech behemoths were clearly interested in hyping up their environmental credentials and nuclear power, which is being kept alive mostly using public subsidies.

Both these business conglomerations—the nuclear industry and its friends and these ultra-wealthy corporations and their friends—have their own interests in such hype. In the aftermath of catastrophic accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, and in the face of its inability to demonstrate a safe solution to the radioactive wastes produced in all reactors, the nuclear industry has been using its political and economic clout to mount public relations campaigns to persuade the public that nuclear energy is an environmentally friendly source of power.

Tech giants like Microsoft, Amazon, and Google, too, have attempted to convince the public they genuinely cared for the environment and really wanted to do their bit to mitigate climate change. In 2020, for example, Amazon pledged to reach net zero by 2040. Google went one better when its CEO declared that “Google is aiming to run our business on carbon-free energy everywhere, at all times” by 2030. Not that they are on any actual trajectory to meeting these targets.

Why are they making such announcements?

Greenwashing environmental impacts

The reasons underlying these companies investing in such PR campaigns is not hard to discern. There is growing awareness of the tremendous environmental impacts of the insatiable appetite for data from these companies, as well as the threat they pose to already inadequate efforts to mitigate climate change.

Earlier this year, the Wall Street company Morgan Stanley estimated that data centers will “produce about 2.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions through the end of the decade”. Climate scientists have warned that unless global emissions decline sharply by 2030, we are unlikely to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, a widely shared target. Even without the additional carbon dioxide emitted into the air as a result of data centers and their energy demand, the gap between current emissions and what is required is yawning.

But it is not just the climate. As calculated by a group of academic researchers, the exorbitant amounts of water required in the United States “to operate data centers, both directly for liquid cooling and indirectly to produce electricity” contribute to water scarcity in many parts of the country. This is the case elsewhere, too, and communities in countries ranging from Ireland to Spain to Chile are fighting plans to site data centers.

Then, there are the indirect impacts on the climate. Greenpeace documented, for example, that “Microsoft, Google, and Amazon all have connections to some of the world’s dirtiest oil companies for the explicit purpose of getting more oil and gas out of the ground and onto the market faster and cheaper.” In other words, the business models adopted by these tech behemoths depend on fossil fuels being used for longer and in greater quantities.

In addition to the increasing awareness about the impacts of data centers, one more possible reason for cloud companies to become interested in nuclear power might be what happened to cryptocurrency companies. Earlier this decade, these companies, too, found themselves getting a lot of bad publicity due to their energy demands and resulting emissions. Even Elon Musk, not exactly known as an environmentalist, talked about the “great cost to the environment” from cryptocurrency.

The environmental impacts of cryptocurrency played some part in efforts to regulate these. In September 2022, the White House put out a fact sheet on the climate and energy implications of Crypto-assets, highlighting President Biden’s executive order that called on these companies to reduce harmful climate impacts and environmental pollution. China even went as far as to banning cryptocurrency, and its aspirations to reducing its carbon emissions was one factor in this decision.

Crypto bros, for their part, did what cloud companies are doing now: make announcements about using nuclear power. Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are now following that strategy to pretend to be good citizens. However, the nuclear industry has its reasons for welcoming these announcements and playing them up.

The state of nuclear power

Strange as it might seem to folks basing their perception of the health of the nuclear industry on mainstream media, that technology is actually in decline. The share of global electricity produced by nuclear reactors has decreased from 17.5% in 1996 to 9.15% in 2023,  largely due to the high costs of and delays in building and operating nuclear reactors.

A good illustration is the Vogtle nuclear power plant in the state of Georgia. When the utility company building the reactor sought permission from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2011, it projected a total cost of $14 billion, and “in-service dates of 2016 and 2017” for the two units. The plant became operational only this year, after the second unit came online in March 2024, at a total cost of at least $36.85 billion.

Given this record, it is not surprising that there are no orders for any more nuclear plants.

