By Robert Bradley Jr. — August 24, 2021
“The nuclear industry’s disastrous history of cost and time overruns show very clearly that what they offer would be too little, too expensive and far too late. With renewables and energy efficiency cheaper and quicker to build and run than nuclear, they have already lost this argument and should have no place to spout their lies at COP26.”
– Richard Dixon, Friends of the Earth Scotland (below)
“The nuclear industry provides most of the world’s CO2-free power, but is barred from UN IPCC meetings and even barred from the adjacent exhibit hall. Clearly UN IPCC does not pursue the public interest. What is the ‘power structure’ of IPCC? Who says ‘no’ a priori? How are these people appointed? How paid? How reimbursed? What’s the org chart?”
– Robert Hargraves, nuclear advocate (below)
It’s an agenda, Mr. Hargraves. And it is good reason for the nuclear industry to 1) stop “greenwashing” for a carbon tax; 2) stop buying into environmentalist alarmism, including climate alarmism; and 3) let the market make energy decisions, without government subsidies or regulatory obstructionism from environmentalists.
Background
Classical liberals and conservatives need not lament the current impasse between the nuclear lobby and the Progressive Left. Nuclear power is an industry that never should have been. A combination of federal subsidies, as well as rate base treatment under state public utility regulation, put an experimental, complicated, dangerous technology into play against established, improving power generation from coal, natural gas, and residual fuel oil, in particular.
The latest with U.S. nuclear is grim, with further delays and cost additions with Plant Vogtle #3 and #4. Only Bill Gates with his own cash and DOE/taxpayer monies ($80 million so far) is trying to get a new nuclear technology commercialized. But don’t be surprised if things don’t come together in the next years to even begin what is estimated to be a seven-year build.
Environmentalists at the beginning had hopes for nuclear, as did “too cheap to meter” technology optimists. But in recent times, Left environmentalists are dead-set against new (and even existing) nuclear. Some have even turned into free-market types by correctly arguing the generation too expensive.
“The nuclear industry has effectively priced itself out of the market for new power plants, at least in market-based economies,” stated Joe Romm in early 2019. “That’s why nuclear power’s share of global power generation has dropped to around 11 percent — its lowest level in decades.” (Make that — percent today). To his credit, Romm two years earlier lambasted then-DOE head Rick Perry for throwing good billions after bad billions of dollars at Plant Vogtle.
Unwelcomed at COP26
Here is the story from Paul Dobson, “‘We’re barred from COP26’: nuclear industry complains after rejected applications The Ferret (August 19, 2021), which prompted nuclear advocate Robert Hargraves to ask:
The nuclear industry provides most of the world’s CO2-free power, but is barred from UN IPCC meetings and even barred from the adjacent exhibit hall. Clearly UN IPCC does not pursue the public interest. What is the “power structure” of IPCC? Who says “no” a priori? How are these people appointed? How paid? How reimbursed? What’s the org chart?
To which I replied:
Wake up …. don’t try to appease the Left with nuclear, end the tacit support of climate alarmism.
Excerpts from Dobson’s article follow:
The international nuclear energy industry has complained about being excluded from the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow — prompting environmentalists to say it should have “no place” there.
In a letter to COP26 UK president, Alok Sharma, global trade body, the World Nuclear Association, said that every application made by nuclear groups for exhibits at the conference had been rejected.
This was “very disappointing”, the association told The Ferret. A Scottish environmental group, however, said that it was “right” to keep the nuclear industry out.
Nuclear power is seen by some as clean energy because they say it doesn’t emit greenhouse gases when producing electricity. But it has faced continual opposition from environmental groups due to high costs, complications with decommissioning and the need to dispose of radioactive waste.
The World Nuclear Association, which lists 183 nuclear companies as members, said it was “deeply concerned” that plans for nuclear exhibits in civil society’s Green Zone at COP26 had been turned down.
The Green Zone is billed as a space for organisations to host “workshops, panel discussions and keynote speeches” which “promote dialogue, awareness, education and commitments” on the climate crisis….
The [UK] Cabinet Office COP26 unit said it had received “a huge level of interest” from groups wanting to be in the Green Zone. “Discussions are still ongoing”, stressed a spokesperson, pointing out that “limited capacity” meant not all applicants could be accommodated.
