Science & Technology

Dangerous Hope to Mitigate CO2 Pricing – So Watt Up?

Repost from masterresource

By Robert Bradley Jr. — September 16, 2021

“Safety of nuclear power is also the reason why it is uneconomical. Without Price-Anderson and other federal governments, the United States would not have had a nuclear industry.” (((Bradley, Less than)

“The annual death toll of 10 million people from fossil fuels that boil water is ultimately criminal danger.” (((Canon Brian, Less than)

Canon Bryan is a CFO and founding shareholder of Terrestrial Energy, based in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Brian And terrestrial are developing advanced commercial power plants. [1]

This exchange with sophisticated nuclear advocates is an example of the current debate about the future of nuclear power (in my opinion). here). Here’s what I got involved with Brian:

  1. We talk to each other from time to time as I focus on the United States and him internationally where most newly designed nuclear power plants are being built. Brian has not addressed the large-scale problems with the nuclear busts of Summer and Bogtor. All his discussions seem to be about new technologies.
  2. Regarding subsidies, Brian relies on international statistics that fossil fuel subsidies are primarily related to the transport (oil) side and not to power generation.
  3. Brian’s Holy Grail is the first experimental technique. “Fourth generation advanced nuclear power plant using unique integrated molten salt reactor (IMSR®) technology”. The company adds: “Terrestrial Energy is working with regulatory agencies and industrial partners to complete IMSR® engineering and bring the first IMSR® power plants into operation in the late 2020s.”

The replacements from a few months ago are:

Bradley: Nuclear power is the most complex and dangerous way to boil water. There are too many parts and too many remaining problems. Gas-fired composite cycle: faster, cheaper, more flexible …

Canon Brian: If you define “danger” by observable death per unit of energy throughout history, you are clearly wrong. Natural gas = 4,000 deaths / TWh nuclear = 90 deaths / TWh

Also, the goal of current energy systems is not just to supply energy, but to supply energy without emitting GHGs. According to the IPCC, NG is far inferior to nuclear power in climate reliability. This also represents a kind of danger. NG emissions = 480 grams CO2 / kWh Nuclear emissions = 12 grams CO2 / kWh

Your discussion about subsidies is really funny. According to IRENA, they conservatively (compared to other sources) estimate that fossil subsidies, including externalities, exceeded nuclear subsidies 147 times in certain years.

This is Another source Lists fossil subsidy IMF estimates at a much higher level than IRENA.

Bradley: “Danger” means that it is so dangerous that many safeguards and redundancy must be incorporated to be safe. Making it safe, in other words, ruins the economy. And as far as I know, private insurance companies don’t touch or touch it …

Brian: This article is about producing hydrogen using existing capacity, the so-called LTO (Long-Term Operation) nuclear power plant. There are more than 400 nuclear power plants operating worldwide. They are all insured. Your claim is irrelevant.

No, danger doesn’t mean that. Danger in the context of technology and infrastructure means how many people have died. Actuaries that calculate insurer risk are run on deterministic experience. NPP’s deterministic experience shows one thing with zero ambiguity. That is, NPP has been operating for 64 out of 65 years without harming one person or the ecosystem. The exact opposite of danger.

Bradley: This is Price-Anderson law in the United States, and probably this or the government does it in other countries.

New nuclear power plants cannot take out their own insurance without the special support of the government. Do you allow the unit price to increase significantly by making nuclear power safe? That’s what I’m getting. The problem with nuclear power is the next plant. It’s too expensive.

Brian: A seemingly complicated question.

1) The new western NPP is First-Of-A-Kind or First-In-A-Generation, which proves to be too much capital investment. This applies not only to nuclear weapons, but to any new industrial development. Representing these for the entire industry is a fallacy of incomplete evidence. Forty-nine of the 71 new plants that went into operation since 2000 are in China and Russia, with an average capital investment of less than $ 3 / watt. It’s competitive.

2) I admit that making industrial facilities safe will increase capital investment. Unsafe facilities can be built cheaply. Attempting to penalize nuclear safety, rather than jealousy, is, frankly, a twist.

3) In my opinion, private nuclear safety regulations are too strict. They have been rolled back 1,000 times and could be as safe as they are today. This means that an incident every 65 years could result in 32 deaths + up to 16,000 deaths, while avoiding 2.3 million deaths.

4) Advanced nuclear technology is specially designed to take advantage of passive safety, dramatically reducing CAPEX. They are being developed today for deployment in the 2020s.

Bradley: This is your answer (thank you):

1) Nuclear power is now an old technology. New experimental designs that seek to achieve competitiveness after half a century of failure are dangerous and raise fundamental issues. And watts (guess, hope) under $ 3 are still uncompetitive. Natural gas CC is much less risky, proven, cheaper and faster to manufacture.

2) I was explaining the inherently high cost of nuclear weapons. I’m not saying that I’m building something “unsafe”.

3 and 4) Related to # 2: Who knows? Only free market private insurance without government can tell the world whether such plants are safe.

