
Bill Lee, Bangor University and Michael Rushton, Bangor University
Nuclear power has provided low-carbon electricity to the UK for over 60 years and today it generates 17% of the country’s electricity. Until mid-2018, 15 nuclear reactors were the country’s largest source of low-carbon energy. Of these, only Sizewell B is planned to remain operating in 12 years’ time. The only new plant under construction is Hinkley Point C, and with a total generating capacity of 3.26 gigawatts, it would provide just 8% of the UK’s current electricity demand.
The Committee on Climate Change advises the UK government on the effort to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Its proposals are strangely silent on nuclear power, occasionally lumping it in with “other low-carbon generation”. It supports a massive increase in renewable energy generation and continued burning of natural gas, using carbon capture and storage technology to mop up the CO₂ emitted. Elsewhere, the plan is to electrify transport, heating and industrial processes, meaning batteries in cars, and heat pumps powered by electricity in homes and factories.
While reducing the amount of gas and oil burned, this would at least double the amount of electricity the national grid will need by 2050. Perhaps this could be met with renewables and electricity storage in batteries, to cover those moments when the Sun isn’t shining and there’s no wind to generate green energy. But sadly, battery technology isn’t currently powerful enough to store energy at that scale.
Even today’s largest battery stores can only provide back-up electricity for a few hours, which is not always enough to cover extended periods of low wind or shorter daylight hours during winter. Battery technology is improving all the time, but it may not do so fast enough to meet rising electricity demand. Rolling out lots of electric vehicles could squeeze the supply of batteries even further, potentially even increasing their cost.
Carbon capture and storage is not a proven technology either, so it would be unwise to put too many of eggs in that basket. Aside from other technical issues – storing the CO₂ produced by burning natural gas is a potential safety hazard – the unexpected release of gas stored underground could suffocate life at the surface. While plans are afoot to make “green hydrogen” the new lifeblood of the economy, producing enough of the low-carbon fuel would take a lot of electricity. Can renewables generate enough to do that while having enough left over for the surge in electricity demand elsewhere?
Simply put, we need to start rebuilding the UK’s capacity to generate nuclear power.
A new generation of reactors
Future nuclear reactors will not just be big kettles making steam to drive turbines that generate electricity. The heat produced during the nuclear reaction can be diverted to power processes that are currently difficult to decarbonise.
Take heating in buildings, for example. Heat cooler than 400°C can be extracted after the turbine, and pumped into district heating systems, replacing fossil fuels like natural gas. This is a process that is already carried out daily from municipal waste incinerators across Europe.
High-temperature heat (between 400 and 900°C) could be diverted from nearer the reactor, before it reaches the turbine in a nuclear plant. It could be used to power processes that produce low-carbon hydrogen fuel, ammonia and synthetic fuels for ships and jets. This heat could also supply industries such as steel, cement, glass and chemical manufacturing, which often otherwise use burners powered by fossil fuels.
This flexibility links perfectly with renewables. While the sun is shining and the wind’s blowing, nuclear reactors can continue generating hydrogen or other fuels that serve as an energy store – a standby source that can be burned to generate additional energy when needed. That energy could also heat homes or produce aluminium, steel, bricks, cement and glass. When it’s cloudy and still, the reactor can still generate electricity for the grid.
The smaller reactors currently being developed worldwide typically generate about 300 megawatts of electricity each. They’re much cheaper to build than the current fleet of larger reactors which generate over 1,000 megawatts, such as the UK’s Hinkley Point C. Because they burn the fuel more efficiently, this new generation of reactors also produces much less nuclear waste.
Many contain passive safety measures too, which can flood an overheating reactor with cool water or remove the fuel source if there’s a problem. They’re designed to serve multiple purposes, either making electricity for the grid when renewable generation is low or making hydrogen and other fuels when it’s high. Because they’re smaller, these reactors can even be placed in industrial parks, providing a guaranteed electricity and heat supply to neighbouring factories.
We don’t believe that reaching net-zero emissions within the time we have left is possible without building new nuclear reactors. Fortunately, the new models awaiting construction can do so much more than just generate electricity.
Bill Lee, Ser Cymru Professor of Materials in Extreme Environments, Bangor University and Michael Rushton, Senior Lecturer in Nuclear Energy, Bangor University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When it comes to winning a debated, you need a long list of silly reasons pro and con.
When making decisions, all you need is one good reason to do something or not do something. If a need a 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom house; 3 br & 2 baths is a good reason to buy the house. Of course if the roof is falling in, that is a good reason not to buy a house.
As an engineer in the nuclear industry I had training in how to make complex decisions. Those with the training had a little sign in their work station signifying they were available to coach others.
I used such tools for things like buying a house. On day 3 of a house hunting trip it was getting frustrating. Again reviewing the list I asked the realtor about s house that fit the matrix. She said we looked at it and did not like it. We gave it a second look and realized what we did not like could be changed easily. We loved that house.