COP26, which stands for the UN’s 26th Conference of the Parties on Climate Change, is being held at the Scottish Events Campus (SEC) in Glasgow between 1-12 November. It is widely viewed as the last chance for world leaders to reach an agreement which mitigates the worst impacts of the climate crisis.
As part of the application process, organisations interested in making use of space in the Green Zone were required to provide details of their “sustainability or environmental policies”.
Businesses looking to host Green Zone events also had to be signed up to the Science Based Targets initiative and the Race to Zero campaign. These are UN schemes aimed at ensuring companies have “credible” plans to achieve net-zero emissions….
Friends of the Earth Scotland criticised the criteria for getting a platform in the Green Zone as too weak. “But if they are keeping the nuclear industry out then they are definitely getting that bit right,” said the group’s director, Richard Dixon.
“Having failed with the ridiculous claim that nuclear is cheap, the latest wheeze from the nuclear industry is to tell us that nuclear reactors are the answer to climate change.”
There was an “very urgent” need to reduce emissions, Dixon argued. “The nuclear industry’s disastrous history of cost and time overruns show very clearly that what they offer would be too little, too expensive and far too late.”
He added: ”With renewables and energy efficiency cheaper and quicker to build and run than nuclear, they have already lost this argument and should have no place to spout their lies at COP26.”
The World Nuclear Association, however, insisted that nuclear power could help “meet increasing demand for low-carbon electricity”. Nuclear reactors could also play a role in “eliminating the use of fossil fuels in the production of glass and steel”, it said.
The association’s rejected exhibits would have made these points. They were also going to showcase plans to use nuclear energy in the future production of green hydrogen, which the industry says could be used as fuel to help decarbonise the economy.
The association hoped that the exclusion of its exhibits was not “indicative” of the way it will be treated throughout COP26. “It is very disappointing that no nuclear exhibits were selected for the UK’s Green Zone exhibition,” said an association spokesperson.
“More and urgent action is needed to advance the use of a broad range of low-carbon technologies, including nuclear, if we are to avoid the catastrophe that runaway climate change would cause.”
The association also confirmed that two unnamed UK-based nuclear trade associations have applied to be included in side events taking place within the UN-managed Blue Zone at COP26….
The two UK nuclear associations hope to be involved in panel discussions with what they consider “fellow clean energy groups”, including the renewables industry….
In July, The Ferret revealed that 19 nuclear industry executives were among a host of companies, including major fossil fuel polluters, who were part of key UN climate negotiations in the lead up to COP26.
Conclusion
The anti-energy, anti-economics Left cannot get out of their own way. James Hansen, father of the climate alarm, understands that it is nuclear or bust against carbon-based mineral energies. He states:
People who entreat the government to solve global warming but offer support only for renewable energies will be rewarded with the certainty that the U.S. and most of the world will be fracked-over, the dirtiest fossil fuels will be mined, mountaintop removal and mechanized long-wall coal mining will continue, the Arctic, Amazon and other pristine public lands will be violated, and the deepest oceans will be ploughed for fossil fuels.
And, Hansen should have added, the landscape will be littered with industrial wind turbines, solar arrays, and batteries.
It’s just not easy being green when the greenest strategy is dense mineral energies, not wind, solar, and other dilute, intermittent power generation technologies.
—————–
Update: from Jennifer Morgan of Greenpeace International:
“Big polluting corporations have been banned from public buildings during the COP26 conference in Scotland this November.
Glasgow City Council unanimously passed the motion at a full council meeting, which is understood to be the first example of a host city counteracting the presence of particular vested interests while the crucial climate talks take place.
Maybe everyone is conflicted and polluting, meaning that COP26 should be called off.
Essentially it is the intention of “The Greens” to deny and then ration energy to us. They are interested only in shutting down power generation not with replacing it with something else that works at scale. The renewables are just a distraction that enriches a few insiders and political gatekeepers while they advance their deindustrialisation project.
As with the ludicrous Biden farrago they have the media firmly on sides and so, given the propensity of the public at large to be fooled by authority, The Greens will prevail. We will be reduced to saying “I told you so” while the lights go out.
I am not an optimist.
