These pieces keep getting longer and more technical. This one breaks all the rules. Pity anyone trying to read this on a phone. There’s a PDF here. Takeaways 1) Nuclear power and wind/solar are mutually exclusive. 2) A reliable grid based only on wind, sun and batteries is not possible.
Excellent analysis. I saw this back in 2008 after spending 4 years analysing all types of power. It was clear to me that renewables were not economically viable on their own and were instead a loss leader for natural gas. Nuclear was the ONLY energy source that actually replaced fossil fuels. This is the reason nuclear is fought tooth and nail. Cal Abel’s proposal to use molten salt as the peaking storage eliminates the need for natural gas as a peaking source. Honestly, I would like to see what an unregulated nuke build could cost at the bare minimum to make it a power plant. I am guessing less than $1,000 / kWh.
"Mutual exclusivity" is a phrase nobody wants to hear. Bitter pill. Swallow hard now because it just keeps getting bigger and more bitter. Well done, Jack.
Out of curiosity, what would the $2k/kW but no FF case look like.
Not that I don't think the tiny use would be OK, but I don't think NG supply remains a viable industry at those low utilization, but high momentary demands and such high year to year variability.
I think H2 for non-grid users will be key, with some of that stored for industry pulled back in pinch times.
Jack, have you or anyone at the GKG had discussions with senior members of the NRC regarding regulatory changes (specifically with regards to ALARA & LNT). Apologies if this has been addressed elsewhere but it seems like we need to be heavily engaging the NRC with a lobbying effort towards our goals if we want to have any hope of solving the Gordian knot.
Just what Germany needs. Wind/solar capacity factors being driven down further (to 5%!!!).
We truly believe folks like you, BF Randall, Doomberg and other incredible writers on Substack and elsewhere doing work like this are capable of changing the world. Hopefully before the physics and economics of the present situation does it instead in a rather chaotic fashion with suboptimal results.
An easy solution to eliminate that bit of fossil might be smart meters. Instead of rolling blackouts affecting big sections of the grid, we could trim off those few hours of peak demand with millions of customers who volunteer to have a few minutes outage on rare occasions. I would certainly volunteer for a few % off on my electric bill. Also, I really think we will find good use for that excess nuclear power. Then the solution is just a few more MW of nuclear.
Truly CHEAP, very low CO2 non-intermittent electricity is an absolutely necessary condition for large scale CCS. But that's only half the problem. The other half is where do you put the CO2 and keep it there? I have not seen a satisfactory answer to this question for large volume CCS.
But unless we have really CHEAP nuclear, no need to debate this issue.
You assume only cheap nuclear can solve the problem. Because your sources, while considering many possibilities for the costs of CO2 and nuclear, didn't bother to consider the possibility of cheap solar. Solar and battery technologies are on a rapid exponential fall in price. Nuclear isn't.
The cost of solar and batteries are already less than half what they are in the model, and falling fast.
In general, I agree with your analysis, and its conclusion regarding nuclear energy. My problem is with the focus on the amount of CO2 per kilowatt-hour of electricity generation that is the measure of effectiveness.
Our education systems have been brainwashing our students since Hansen's fraudulent presentation to the US Congress in 1988 - 35 years ago! They were schooled that CO2 is a pollutant and, despite its limited presence in our atmosphere, it threatens our very existence on this planet by heating our atmosphere. In actuality, there is far more CO2 in our planet's oceans than in the air. CO2 is pumped into greenhouses, not to increase their internal temperature, but to enhance to growth of the foliage therein! It's plant food!
Had we ignored Hansen, Gore, Thunberg, Mann, Flannery, the UN, etc, we could have saved ourselves humongous amounts of money which our leaders have squandered in the futile pursuit of their aims. Historians will look back in amazement!
In general, I agree with your analysis, and its conclusion regarding nuclear energy. My problem is with the focus on the amount of CO2 per kilowatt-hour of electricity generation that is the measure of effectiveness.
Our education systems have been brainwashing our students since Hansen's fraudulent presentation to the US Congress in 1988 - 35 years ago! They were schooled that CO2 is a pollutant and, despite its limited presence in our atmosphere, it threatens our very existence on this planet by heating our atmosphere. In actuality, there is far more CO2 in our planet's oceans than in the air. CO2 is pumped into greenhouses, not to increase their internal temperature, but to enhance to growth of the foliage therein! It's plant food!
Had we ignored Hansen, Gore, Thunberg, Mann, Flannery, the UN, etc, we could have saved ourselves humongous amounts of money which our leaders have squandered in the futile pursuit of their aims. Historians will look back in amazement!
The statement for the $8,000/kw nuclear case..."The grid cost is a very expensive $127/MWh."
It is true that this is expensive wholesale power, but you have a grid that works, is low carbon, and at a wholesale price that is competitive to European power or High dollar US (California e.g.) power.
Here's the analysis I'd like to see: given that we *have* invested a lot of CAPEX on solar and wind, and there's no sign of slowing, and that we *aren't* likely to do an Operation Warp Speed for cheap nuclear, what's the least bad path forward? I think the question I'm asking is, how much nuclear, and at what cost, do we need to build to avoid the costliest redundant generation and storage expenditures?
