Tesla’s Entry into The Net Zero Game: “Sustainable Energy for All of Earth”

Here is a repost of an extended conversation between myself and Frank Natoli over on the Manhattan Contrarian version of this article. Sure, it’s a long read. But for those who promote nuclear power as a zero carbon alternative to wind and solar, points are raised in the course of this conversation which bear close examination.

===============================================

Beta Blocker:

For those of you who look to nuclear as a zero carbon alternative to wind and solar, take a gander at this:

Nuclear Now, A New Film by Oliver Stone Opening April 28th

Climate skeptics who promote nuclear as a zero carbon alternative which actually works should recognize that the nuclear industry is deeply engaged in promoting the ‘climate change is dangerous’ narrative.

The true value of nuclear is that it gives the nations which adopt it a measure of energy security and reliability in the face of uncertain energy supplies — but at a cost premium over what gas-fired generation can deliver.

===============================================

Frank Natoli’s Initial Response: 

Although, in my opinion, it was a crime for Democrats to destroy the U.S. nuclear power industry, nuclear power has three significant disadvantages to natural gas powered electric plants:
1. nuclear has waste that is expensive to handle, even if the U.S. revokes its absurd, thank you Democrats, regulation prohibiting post-processing of nuclear fuel
2. nuclear requires proximity to rivers or other large sources of cooling water
3. nuclear has to boil water, using steam to drive the turbines, whereas natural gas has gas turbines generate power directly

===============================================

Beta Blocker in Response to Frank Natoli:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Frank Natoli — “Although, in my opinion, it was a crime for Democrats to destroy the U.S. nuclear power industry, nuclear power has three significant disadvantages to natural gas powered electric plants”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

By the end of the 1980’s, the nuclear industry in the US had learned a lot of hard lessons about how to go about delivering nuclear power plants on cost and on schedule while still adhering to the NRC’s strict quality assurance regulations.

It wasn’t the politicians who killed nuclear in the US in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. Any further opportunities for new-build nuclear after 1990 were killed by stiff competition from natural gas.

In the thirty years that have passed since the early 1990’s, we have all but forgotten the hard lessons of the previous era of nuclear construction about how to build a nuclear power plant on cost and on schedule.

A gas-fired power plant could be built with less capital outlay, with less project and financial risk, and with lower total life cycle ownership and operating costs — assuming that a reliable supply of natural gas was always going to be available.

Thirty years later, this is still true today. As long as a reliable supply of natural gas remains available and as long as green politicians don’t succeed in throttling its production and distribution, nuclear will never compete with gas-fired generation.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Frank Natoli — “1. nuclear has waste that is expensive to handle, even if the U.S. revokes its absurd, thank you Democrats, regulation prohibiting post-processing of nuclear fuel.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Nuclear waste is a perceived problem, not a real problem. The cost of managing our spent nuclear fuel per unit of energy generated is minuscule.

Spent fuel can be stored safely on site for a hundred years or more in dry casks. If a cask develops a leak, the fuel can either be transferred to a new cask, or the entire cask can be overpacked.

We don’t reprocess spent fuel in the US because the once-through fuel cycle meets our current needs at a cost we are willing to pay. Long-term on-site storage is perfectly safe and is currently the most cost effective means of dealing with it.

If we ever want to do something more than what we are currently doing with our spent nuclear fuel, the ever-rising cost of electricity occurring as a direct consequence of the transition into Net Zero will generate more than enough cash either to reprocess our spent fuel, or else to permanently bury it.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Frank Natoli — “2.nuclear requires proximity to rivers or other large sources of cooling water.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Many of the oncoming SMR designs have air cooling as an option. That mode of cooling costs somewhat more to implement than using cooling water from a river or from the ocean. But technically, it will work.

For industrial customers and for islanded micro-grids located some distance away from a river or from the ocean, air cooling will be the technology of choice for a new-build reactor of whatever size.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Frank Natoli — “3. nuclear has to boil water, using steam to drive the turbines, whereas natural gas has gas turbines generate power directly.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

That nuclear uses steam, and that gas-fired does it directly, is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things when comparing nuclear generation versus gas-fired generation.

The argument for nuclear generation isn’t that it is less expensive than gas-fired generation.

The current argument for nuclear is that within an energy marketplace where wind and solar is intermittent and where there is the potential for disruptions in the supply of natural gas and/or LNG, nuclear delivers energy security and a reliable supply of power.

===============================================

Frank Natoli, 2nd Comment:

If I understand you correctly, nuclear power has died a natural, free market death, a 20th/21st century version of the covered wagon.
And the Democrat controlled regulatory state, with its publicly stated intention of wiping out nuclear power, had little or no effect on that very outcome.
French post-processing of nuclear fuel, at a fully automated plant in Le Havre, reducing by 90% the volume of long term radioactive waste, is irrelevant to affordable operation of nuclear plants.
Technological alternatives to water cooled nuclear plants are available, but virtually no nuclear plant in present operation uses it.
Similarly, Democratic regulatory state actions against carbon fuels, against internal combustion engine powered vehicles, are also irrelevant, both dying the same free market, natural death as nuclear power.
Do I have that right?

===============================================

Beta Blocker in Response to Frank Natoli’s 2nd Comment:

Here is a detailed response to one of Frank Natoli’s comments concerning nuclear power which appears further down [up] the page:

Starting off with my detailed response, the first thing one has to know about nuclear power in the year 2023 is that the current marketplace environment for nuclear energy is as complicated and as complex as is the nuclear technology itself. 