The Russians are building floating nuclear power stations – sail them into a port and hook up. Clearly they can see a way around the endless red tape to get a reactor built anywhere in the West.
https://www.power-technology.com/news/russia-floating-nuclear-power-plant/
Imagine a city (like San Francisco) running out of power and having to constantly ration its citizens – guess who’s not getting voted for come next election.
With the best will in the world you will be unable to build a power station overnight – but you can get the Russians to sail one in relatively quickly.
This process literally allows them to sail around any red tape, bureaucracy, legal challenges, protest action etc. etc. as it will be implemented as an emergency measure. My guess is it will never sail away and become a permanent feature.
The Russians will be only too happy to profit from our energy shortcomings and as consequence extend their sphere of influence and have us lose our energy independence to them.
In a similar vein, Turkey is also building oil and gas fired floating power stations – an emerging market segment is becoming apparent.
https://www.businessinsider.co.za/take-a-look-floating-power-stations-coming-to-saldanha-richards-bay-and-gqeberha-2021-3
South Africa has signed up already.
US aircraft carriers are designed for similar “disaster relief” missions. Given the cost of seismic requirements and concrete, it’s not clear to me why we wouldn’t also deploy these in the US. <insert shrug emoji>
A ludicrous assertion. Conspiracy theory.
griff’s answer to any argument that he can’t refute.
Conspiracy theory is by its nature unrefutable, since it is founded on no evidence.
any argument made on this site is undermined so long as the likes of you don’t challenge ludicrous and politically based arguments, especially conspiracy theory based ones.
counteracting the presence of particular vested interests
that is….censoring.
In the good old day, we Aussies had legal devices like The Trade Practices Act 1974 which could be used against illegal devices like these the Scots are pulling here.
These days here, the regulation of restrictive practices in Australia primarily arises under state and territory disability services and mental health legislation.
Goodness, free enterprise has really been forced underwater to drown. Geoff S
Glasgow, innit? And the private jets will come in to Prestwick, over Troon Golf Course. With a fine view of Hunterston nuclear power station as they make the final approach. That may be what they rely on to keep the lights on if it’s not windy while they’re in town.
Reality is ironic, in that the very thing they oppose, will be contributing to the base load that makes their visit in Glasgow in December possible. Such hypocrisy by the green shirts. But not surprising. This is O’Biden type stupidity.
Hypocrites. All
I can see a Josh cartoon in that image…
The soon to close Hunterston
Operated by EDF Energy, the plant was originally estimated to continue operating until 2023 but defuelling will now occur no later than 7 January 2022. Its two reactors were already shut down from 2018 to 2019 due to safety concerns*, with one of them resuming operations from August to December last year.
*(It has cracks in graphite blocks)
Yes but the plant has been operating since 1976 so its lasted twice as long as most wind farms will.
One of my favourite environmental stickers was the ‘Nuclear Power? No Thanks’ with a big smiley Sun in the middle.
It represents a strange kind of articulate and ‘educated’ ignorance.
We need a “Solar and Wind Power? No Thanks!” Sticker with a shivering person outlined in the dark with just white eyes.
That makes more sense and is logical.
“Only Bill Gates with his own cash and DOE/taxpayer monies ($80 million so far) is trying to get a new nuclear technology commercialized.”
Stopped reading at this. This idiot doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Please stop spreading oil-industry propaganda.
Agreed. This is ignorant beyond belief. Like, just plain wrong.
rip
Bill Gates was one of the founders of TerraPower, where he is still chairman of the board. He has also helped fund other nuclear startups.
https://www.terrapower.com/our-people/
This peace is all over the place. I guess it’s intended as a mirror?
To exclude nuclear from COP26 just shows that the organisers have no intention of proposing a logical and obvious solution to provide the world population with energy to live. Nuclear provides clean safe and long term energy at scale and is the only common sense solution.
“Only Bill Gates with his own cash and DOE/taxpayer monies ($80 million so far) is trying to get a new nuclear technology commercialized.”
Indeed he is. It was announced back in early June, and the project will be built in Wyoming. Warren Buffet is on board with it as well.
https://tinyurl.com/6skwbp3b
“The project features a 345-megawatt sodium-cooled fast reactor with a molten salt-based energy storage system, which would produce enough power for roughly 250,000 homes. The storage technology is also able to boost output to 500 megawatts of power for about five and a half hours, which is equivalent to the energy needed to power around 400,000 homes, according to TerraPower.”