As it has been in the past, the nuclear industry’s answer to this predicament is to advance the argument that new nuclear reactor designs would address all these concerns. But that has, yet again, proved not to be the case. In November 2023, the flagship project of NuScale, the small modular reactor design promoted as the leading one of its kind, collapsed because of high costs.

Supporters of nuclear power are now using another time-tested tactic to promote the technology: projecting that energy demand will grow so much that no other source of power will be able to meet these needs. For example, UK energy secretary Ed Davey resorted to this gambit in 2013 when he said that the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant was essential to “keep the lights on” in the country.

Likewise, when South Carolina Electric & Gas Company made its case to the state’s Public Service Commission about the need to build two AP1000 reactors at its V.C. Summer site—this project was subsequently abandoned after over $9 billion was spent—it forecast in its “2006 Integrated Resource Plan” that the company’s energy sales would increase by 22 percent between 2006 and 2016, and by nearly 30 percent by 2019.

This is the argument that the growth in data centres, propped up in part by the hype about generative artificial intelligence, has allowed proponents of nuclear energy to put forward. It remains to be seen whether this hype about generative AI actually materializes into a long-term sustainable business: see, for example, Ed Zitron’s meticulously documented argument for why OpenAI and Microsoft are simply burning billions of dollars and why their business model might “simply not be viable”.

In the case of the V.C. Summer project, South Carolina Electric & Gas found that its energy sales actually declined by 3 percent compared to 2006 by the time 2016 rolled around. Of course, that did not matter, because shareholders had already received over $2.5 billion in dividends and company executives had received millions of dollars in compensation, according to Nuclear Intelligence Weekly, a trade publication.

One wonders which executives and shareholders are going to receive a bounty from this round of nuclear hype.

What about emissions?

Will the investments in nuclear power by companies like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon help reduce emissions anytime soon?

The project expected to have the shortest timeline is the restart of the Three Mile Island Unit 1 reactor, which Constellation Energy projects will be ready in 2028. But if the history of reactor commissioning is anything to go by, that deadline will come and go without any power flowing from it.

Restarting a nuclear plant that has been shutdown has never been done before. In the case of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California, which hasn’t been shut down but was slated for decommissioning in 2024-25 till Governor Gavin Newsom did a volte-face, the Chair of the Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee explained why doing so was very difficult: “so many different programs and projects and so on have been put in place over the last half a dozen years predicated on that closure in 2024-25 and each one of those would have to be evaluated and some of them are okay, and some of them won’t be and some are going to be a real stretch and some are going to cost money and some of them aren’t going to be able to be done maybe”.

The cost of keeping Diablo Canyon open has been estimated by the plant’s owner at $8.3 billion and by independent environmental groups at nearly $12 billion. There are no reliable cost estimates for reopening Three Mile Island, but Constellation Energy, the plant’s owner, is already seeking a taxpayer-subsidized loan that would likely save the company $122 million in borrowing costs.

One must also remember that Microsoft already announced an agreement with Helion Energy, a company backed by billionaire Peter Thiele, to get nuclear fusion power by 2028. The chances of that happening are slim at best. In 2021, Helion announced that it had raised $500 million to build its fusion generation facility that would demonstrate “net electricity production” in three years, i.e., “in 2024”. That hasn’t happened so far. But going back further, one can see a similar and unfulfilled claim from 2014: then, the company’s chief executive had told the Wall Street Journal that the company hoped that its product would generate more energy than it would use “in the next three years” (i.e., in 2017). It is quite likely that Microsoft’s decision-makers knew of how unlikely it is that Helion will be able to supply nuclear fusion power by 2028. The publicity value is the most likely reason for announcing an agreement with Helion.

What about the small modular nuclear reactor designs—X-energy and Kairos—that Amazon and Google are betting on? Don’t hold your breath.