As someone whose career in nuclear spans more than thirty-five years, I would argue that today’s marketplace for nuclear is more complicated in many ways than is the new technology itself.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Frank Natoli — If I understand you correctly, nuclear power has died a natural, free market death, a 20th/21st century version of the covered wagon.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

The true value of nuclear is that it gives the nations which adopt it a measure of energy security and reliability in the face of uncertain energy supplies — but at a cost premium over what gas-fired generation can deliver.

Here in the US, nuclear, wind, and solar are strictly creatures of public policy decision making. In the absence of zero-carbon mandates — and in the absence of a public policy decision to use nuclear as a reliable backup for other sources of power generation — gas-fired generation would eventually drive coal, nuclear, and wind/solar off the power grid.

As zero carbon alternatives go, the difference between nuclear and wind/solar is that nuclear is reliable 24/7/365 and is cheaper than wind/solar at higher market penetration levels where the need for greatly expanded power transmission capacity and for greatly expanded energy storage capacity begins to drive the costs of wind and solar exponential. 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Frank Natoli — And the Democrat controlled regulatory state, with its publicly stated intention of wiping out nuclear power, had little or no effect on that very outcome.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Regulatory oversight for nuclear power encompasses:

— An upfront initial review of the basic safety of a nuclear reactor design;
— The quality assurance of component fabrication and installation after the design is approved and plant construction begins;
— Safe operation of the plant once a reactor is installed and begins producing power.

Can the regulatory process for initial upfront approval of advanced nuclear reactor designs be improved? 

The definite answer here is that it can be, and that it should be. Getting rid of ‘As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)’ and its roots in ‘Linear No Threshhold (LNT)’ radiation effects theory is central to streamlining the NRC’s initial design review process. As well as streamlining post-construction operational oversight, to some extent.

The NRC’s quality assurance requirements for component fabrication and installation are a very different matter. Maintaining strict compliance with quality assurance requirements cannot and will not be abandoned, regardless of any other changes we might make to how the NRC goes about the business of conducting public oversight of the nuclear industry. 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Frank Natoli — French post-processing of nuclear fuel, at a fully automated plant in Le Havre, reducing by 90% the volume of long term radioactive waste, is irrelevant to affordable operation of nuclear plants.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

France reprocesses its spent nuclear fuel because having a closed fuel cycle operating within its own national borders supports its national energy security policies. Here in the US, given how little waste is produced per unit of energy delivered, reducing by 90% the volume of long term radioactive waste through reprocessing is irrelevant to the affordable operation of our nuclear plants.

We don’t reprocess spent fuel in the US because the once-through fuel cycle meets our current needs at a cost we are willing to pay. Long-term on-site storage is perfectly safe and is currently the most cost effective means of dealing with it.

Here in the US, if we ever want to do something more than what we are currently doing with our spent nuclear fuel, the ever-rising cost of electricity occurring as a direct consequence of the transition into Net Zero will generate more than enough cash either to reprocess our spent fuel, or else to permanently bury it.

What if we suddenly change course and decide to begin reprocessing our civilian spent nuclear fuel?

As nuclear-chemical processing operations go, the vitrification of nuclear waste is the closest thing to nuclear fuel reprocessing one can do without actually doing nuclear fuel reprocessing. Vitrification of defense nuclear wastes is now in progress at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. Vitrification of other, more complex defense wastes will begin at the Hanford Site starting in the mid-2020’s.

Stated in terms of trained personnel, nuclear safety support services, civil support infrastructure, and nuclear waste management services, both the Savannah River Site and the Hanford Site now possess roughly 80% of the nuclear-chemical processing infrastructure needed to perform the reprocessing of our civilian spent nuclear fuel. Adding a chemical separation facility to each of those two sites would quickly enable a US reprocessing capability — if we were so inclined to do that. 

However, as things stand today, we in the US don’t have any real need to reprocess our spent nuclear fuel. That said, the Savannah River and the Hanford vitrification projects will be in operation for three or more decades into the future. If we suddenly decide to reprocess, for whatever reasons, those two facilities can be quickly upgraded to handle the work.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Frank Natoli — Technological alternatives to water cooled nuclear plants are available, but virtually no nuclear plant in present operation uses it.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

No nuclear plant uses air as a method of cooling because until recently there hasn’t been a marketplace need for an air cooled reactor design. The energy marketplace is different from what it was when our fleet of legacy reactors was designed and constructed. Air cooling is a requirement for one of the more important segments of the developing nuclear marketplace, which is for industrial process heat and for behind-the-meter supply of electricity for industrial applications.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Frank Natoli — Similarly, Democratic regulatory state actions against carbon fuels, against internal combustion engine powered vehicles, are also irrelevant, both dying the same free market, natural death as nuclear power.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Concerning the politics of nuclear power, senior executives inside the US nuclear industry are dominated by Democrat-leaning CEO’s who are pushing the climate change and Net Zero narratives. As long as these executives continue to push the climate change narrative, and as long as they support the Net Zero transition, they will have a place at the Democratic Party’s energy policy table.  

These executives know full well that selling nuclear power as a reliable alternative to wind & solar depends in large part on government-mandated suppression of gas-fired generation, thus eliminating their most important source of competition as vendors for reliable 24/7/365 power generation.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Frank Natoli — Do I have that right?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Frank, just my opinion here — if you are an advocate of nuclear power as a cheaper and more reliable zero-carbon alternative to wind and solar, sound bites and rhetorical flourish won’t get you very far in promoting nuclear for that purpose.

Advocates of nuclear power for the US market will not gain traction with public policy decision makers unless and until the nuclear industry gets its capital costs under control while still maintaining compliance with strict regulatory standards.