Soaring demand for electricity and coal shows why we need nuclear energy
By: Robert Bryce, Opinion Contributor (The Hill)
Green energy policy has employed financial measures more appropriate for expanding the energy market and increasing consumption of energy. Green energy policy has focused attention on creating markets for new (not yet mature) technology and increasing use of that technology. Alternative energy generation has been added to existing fossil fuel generation which has increased available energy and encouraged increased use of energy. More and more human activities are becoming dependent upon electricity.
The focus of attention has supposedly been directed toward replacing power generation. But green energy policy can't keep up with increasing demand for energy. Very little attention has been given to replacing activities that consume that extra energy.
Atomic power, or nuclear energy, is certainly more energy dense and far more reliable than wind and solar technology. Nuclear energy is better suited to utility scale application over a power grid. Nuclear energy does not require battery storage for continuous supply of electricity. Nuclear power generation would allow a seamless transition away from fossil fuel power generation. But with all the apparent advantages of nuclear power generation, that still doesn't address the increasing consumption of electricity. And it's doubtful that nuclear energy can keep up with increasing demand.
The human activity claimed to be affecting the climate is energy consumption; not energy generation. It is energy consumption that is requiring the use of fossil fuels. Augmenting power generation with alternative technology won't reduce energy consumption. Green energy policy has been trying to push the string. And that's why green energy policy is failing.
Green energy policy that (perhaps inadvertently) increases consumption of electricity isn't a viable solution. If the dire predictions concerning climate change are true then we simply cannot afford to ignore energy consumption. All the attention given to power generation is actually a distraction that avoids addressing the underlying problem.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Last week, BP released its annual Statistical Review of World Energy and the report shows, yet again, that electricity is the world's most important and fastest-growing form of energy.
In 2021, global electricity generation grew by a record 1,577 terawatt-hours, an increase of 6.2 percent over 2020. For perspective, last year's increase in electricity production was greater than the electricity output of France, Germany and Britain combined. The surge in electricity generation — nearly half of which happened in China — reflects the jump in demand for power as the world recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The numbers also show that, despite all the hype about renewable energy and the "energy transition," when it comes to producing power, countries are still heavily dependent on King Coal. Indeed, coal-fired generation continued its dominance of the electricity sector in 2021, accounting for 51 percent of the increase in global electricity generation. Furthermore, coal's share in the global generation mix increased slightly to 36 percent, while natural gas's share of the generation mix fell to just under 23 percent.
While renewable generation increased by double-digit percentages, the increase in coal-fired generation — up 805 terawatt-hours — was greater than the jump in wind and solar production combined. Not surprisingly, China had the biggest share of the increase in coal use, accounting for more than half of the global increase of 418 terawatt-hours. By itself, China accounts for 54 percent of all global coal use.
But China is only part of the story. Coal-fired generation also increased in the United States last year, up 122 terawatt-hours, and in India, up 152 terawatt-hours. The surge in coal consumption shows that what I call the "Iron Law of Electricity" remains in effect — that countries, businesses and individuals will do what they have to do to get the electricity they need. China and India usually get the headlines, but European countries also are ramping up coal use. Russia's restrictions on westward flows of natural gas have spurred Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Poland to increase their coal use.
All of these numbers matter because the electricity sector produces more greenhouse gasses than any other sector of the global economy. And because the global electricity business is so dependent on coal, there is simply no way to cut emissions without making a big dent in coal consumption.
Again, the BP numbers tell the tale. In 2021, the jump in coal use — which surged by 6.3 percent — was greater than the growth in global oil use (up 6.1 percent), natural gas consumption (up 5.3 percent), nuclear (up 3.8 percent), or hydro (down 1.8 percent). The surge in hydrocarbon consumption also explains why global greenhouse gas emissions continue climbing. Last year, global CO2 emissions increased by 5.9 percent. Here in the U.S., emissions increased even more than that, climbing by 6.6 percent.
Despite these facts, academics, policymakers and climate activists routinely claim that we don't need hydrocarbons and that we can meet the world's energy needs solely with renewables — wind, solar and a dash of hydropower — an idea debunked in a 2017 report published by the National Academy of Sciences.