I acknowledge that it is way to early to tell whether this project will be the beginning of a successful 4th generation nuclear technology industry — which includes molten salt reactors. Fourth generation advocates are attempting to address the issues with current generation nuclear, including the cost and time it takes to build out 3rd generation reactors.
If the solar and wind energy industries are going to die the death they deserve, something like 4th gen nuclear might do it. We will just have to wait and see what happens in the years and decades ahead. Banning nuclear energy exhibits from COP26 is ignorant, and it reflects how the environmental movement has the U.N. and the governments of the West wrapped around its little pinkie.
RIP Buffet
I’ve looked closely at TerraPower’s high level schedule for their Wyoming project, which has their plant going operational in late 2026.
The timeline they’ve published is not only highly optimistic, I think it is all but impossible to achieve given where they are right now in the design and technology development phase.
2035 would be more realistic given how much work must be done on the regulatory approval side, and how far TerraPower still has to go in creating a manufacturing infrastructure for initial deployment of their technology.
My opinion still remains that NuScale is ahead of TerraPower and also every other 4th Gen nuclear development team in getting America’s first SMR into commercial operation. Their first SMR plant is slated to go online in eastern Idaho in 2029.
The nuclear industry in the United States is hampered by three large issues:
1) A power marketplace warped by renewable energy mandates: Our legacy nuclear plants are designed and operated for continuous baseload operation 24/7/365. Giving subsidized wind and solar preferred access to the power grid eliminates the economic benefits of baseload generation resources with the effect that these resources appear to have higher operating costs in comparison with wind and solar.
2) Stiff competition from natural gas: Going with wind, solar, and nuclear is strictly a public policy decision. In the absence of renewable energy mandates, the power marketplace would shift decisively towards gas-fired generation. It offers the best combination of load following capability, lowest capital cost, least overall cost to the energy consumer, and greatest profit potential for investors.
3) Keeping capital construction costs under control:
Let’s examine this issue in greater detail:
* The VC Summer and Vogtle 3 & 4 AP1000 Construction Projects *
The cancellation of the VC Summer AP1000 nuclear project, and the delayed completion of the Vogtle 3 & 4 AP1000 project after the estimated construction cost doubled from 12 billion dollars to 28 billion dollars, demonstrate that getting nuclear power’s capital costs under control is the paramount task facing the nuclear construction industry in the United States.
Many nuclear advocates take the easy way out and blame nuclear’s cost issues on excessive government regulation.
The fact of the matter is that the American public demands strong regulatory oversight over the nuclear industry. And with good reason. Doing things nuclear demands a highly professional approach in every facet of design, manufacture, installation, and operation. Corporate managers have demonstrated time and time again that without the presence of a strong regulatory body, they will not fulfill their obligation to the public to do a professional job in managing their nuclear projects.
It cannot be emphasized enough that the original estimates of 12 billion dollars for two AP1000’s when onsite construction at VC Summer and at Vogtle 3 & 4 began in 2012 included the expected costs of full compliance with NRC regulations, plus the added costs of passing through the nuclear construction learning curve for a second time. These estimates also assumed that all the difficult lessons learned from the nuclear projects of the 1970’s and 1980’s would be diligently applied to the latest projects as these were being initiated and while they were in progress.
* Why the VC Summer and Vogtle 3 & 4 Projects Blew their Cost & Schedule Targets *
Those of us who have been in the belly of the beast of a nuclear construction project recognized early on that neither the VC Summer project nor the Vogtle 3 & 4 project were being properly managed. These issues were obvious to us as early as 2013:
— The original contractor teams lacked a strong track record as nuclear Engineer/Procure/Construct (EPC) organizations. (Vogtle’s team has since been replaced.)
— Those original teams also lacked prior experience in managing complex, first of a kind nuclear projects.
— The contractor teams had an unjustified confidence in their project performance based on their past success in managing non-nuclear construction projects. But nuclear is different, and it will always be different.
— Feasibility cost and schedule estimates ignored the lack of a strong American nuclear industrial base.