Excellent analysis. I saw this back in 2008 after spending 4 years analysing all types of power. It was clear to me that renewables were not economically viable on their own and were instead a loss leader for natural gas. Nuclear was the ONLY energy source that actually replaced fossil fuels. This is the reason nuclear is fought tooth and nail. Cal Abel’s proposal to use molten salt as the peaking storage eliminates the need for natural gas as a peaking source. Honestly, I would like to see what an unregulated nuke build could cost at the bare minimum to make it a power plant. I am guessing less than $1,000 / kWh.
"Mutual exclusivity" is a phrase nobody wants to hear. Bitter pill. Swallow hard now because it just keeps getting bigger and more bitter. Well done, Jack.
Out of curiosity, what would the $2k/kW but no FF case look like.
Not that I don't think the tiny use would be OK, but I don't think NG supply remains a viable industry at those low utilization, but high momentary demands and such high year to year variability.
I think H2 for non-grid users will be key, with some of that stored for industry pulled back in pinch times.
Jack, what do you think of Cal Abel’s proposal to use molten salt storage storing Nuclear heat as the peaking solution?
Jack, have you or anyone at the GKG had discussions with senior members of the NRC regarding regulatory changes (specifically with regards to ALARA & LNT). Apologies if this has been addressed elsewhere but it seems like we need to be heavily engaging the NRC with a lobbying effort towards our goals if we want to have any hope of solving the Gordian knot.
Simply superb, Jack.
Just what Germany needs. Wind/solar capacity factors being driven down further (to 5%!!!).
We truly believe folks like you, BF Randall, Doomberg and other incredible writers on Substack and elsewhere doing work like this are capable of changing the world. Hopefully before the physics and economics of the present situation does it instead in a rather chaotic fashion with suboptimal results.
excellent analysis, Jack. I am still in catch up mode so the simple has great appeal.
An easy solution to eliminate that bit of fossil might be smart meters. Instead of rolling blackouts affecting big sections of the grid, we could trim off those few hours of peak demand with millions of customers who volunteer to have a few minutes outage on rare occasions. I would certainly volunteer for a few % off on my electric bill. Also, I really think we will find good use for that excess nuclear power. Then the solution is just a few more MW of nuclear.
Jack what do think of using Nuclear heat / power to produce synthetic fuels?
If we had enough energy (lots of modern nukes) we could do carbon capture and sequestration w/o a problem.
Matt,
Truly CHEAP, very low CO2 non-intermittent electricity is an absolutely necessary condition for large scale CCS. But that's only half the problem. The other half is where do you put the CO2 and keep it there? I have not seen a satisfactory answer to this question for large volume CCS.
But unless we have really CHEAP nuclear, no need to debate this issue.
You assume only cheap nuclear can solve the problem. Because your sources, while considering many possibilities for the costs of CO2 and nuclear, didn't bother to consider the possibility of cheap solar. Solar and battery technologies are on a rapid exponential fall in price. Nuclear isn't.
The cost of solar and batteries are already less than half what they are in the model, and falling fast.
In general, I agree with your analysis, and its conclusion regarding nuclear energy. My problem is with the focus on the amount of CO2 per kilowatt-hour of electricity generation that is the measure of effectiveness.
Our education systems have been brainwashing our students since Hansen's fraudulent presentation to the US Congress in 1988 - 35 years ago! They were schooled that CO2 is a pollutant and, despite its limited presence in our atmosphere, it threatens our very existence on this planet by heating our atmosphere. In actuality, there is far more CO2 in our planet's oceans than in the air. CO2 is pumped into greenhouses, not to increase their internal temperature, but to enhance to growth of the foliage therein! It's plant food!
Had we ignored Hansen, Gore, Thunberg, Mann, Flannery, the UN, etc, we could have saved ourselves humongous amounts of money which our leaders have squandered in the futile pursuit of their aims. Historians will look back in amazement!
In general, I agree with your analysis, and its conclusion regarding nuclear energy. My problem is with the focus on the amount of CO2 per kilowatt-hour of electricity generation that is the measure of effectiveness.
Our education systems have been brainwashing our students since Hansen's fraudulent presentation to the US Congress in 1988 - 35 years ago! They were schooled that CO2 is a pollutant and, despite its limited presence in our atmosphere, it threatens our very existence on this planet by heating our atmosphere. In actuality, there is far more CO2 in our planet's oceans than in the air. CO2 is pumped into greenhouses, not to increase their internal temperature, but to enhance to growth of the foliage therein! It's plant food!
Had we ignored Hansen, Gore, Thunberg, Mann, Flannery, the UN, etc, we could have saved ourselves humongous amounts of money which our leaders have squandered in the futile pursuit of their aims. Historians will look back in amazement!
The statement for the $8,000/kw nuclear case..."The grid cost is a very expensive $127/MWh."
It is true that this is expensive wholesale power, but you have a grid that works, is low carbon, and at a wholesale price that is competitive to European power or High dollar US (California e.g.) power.
Here's the analysis I'd like to see: given that we *have* invested a lot of CAPEX on solar and wind, and there's no sign of slowing, and that we *aren't* likely to do an Operation Warp Speed for cheap nuclear, what's the least bad path forward? I think the question I'm asking is, how much nuclear, and at what cost, do we need to build to avoid the costliest redundant generation and storage expenditures?