X-energy is an example of a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor design that dates back to the 1940s. There have been four reactors based on similar concepts that were operated commercially, two in Germany and two in the United States, respectively, and test reactors in the United Kingdom, Japan, and China. Each of these reactors proved problematic, suffering a variety of failures and unplanned shutdowns. The latest reactor with a similar design was built in China. Its performance leaves much to be desired: within about a year of being connected to the grid, its power output was reduced by 25 percent of the design power capacity, and even at this lowered capacity, it operated in 2023 with a load factor of just 8.5 percent.

Kairos, on the other hand, will be challenged by its choice of molten salts as coolant. These are chemically corrosive, and decades of search have identified no materials that can survive for long periods in such an environment without losing their integrity. The one empirical example of a reactor that used molten salts dates back to the 1960s, and this experience proved very problematic, both when the reactor operated and in the half-century thereafter, because managing the radioactive wastes produced before 1970 continued to be challenging.

Simply throwing money will not overcome these problems that have to do with fundamental physics and chemistry.

Just a dangerous distraction

Although Amazon, Google, and Microsoft claim to be investing in nuclear energy to meet the needs of AI, the evidence suggests that their real motive is to greenwash themselves.

Their investments are small and completely inadequate with relation to how much is needed to build a reactor. But their investments are also very small compared to the bloated revenues of these corporations. So, from the viewpoint of top executives, investing in nuclear power must seem a cheap way to reduce bad publicity about their environmental footprints. Unfortunately, “cheap” for them does not translate to cheap for the rest of us, not to mention the burden to future generations of human beings from worsening climate change and, possibly, increased production of radioactive waste that will stay hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years.

Because nuclear power has been portrayed as clean and a solution to climate change, announcements about it serve as a flashy distraction to focus public attention on. Meanwhile, these companies continue to expand their use of water and draw on coal and especially natural gas plants for their electricity. This is the magician’s strategy: misdirecting the audience’s attention while the real trick happens elsewhere. Their talk about investing in nuclear power also distracts from the conversations we should be having about whether these data centers and generative AI are socially desirable in the first place.

There are many reasons to oppose and organize against the wealth and power exercised by these massive corporations, such as their appropriation of user data to engage in what has been described as surveillance capitalism, their contracts with the Pentagon, and their support for Israel’s genocide and apartheid. Their investment into nuclear technology, and more importantly, hyping it up, offers one more reason. It is also a chance to establish coalitions between groups involved in very different fights.

M. V. Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia and the author of The Power of Promise: Examining Nuclear Energy in India.

November 4, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | spinbuster | Leave a comment

Refuting myths about nuclear and renewable energy

15 Oct 2024, Mark Diesendorf, https://renew.org.au/renew-magazine/renew/refuting-myths-about-nuclear-and-renewable-energy/

There’s a lot of talk at present about nuclear energy being a strong contender in Australia’s energy market. But how much is political spin getting in the way of fact? Dr Mark Diesendorf unpacks some of the myths that are out there.

The AUKUS agreement has given renewed stimulus to the nuclear energy lobby. With campaign support from the Murdoch press, they have increased their efforts to denigrate renewable energy and to promote nuclear energy and fossil gas in its place.

Because of the sheer volume of their campaign and the difficulty of publishing fact checks and refutations in the mass media, public opinion polls indicate that some people seem to be taking the misleading claims of the nuclear lobby seriously. In this article, I seek to refute the principal myths the lobby is disseminating.

Myth: Renewables cannot supply 100% electricity
Denmark, South Australia and Scotland already obtain 88%, 74% and 62% of their respective annual electricity generations from renewables, mostly wind. Scotland actually supplies the equivalent of 113% of its electricity consumption from renewables; the difference between its generation and consumption is exported by transmission line.

All three jurisdictions have achieved this with relatively small amounts of hydroelectricity, zero in South Australia. Given the political will, South Australia and Denmark could reach 100% net renewables generation by 2030, as indeed two northern states of Germany have already done. The ‘net’ means they trade some electricity with neighbours but on average will be at 100% renewables.