— Baseline hard-target cost and schedule estimates were overly optimistic and did not include large portions of the project’s true scope of work.
— Systems and components with safety implications lacked sufficient design maturity at the start of on-site construction activities.
— The customer utilities relied on their contractor teams for monitoring the true state of their projects, with little attention being paid to independent oversight and verification.
— Both the customer utilities and the contractor teams lacked a commitment to maintaining project management effectiveness at all levels of their project organizations.
— The contractor team’s management control systems were deficient in the areas of progress tracking, cost and schedule control, quality assurance, design interface control, contractor interface control, and system configuration management.
— Managers at all levels of the project organizations lacked a commitment to honest monitoring and reporting of construction productivity and progress.
Nuclear-grade quality assurance along with tightly-controlled fabrication requirements for safety class components are a very significant part of the capital cost of a nuclear plant. The regulatory requirements now governing how we design a nuclear power plant will not, and should not, be reduced.
Moreover, the project management discipline needed to deliver nuclear-grade quality assurance is the same project management discipline needed to deliver all of the other key elements of any large-scale high technology construction project.
* Small Modular Reactors — Our Path to Getting Capital Costs under Control *
Here in the United States, the oncoming Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology is the only practical pathway we have to get our nuclear capital costs under control.
Building a larger number of smaller size reactors and their supporting systems more or less continuously in factories, rather than building these systems as very large but very low production rate components, has great advantages over the legacy model of doing nuclear construction. SMR designs will allow the process of building nuclear power plants to become a repeatable process which keeps the nuclear supply chain tuned up and ready for the next reactor order.
For myself, I remain of the opinion that NuScale’s small modular reactor design will be the first SMR to reach commercial operation in the US. Their first plant will be a six-module facility targeted for completion in eastern Idaho in 2029 with a total capacity of 462 Mw.
For purposes of managing project risk, the technology of a nuclear power plant, and the project management approach used to deliver that power plant, are all One Thing.
In addition to managing their SMR development project with an exceptionally focused approach to project management discipline, the NuScale design philosophy controls capital costs by loading the most QA-dependent safety class components into the SMR module itself. The reactor core, the pressure vessel, the steam generator, and the containment vessel are all integrated into a single 77 MWe unit which can be fabricated offsite in a QA certified factory.
Much work is now being done by NuScale and its major investor Fluor to reduce the upfront capital cost of a NuScale plant from the currently projected $5000/kw to $3500/kw. Compare this with the AP1000’s current capital cost at Vogtle 3 & 4 of $14,000/kw. IMHO, the future of new-build nuclear in the United States now depends on the success of NuScale, Fluor, UAMPS, and Energy Northwest in proving that a nuclear construction project can be delivered on schedule and on cost.
I thought Rolls Royce were already planning SMRs? I’d definitely trust them, since we already rely on them for most of our aircraft engines.
Yes indeed, Rolls Royce is deep into SMR technology. As are some number of other SMR technology development teams, including the Russians and the Chinese.
And Rolls Royce may very well be the first to commission an SMR in Great Britain. But here in the US, NuScale is well ahead of the pack.
For heavens sake, you are at the beginning of a golden age of limitless cheap wind and solar energy and all you can do is complain.
Wind is forecast to be about 3 cents/kWh in only a few years’ time. Your EV will do 4 miles per kWh so you can go places for 0.75 cents per mile.
Nuclear at Hinkley Pt in the UK has a guaranteed price of over 10 pence (14 cents) per kWh for 35 years. Four to five times the price of wind. Any nuclear plants will be expensive white elephants, because no-one will buy their expensive electricity when wind power is for sale at one quarter the price !
You really do seem to believe whatever you are told to believe.
Wind and solar are already as cheap as they will ever be. The only change in the next few years will be the removing of the subsidies.
It is physically impossible for wind and solar to be limitless, because the wind doesn’t always blow and the wind doesn’t always shine.
You forgot the /sarc tag
Cheap car travel?
ICE cars could be cheap.
Taxes in France (incl. tax on tax) are >61% of the price. IOW the price is taxed slightly more than 61/39 that is gas is taxed at 156% rate.