Power companies who do a good job of running nuke plants love their nuke plants. People who live in small cities near nuke plants love their local nuke. At public hearings for things like extending the life of nuke plant, these people provide good reasons. Of course some from far away big cities come dressed in Halloween costumes and state silly reasons.
This is why nuclear power has a future. It is that simple.
Steam is the best way to make electricity. Fission and burning coal or gas are good ways to make steam. Importing fossil fuels to make electricity is a complex issue that favors nuclear.
This article sucks. Why not publish an article by someone who knows something about the obvious future nuclear technologies, which are NOT, repeat NOT, going to be based on light water reactors
with advanced safety measures, but on molten salt reactors which require no safety features, as they are intrinsically safe and cannot create any kind of dangerous environment no matter what and are cheaper and able to load follow (no need for peak load generators) . They also can burn our current “nuclear wastes” (spent fuel) , reducing it to a mildly radioactive substance which can easily be stored for the dozens of years (not thousands) that are required for it to return to background radioactive levels. There is no other power technology that even remotely compares to molten salt small modular reactors. And they will be in commercialization before 2030 and can be constructed very rapidly in factories.
Hey, no back-tracking there Col. You told us July 2026, not December 31, 2029.
The coal powered steam locomotives were around for a century before diesel-electric locomotives replaced them in about a decade. It was almost the same for jet engines and piston-prop airplanes. Will MSRs replace coal as quickly? What has Kirk Sorensen said about it? Kirk was at ORNL MSRW 2020 in October.
My usual response Col,
Shows us 10 MSRs running and connected to the grid.
100 more under construction.
1,000 more planned, sited (geography), and financed.
When this is all happening, that is “commercialization”, we may see the future more clearly.
+100
I am all for building new generations of nuclear power plants to generate electricity and possibly pure water (from the water vapor used in the final coolers), but tapping into high temperature/high pressure steam to feed a close-by chemical plant sounds somewhat risky in a “what could possibly go wrong?” sort of way.
Keep the nuclear plants simple, modular, and repeatable. Do NOT build a bunch of one-off “each one has different problems” nuclear power plants. This design by committee leads to disasters.
As for a hydrogen-based economy…? You have a big host of problems that often seem to be overlooked. Energy density is one of the easier ones to understand.
Oh, and only being half-sarcastic – if you start splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen, where does all that oxygen go? Into the air where is can become ozone? Next they will declare oxygen is a pollutant and start an Oxygen Tax. To go with that tax on the most dangerous greenhouse gas of all – water.
“Heat cooler than 400°C can be extracted after the turbine, and pumped into district heating systems, “
Hey wait there.. Why are they going to need heating ?
According to the scary climate people, we will only need cooling.
copy
While the sun is shining and the wind’s blowing, nuclear reactors can continue generating hydrogen or other fuels that serve as an energy store –
This marketing ploy, trying to sell nuclear because it matches so well with RE, is silly. Any generating station using coal or gas is 100% equal. Anyone giving a moments thought to power load demand understands that generating plants could be smaller (less expensive) if the excess late night early morning electrical capacity could be economically stored or used to produce competitively priced products. Hydrogen production is a last gasp distraction from what is now proven in Germany: Wind and solar can not work without storage and storage will always be too expensive.
but wind and solar do work in Germany: they supply 50% of electricity and rising.
Remember too Germany is part of an Europe wide grid, with cross Europe day ahead trading in place.
They have 48% of the theoretical capacity but only supply 17% of the consumption…
Also note that the biggest “renewable” contribution so far this year is “Biomass” basically burning oil to cut down and transport trees faster than they can grow…
The Germans pay 0.3 Euro per clean green kwH Nasty Nuclear France pays 0.18
apparently the UK govt is meeting this Monday morning to decide UK’s future nuclear approach…
German wind turbines are in big trouble.
Turbines with a total capacity of 4,000 MW will drop out of the state subsidy scheme next year, which was guaranteed 20 years ago under Germany’s Renewable Energy Law (EEG).
BayWa, a leading renewable energy developer, estimates that a quarter of the existing wind power could be cut off by 2025 when older turbines become unprofitable.
Legal actions against German wind energy projects have multiplied in recent years, leading to a dramatic decline in the number of new onshore wind farms.
All over Germany, only 35 new windmills with a combined output of a mere 290 MW were installed in the first half of 2019 — a decline of more than 80% compared with the same period 2018 and the lowest total in almost two decades.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/29/collapse-of-wind-power-threatens-germanys-green-energy-transition/
BEWARE the pitfall of “sunken (or sunk, non-recoverable) cost”. Nuclear (as well as so-called renewables) fall into this category going forward against the, well, the inaptly (IMO) named SunCell ™.
Mills should have called it a Hydrino Reactor, more correctly aligning the name with what’s taking place esp these days.
And yes, they operating units in the lab.
Oops – the last should read: they are operating units in the lab.
“Nuclear power has provided low-carbon electricity”
Not sure how it can be low-fossil when it costs so much.
Not sure whether the question even makes sense.