Don't buy the hype. The reality is that all around the world, land-use conflicts are slowing or stopping large-scale wind and solar projects. As can be seen in the Renewable Rejection Database, some 344 communities across the U.S. have rejected or restricted wind projects since 2013. To cite just one recent example: Last month, Butler County, Ohio, banned large wind and solar projects in a dozen townships in the county. The rural backlash against the energy sprawl that comes with big renewable projects also has occurred in Europe. In 2010, the European Platform Against Windfarms had about 400 member organizations. Today, it has more than 1,600 members in 31 countries.
There are many reasons why renewables cannot — will not — be able to meet soaring global energy demand. They include intermittency, land constraints, lack of sufficient high-voltage transmission capacity, and the staggering quantity of commodities such as concrete, copper, steel and rare earth elements that would be needed.
So, if renewables cannot meet our needs, and we are concerned about climate change, what is the way forward? The answer is nuclear energy. Indeed, the other big energy news from last week was a report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), which said that "building sustainable and clean energy systems will be harder, riskier and more expensive without nuclear," and that global nuclear capacity must double between now and 2050 if the world is to have any hope of slashing emissions.
The IEA also underscored the lack of progress being made in the U.S. and Europe on building new reactors. It said that "advanced economies have lost market leadership" in nuclear development and deployment and that "27 out of 31 reactors that started construction since 2017 are Russian or Chinese designs."
This must change. For decades, the U.S. led the world in the development of nuclear energy. But we have ceded that leadership to Russia and China. Furthermore, the U.S. has foolishly allowed too many of our existing nuclear plants to be prematurely shuttered, including two in the past 15 months: Indian Point in New York and Palisades in Michigan.
The energy crisis in Europe and the latest BP numbers show that if we are to have any hope of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we have to embrace the atom. The U.S. doesn't lack investment dollars or good reactor designs. Last year alone, some $3.4 billion in venture capital was invested in nuclear-focused startups. What's needed is committed and sustained leadership from President Biden and Congress.
Today's crises are a prime opportunity for President Biden to use the bully pulpit to promote nuclear energy. And the time for him to do so is right now.
Tags
Who is online
83 visitors
Don't ignore the geopolitical ramifications of energy policy, either. Those countries who retain ability to use fossil fuels for energy will likely dominate the world. Fossil fuels are so energy dense, readily available, and easily used that they provide clear strategic and economic advantages.
Why???
They are also limited in quantity and susceptible to pollical manipulation from unfriendly countries.
The truth of the matter is that countries that develop renewable energy in sufficient quantities to wean themselves off of fossil fuels will become energy independent, and they are the ones who will "dominate" the world.
All others will be at the mercy of OPEC and Russia to provide them with the energies that they need, while fossil fuels are still available. Once we have run out, those countries will fall to 3rd world status.
Granted no energy source is perfect. But fossil fuels do have clear advantages over other sources of energy which is why fossil fuels are so widely used. Storage is a very important advantage of fossil fuels; energy stored in fossil fuels does not degrade over time. That makes planning a lot easier. Fossil fuels are also used as a material feedstock and not just for energy. EVs require tires made from petroleum so EVs can't function without oil. Lighter hydrocarbons in oil used as material feedstock will still be available; either those fractions are used or they will become a waste byproduct.
Fossil fuels are reliable, allow long term storage, and do not require a lot of technology to obtain energy.
That argument also applies to every other energy source. Alternative energy is just as susceptible to political manipulation by unfriendly countries as are fossil fuels.
No, renewable energy won't allow energy independence. Economies will become just as dependent upon the supply of technology as they are currently dependent upon supply of fossil fuels. The only way to achieve energy independence is to produce the technology (or fossil fuels) domestically. Alternative energy won't magically reduce dependence upon supply.
Yes, they will.
Nuclear is a waste of time.
Bull. Their only advantages is the amount of money oil producers are willing to spend to keep countries addicted to oil and gas. Oil and gas will always have uses, but not as an energy source.
The sun stores solar energy for free, and that solar energy does not degrade.
EV's require glass for windows, so EV's can't function without sand.
You see how ridiculous your statement is now? As I said previously, oil will always have uses, but not as an energy source.
Solar will be around for billions of years, how long before we run out of oil?
The sun will store/produce solar energy for billions of years FOR FREE. How much will it cost to store fossil fuels for the same duration?