Computer simulations by several research groups, including ours at UNSW, using real hourly wind, solar and demand data spanning several years, show that the Australian electricity system could be run entirely on renewable energy, with the main contributions coming from solar and wind. System reliability can be maintained by a combination of storage, building excess generating capacity for wind and solar (which is cheap), key transmission links, and demand management encouraged by transparent pricing.

Storage to fill infrequent troughs in generation from the variable renewable sources will comprise existing hydro, pumped hydro (mostly small-scale and off-river), and batteries. Geographic dispersion of renewables will also assist.

For the rare extended periods of Dunkelflaute (literally ‘dark doldrums’), gas turbines with stores of biofuels or green hydrogen could be kept in reserve as insurance.

Coal and nuclear power stations are too inflexible in operation to be useful as backup—they require a whole day to start up from cold and, when operating, have difficulty and increased costs in attempting to vary their output to follow the peaks and troughs in demand.

Myth: We need baseload power stations

This is an old, discredited claim that refers to the past when variable renewables (wind and solar) were absent and the fossil fuelled electricity supply system consisted mainly of two types of power station: baseload and peak load.

Baseload power stations, such as coal and nuclear, operate 24/7 at maximum power output, except then they break down or undergo planned maintenance. Because of their inflexibility in operation, the former system also needed to supplement baseload with peak load power stations, hydro-electric and gas turbines. Peak load stations can vary their output rapidly in response to rapid changes in demand or breakdowns in baseload supply.

When a nuclear power reactor breaks down, it can be useless for weeks or months. For a conventional large reactor rated at 1000 to 1600 megawatts, the impact of breakdown on electricity supply can be disastrous. Big nuclear needs big back-up, which is expensive. Small modular reactors are not commercially available nor likely to be in the foreseeable future.

A renewable electricity system, including storage, delivers the same reliability, and hence the same economic value, as the traditional fossil fuelled system based on a mix of baseload and peak-load power stations.

Myth: Gas can fill the gap until nuclear is constructed
As a fuel for electricity generation, fossil gas in eastern Australia is many times more expensive per kilowatt-hour than coal, so it’s not generally used for baseload power. Instead, it’s used for fuelling gas turbines for meeting the peaks in demand and helping to fill troughs in supply. For this purpose, it contributes about 5% of Australia’s annual electricity generation. But, as storage expands, fossil gas will become redundant in the electricity system.

The fact that baseload gas-fired electricity generation continues temporarily in Western Australia results from a unique history. Unlike the eastern states, WA has a Domestic Gas Reservation Policy that insulates domestic customers from the high export prices of gas. However, most new gas supplies would have to come from high-cost unconventional sources.

South Australia has an ancient, struggling, gas-fired power station, Torrens Island, that was originally regarded as baseload, but can no longer perform as baseload. It will be closed in 2026 and replaced with renewables and batteries. South Australia will soon have 100% renewable electricity without a single baseload power station.

Myth: Nuclear energy is cheaper than renewables
Assuming that Australia would not buy nuclear reactors from China or Russia, the only choices are the European Nuclear Reactor and the Westinghouse AP-1000 (or variants thereof). The former type is under construction in Finland, France and the UK. In each case, construction times have greatly increased and original cost estimates have tripled or more.

In South Carolina USA, two AP-1000 reactors were abandoned while under construction due to delays and cost escalation—under state law the electricity customers had to pay for the failed project. In Georgia USA, two AP-1000 reactors have just been completed at double the original cost. They are the only new nuclear power reactors commenced in the USA since the 1970s and completed. Nuclear power projects bankrupted Westinghouse in 2017.

South Korea is exporting its modification of the Westinghouse reactor, the APR-1400, subsidised by an unknown amount by its government. Its only export project so far, the Barakah project in UAE, is three years behind schedule—the extent of its cost overrun is unknown.

The state-owned Korean Electric Power Company (KEPCO) has a debt equivalent to US$149 billion resulting mainly from its nuclear investments.

All expert studies—e.g. by CSIRO, AEMO, and the multinational investment advisor Lazard—find that nuclear is the most expensive electricity generating technology, while solar PV and wind are the cheapest. This is true after including the cost of ‘firming’ renewables with storage.