At the same time, how about getting a guaranteed performance contract from a rich third party for cost, in-service, and the rest? It’s not just the builders who can go bankrupt. Bill Gates could do something with his project, but taxpayers have already earned $ 80 million with him.

Bradley: We just need market testing, not external opinions or data on costs and benefits. Nuclear facilities must not be subsidized by the government, must have their own insurance, and must be supported by long-term contracts, not on a utility tariff basis. Natural gas / LNG is significantly cheaper if available, isn’t it?

Brian: “Half-century failure” If 2.3 million deaths have been avoided since 1971 and more than 75 gigatons of CO2 have been avoided, I’m proud of the failure.

The “sub $ 3 / watt” CAPEX is a database, unlike the claims made in this discussion. And it is competitive on a lifecycle basis. NG CAPEX can be low, but about 80% of NG’s life cycle cost is OPEX. The opposite is true for nuclear power.

“Natural gas CC is much less risky” error.. According to OSTI From 1969 to 2000, 125 fatal accidents occurred at the NG plant. The nucleus had one. It’s not “much less risky”.

“Natural gas CC is … proven” [Wrong] The first private nuclear power plant went into operation in 1956. The first NGCC went live in 1961. Being a young technology somehow doesn’t prove it better.

I don’t know if you’ve heard of it, but there’s something called climate change. This happens when the NGCC plant emits 480 grams / CO2 / kWh (compared to 12 g of nuclear power). The environment heats up too quickly, creating significant global risks. If we can build a emission-free NG plant at the same cost as a nuclear power plant, we can talk about NG.

Bradley: I also calculate extra unnecessary costs using the most expensive technology to generate electricity and ask what was done for hundreds of billions of dollars to make individuals and the world better ..

Do you have total statistics on US nuclear-only cost overruns, starting with Sumner and Vogtle working in opposite directions? Economics is important and wealth is healthy.

Brian: Fallacy of incomplete evidence. Also.

Bradley: Real world cost is the best proof. Not “may” or “couldn’t”

Nuclear power is fundamentally uncompetitive, always requires government subsidies, and awaits new breakthrough technologies. After all, the most complicated and dangerous way to boil water.

Brian: Why are you obsessed with publicly proving how ignorant you are? The death toll of 32 people in one incident in 65 years is the exact opposite of danger. The annual death toll of 10 million people from boiling fossil fuels is ultimately criminal.

The cost of LCOE is competitive with NG in China and Russia. Maybe not, I couldn’t. But the actual LCOE. I edited the data myself.fossil receive Subsidies that are several orders of magnitude higher than nuclear power.

As always, you provide zero evidence for your completely false allegations. And I repeated it over and over again. This is the end.

Bradley: Control your emotions.

Making nuclear power safe is also the reason why it is uneconomical. Without Price-Anderson and other federal governments, the United States would not have had a nuclear industry.

Government subsidies are also needed to keep existing nuclear power plants online. And tell us about Sumner and Vogtle. This is a great expectation for the latest and greatest design that went bankrupt.

Your company claims to have the best 4th generation nuclear technology. So where have you heard of this? Why do you have this time?

Can you compete with the gas-fired combined cycle? Can I compete as a funder without the US Department of Energy? No Price-Anderson Insurance?

Do you have a power buyer who wants to commit in advance to your price (what) and your term (years)? And what if your contractor goes bankrupt (like Westinghouse)?

Final note

The latest news is the bailout of Exelon 2,500 MW Byron Nuclear Power Station In Illinois 600 mm, 5 years In the name of “The future of 100% clean energy.. Nuclear power, itself damaged by wind and solar energy, is a pawn in the “clean energy” game, reducing market freedom and making it more expensive for consumers and taxpayers.

———————————-

[1] Terrestrial Energy is the developer of a 4th generation advanced nuclear power plant that uses a unique integrated molten salt reactor (IMSR®) technology. IMSR® technology represents a true innovation in nuclear power plant cost savings, versatility and functionality.

IMSR® power plants provide zero carbon, reliable, dispatchable, cost-competitive electricity and high-grade industrial heat for use in many industrial applications such as chemical synthesis and desalination. By doing so, it extends far beyond the use of nuclear energy in the electricity market.

They have the potential to make significant contributions to industrial competitiveness, energy security, and economic growth. Their deployment supports the rapid global decarbonization of primary energy systems by replacing fossil fuel combustion extensively.

Terrestrial Energy uses innovative design and proven molten salt reactor technology to work with regulators and industrial partners to complete IMSR® engineering and make the first IMSR® power plant in the late 2020s. Let it work.

Dangerous Hope to Mitigate CO2 Pricing – So Watt Up?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/09/18/nuclear-power-dangerous-hope-to-soften-co2-pricing/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nuclear-power-dangerous-hope-to-soften-co2-pricing Dangerous Hope to Mitigate CO2 Pricing – So Watt Up?

Back to top button