Fossil fuels require more technology to obtain energy than solar. You can obtain, store, and convert solar in each house that wants to use it.
A foreign country is going to stop you from getting sunshine? Did you even read what you wrote before pushing the POST button?
There are solar houses today, that are completely off the grid, completely independent from any government or private energy provider. Your statement is again ridiculous.
The technology exists today, and is available to anyone who wants it. All there needs to be is work on enhancing it, making it work better, which will always be an ongoing process.
Already done.
If you start producing all the energy you need, with a few solar panels on your roof, your dependence on fossil fuels is reduced. It is not magic, it is simple logic.
If you own chickens, your dependence on eggs at the supermarket is reduced. Simple.
I should also point out that I only used solar as an example, there are many other renewable energy sources available, yet with just solar I countered every single one of your claims.
Nuclear has its uses, but it currently has dangers that could effect every living creature on this planet.
Fusion energy will be the answer when we get smart enough to figure it out. But fusion seems to always be "just around the corner", and never actually seems to turn that corner. But the same problem will exist with fusion energy, in that it will always be someone else that controls it, and therefore to an extent controls you.
There is an obvious advantage in that the infrastructure is already in place.
Another obvious advantage is storage. Hopefully we'll see that gap closed in the next few years.
A better path than "off grid" is the move toward "decentralized grid", which would create a much more secure situation than we have now. Rooftop solar allows that.
All that said, nuclear is well established as a fantastic power source and should be a part of any future strategy.
Solar infrastructure is at your house, and can be installed in a matter of days.
Batteries are already available to handle all your overnight needs.
Selling back your excess power for a "decentralized grid" is a truly wonderful idea, and helpful for your community at large. Giving back is always good.
Nuclear Fusion power = Yes, absolutely.
Nuclear Fission power = No, absolutely not.
The possible side effects of failed Fission powerplants could be catastrophic (see Chernobyl). Fission plants will also be possible targets of terrorism since it only takes a small explosion to create deadly results for miles around. Blow up a Fusion powerplant, and it merely stops.
I suspect you've not evaluated that recently. Let's say "in a matter of months".
A major challenge for the solar industry is the utter unsustainability of the current battery path we're on. We're working on new battery technologies like vanadium flow and others, but until those become commercially viable, the battery situation is by far the single greatest limiting bottleneck on the transition to renewable energy.
It's much more about the fact that decentralized infrastructure is massively more difficult to disrupt via terrorist actions or hacking or whatever. It's also not possible for a 70-story skyscraper to generate its own electricity. That's especially true in places like Atlanta or Houston where the air conditioning is on 24/7 from March to November. So most buildings in large urban areas will need a grid of some sort.
The fact is that nuclear power is incredibly safe. Most of our navy has run on nuclear power for decades. The stairs in our homes are literally more dangerous.
Not just power that has an impact on. Look what happened when one baby formula plant had to shut down.
Almost everything in this country is centralized in to a few.
If we can be harmed as much as we were by one single manufacturing company, we are in some trouble.
Absolutely.
Two words.....
Colonial. Pipeline.
Let's split the difference. Once construction has started, it's a matter of days. Waiting for that construction is a matter of months often.
You are correct, however there are current battery solutions that will store more than enough of your solar generated power to last the night. Those batteries are big, and expensive, but they work.
It is still much easier to disrupt than having to hack (or whatever) each individual household.
Kind of..... Technology is being developed to turn each window in a skyscraper into a solar panel, generating more than enough for the entire building.
One such technology = Solar Window
But otherwise you are correct, a solar infrastructure is not currently in place for that. However configuring solar farms to provide that energy on existing infrastructure would work. And there is your decentralized infrastructure at work for those instances.
Chernobyl, Fukushima, there are a lot more than you'd think..... Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents
The Alarming History of U.S. Nuclear Accidents at Sea
If 1 stair tread breaks, how many people would it kill?
So, consume less energy. The treatment for addiction rarely involves becoming addicted to something else. Switching from fossil fuels to some other energy source won't end the addiction to energy. And it's the addiction that allows manipulation.
Yet, there is still a need for conversion to a useful form of energy. Coal, oil, and natural gas were created by solar energy and are as free as the sun. It hasn't cost one red cent to create coal, oil, and natural gas. Just as it hasn't cost one red cent to create solar energy. And nature is storing carbon all the time without any need for humans.