As EVs become more common, governments will have to replace the revenue they are losing on fuel taxes. That will be pay-per-mile road charging. So you will have to pay that on top of your fuel taxes.
What is welcome?
Natural Gas Weekly Update (eia.gov)
“Environmentalists” who are anti-nuclear are lying about being concerned about CO2.
Being anti-nuclear means being an activist for more CO2 in the atmosphere.
At least with one of your faces.
If environmentalists weren’t two-faced, they wouldn’t have any face at all.
One of these days you are going to say something that actually makes sense.
Alas, today is not to be that day.
The mere fact that capitalism has created all of the wealth the people on this planet enjoy today, not withstanding.
“A 97% consensus confirms that wind turbine blades are a Satanic symbol whose rotation summons up dangerous evil spirits from deep in the earth.
It is thus a regulatory requirement that beside every wind turbine tower, a monastery is constructed to accommodate 12 full time monks and/or nuns. These spiritual practitioners will pray, chant and intercede 24/7 to prevent the ascent from the earth of evil spirits in response to the rotating turbine blade that represent an effective occultic symbol. The operation of this monastery must be continuous for as long as the wind turbine blade-runes rotate.”
The above would be a regulatory requirement for the wind industry that would put it on an even par with the nature and severity of the regulatory regime under which nuclear electricity generation has to operate. It would be a direct analog in every sense.
The LNT – the linear no threshold “theory” of ionizing radiation carcinogenesis is a religious dogma in direct contradiction of a vast body of scientific data, and is the narrative that underlies the punitively restrictive and expensive regulatory and waste disposal regime that nuclear is forced to operate under. LNT is false and nonsensical.
The radiation limit for nuclear plant workers can be exceeded by eating two (2) bananas a day. True story.
I don’t think that’s right
Well, it actually happened once at least. It took them a while to discover why the employee had tripped the quota.
BTW, the fact that bananas have a particular radiation effect is the root of the meme “banana for scale”, because the banana is actually employed as part of the radiation scale.
Zigzag
I thought it was Brazil nuts.
They’re a lot more radioactive than bananas.
I would go as far as saying that there is no medical fact more robustly proven by statistical data than the fact LNT is wrong.
Only Bill Gates with his own cash and DOE/taxpayer monies ($80 million so far) is trying to get a new nuclear technology commercialized.
Not exactly. There are dozens of companies and alliances working on small modular reactors and other reactor technologies. Unless the current administration figures out how to stymie their efforts, the future looks promising. The emphasis on custom-built, massive pressurized water or boiling water reactors has doomed new construction but the new designs which can be built on assembly lines and shipped to the site bodes well for the continuing use of this extremely efficient, clean, safe, and emissionless technology.
A valid reply. No one mentions Thorium and Molten Salt Reactors. These reactors can be the size of shipping containers. They use Thorium as an energy source which is available in large quantities in mineral sands located in many countries. Its radioactivity levels are low and it cannot be used for developing nuclear weapons. There are over 30 countries developing these reactors. The first of the Chinese and Indian reactors will soon be in operation.
The present massive reactors are cooled using high pressure water which introduces a risk factor. Molten Salt Reactors do not operate under pressure . They will be much easier, cheaper and faster to construct plus require little maintenance. Thorium differs from Uranium in that the Reactor uses up over 90% of the Thorium and therefore has very little waste, but Uranium is the reverse, it uses less than 10% with the the balance of the Uranium becoming waste that has to be buried. Finally, Canada Greens have apparently decided to support Nuclear.
‘can be’. I think you mean ‘could be’. Because no commercial model or even prototype yet exists.
The earliest date I’ve seen for Chinese prototype is early 2030s.
How will they determine the source of the electricity they use during this COP shrimp-fest? At various times of the day the grid may be supplied by generators powered by nuclear, coal, natural gas or hydro. Even weather-dependent renewables add a small percentage. I assume these COPs will examine each electron to determine its parentage.
That’s easy. If there are usable amounts of continuous electricity, it’s not renewable!
Well coal supplies less than 2% of UK electricity annually over last 2 years…
Shouldn’t it be called COPout26
This is how you know they don’t believe climate change from Carbon Dioxide is areal threat. If they did they could just stop lying about nuclear power. Emissions would drop and even their electric vehicle ideas would become far more practical