Contrary to the claims of some nuclear proponents, the levelised cost method used in these studies takes account of the different lifetimes of the technologies. It also includes the cost of connecting the power stations to the main grid. While renewables will need a few additional major high-voltage transmission links, so would nuclear.

Myth: Nuclear energy can co-exist with large contributions from renewables
This myth has two refutations:

1. Nuclear is too inflexible in operation to be a good partner for variable wind and solar. Its very high capital cost necessitates running it constantly at full power, not just during periods of low sun or wind. This would mean offloading renewables, although they are much cheaper to operate.
2. On current growth trends of renewables, there will be no room for nuclear energy in South Australia, Victoria or NSW. The 2022 shares of renewables in total electricity generation in each of these states were 74%, 37% and 33% respectively. Rapid growth from these levels is likely. It’s already too late for nuclear in SA. Provided the growth of renewables is not deliberately suppressed in NSW and Victoria, these states too will reach 100% renewables long before the first nuclear power station could go online

Myth: There is insufficient land for wind and solar
Although a wind farm may span a large area, its turbines, access road and substation together occupy a tiny fraction of that area, typically about 2%. Most wind farms are built on land that was previously cleared for agriculture and are compatible with all forms of agriculture. Off-shore wind occupies no land.

Solar farms are increasingly being built sufficiently high off the ground to allow sheep to graze beneath them, providing welcome shade. This practice, known as agrivoltaics, provides additional farm revenue that’s especially valuable during droughts. Rooftop solar occupies no land.

Myth: Nuclear energy is safe
Nuclear energy is dangerous for three reasons: its contribution to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the impacts of nuclear accidents and the task of managing high-level nuclear wastes for 100,000 years or more.
The two principal nuclear explosives are Uranium-235 and Plutonium-239. Both can be obtained from the nuclear energy supply chain.

Under the cloak of nuclear energy, several countries—the UK, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and South Africa—have produced nuclear weapons either by further enrichment of uranium to increase the concentration of Uranium-235 beyond the level (3-4%) required for nuclear energy or by extracting Plutonium-239 from the spent fuel of their nuclear power reactors.

In addition, the following countries have attempted to use nuclear power to produce nuclear explosives while cloaking their development of nuclear weapons: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Libya, South Korea and Taiwan.
Fortunately, they did not complete their programs for various reasons. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are intimately linked.

The most serious nuclear accidents were the Kyshtym disaster in the former USSR in 1957, the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in the USA in 1979, Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986, and Fukushima in Japan in 2011. Except for Three Mile Island, which took the US to the brink of a major disaster, each of these accidents have likely caused many thousands of cancer deaths from exposure to ionising radiation.

There are no operating permanent repositories for high-level nuclear wastes. Finland is the only country that’s close to completing a deep underground repository. The USA spent billions developing one at an unsuitable site in Nevada and then had to abandon it.

At present, high-level wastes are in temporary storage above ground at nuclear reactor sites, either in steel and concrete casks or in pools of water.
The contrast between nuclear and renewable energy technologies is demonstrated by their respective responses to the earthquake and tsunami that struck the Pacific coast of Japan in 2011.

At the Fukushima Daichi nuclear power station, three of the six nuclear reactors melted down, accompanied by hydrogen explosions that expelled vast amounts of radioactive materials into the environment.

Further down the coast at Kamisu, the tsunami passed through a near-shore wind farm located in the surf (see picture) without stopping it. It was only shut down when the grid went down and recommenced operating when the grid was restored three days later.

In summary
Renewables—solar, wind and existing hydro—together with storage and energy efficiency, can supply all Australia’s electricity and ultimately all energy, including transportation and heating.
Nuclear energy is too dangerous, too expensive, too slow to build, and too inflexible in operation to be a good partner for wind and solar. A nuclear scenario would inevitably involve the suppression of clean, inexpensive, safe renewables.

October 19, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | spinbuster | Leave a comment