And, as I pointed out, the portion of oil that can't be used as a material feedstock will become a waste byproduct.
That's swell except we don't directly use solar energy. And nature continues to store carbon for free. In fact, the policy approach to achieve net zero emissions depends entirely upon nature storing carbon. Nature will create more coal, oil, and natural gas. Coal and oil were available before there were humans. And all that carbon will remain on the planet as long as there is a planet; carbon isn't going anywhere.
The problem hasn't been caused by coal, oil, natural gas, or carbon. Human consumption has caused climate change. Humans don't want to end their addiction to energy. And that addiction to energy is going to continue to cause environmental problems and allow geopolitical manipulation. There isn't a free lunch.
The solar panels still need to be manufactured, delivered, and installed. And a solar array won't renew itself in a sustainable manner like a flock of chickens. Chickens produce their own replacements; solar panels won't. While chickens wouldn't be that practical, even chickens could be used as a sustainable, renewable source of power. Chickens provide motive power and chickens generate heat -- using solar energy.
You've only countered claims by utilizing blue sky conjecture and unrealistic hyperbole.
The delay is pertinent when we're talking about mass adoption in a given time frame, which we would need before we could give up fossil fuels.
Again, if we're talking about whether or not we need fossil fuels and/or nuclear power, this isn't a discussion about a single home. We're talking about mass rooftop adoption along with mass conversion at the industrial and utility level. That's simply not feasible with reliance on lithium as our primary battery technology.
Yes. That's the point. "Decentralized grid" means that power is generated everywhere. Like individual rooftops.
Exactly. The issue becomes commercial viability. If we compare the cost of replacing all the windows in a 40-story Houston building with the cost of installing a MW of solar panels in a field in Oklahoma, it's not close. That's not a completely decentralized situation, but it's certainly much closer than we have currently.
A third of that list involves radiotherapy incidents, which are completely unrelated to power generation. In the past 50 years, we've had three significant events at power generation locations worldwide. Meanwhile, nuclear plants generate 10% of the world's electricity. They are the norm in Europe, where they have been the primary generation source in several countries for decades. So assuming we're smart enough not to build a nuclear plant on a major fault line, the safety statistics are very strong.
Again, I'm not sure this is pertinent. It's not like we'll be strapping nuclear warheads to a plane and trying to land it on a power plant in Wyoming somewhere. I'm pretty sure we can safely predict that none of the power plants will be colliding with each other. I'm pretty sure the plan would be for them to be stationary most of the time.
What is conspicuously absent from your link are any reports of the power generation reactors in these ships failing or leaking...even when the ships are nearly destroyed.
They don't need to break. You simply fall down them. Which, statistically, accounts for far more deaths than nuclear radiation.
You are correct. However as the demand increases so will the number of firms to do the installation. Although you are probably right that it will never be installed the week, or even month of the request. But that is still a very small wait when you are looking at the end result of no longer relying on a 3rd party to provide your power.
I am talking fossil fuels to create energy. So yes, if a single home utilizes energy, it is most definitely part of the discussion. Weaning single family residences off fossil fuel derived energy would make a very large step away from fossil fuels our dependence on foreign countries (even hostile ones) to get the oil needed for that energy.
Nuclear is an option, but fission is too expensive and too dangerous to continue to rely on. That's why there have been no new fission power plants built.
Agreed, but then you have to address NEW construction and that brings the costs wayyyyy down.
2/3's not enough for you? It shows that the nuclear industry is not as safe as you thought.
Making assumptions is never a good idea in regards to nuclear energy. Especially when something as simple as a Russian/Chinese/Iranian hacker, or a very small explosion from a terrorist, can cause a meltdown.
That's the problem when you're dealing with the American military. Do you really think they would release any news about those?
Let's look at the numbers. 1 nuclear meltdown at a power plant could cause millions of deaths, both immediately and years later from cancer.
1 set of stairs has the potential of killing how many people? I cannot find any statistic that shows the most number of people killed from falling down the same set of stairs.
Which is at best, is 5-7 years away if and when they get approved. Which will enviably happen when brown outs get bad enough. Which is coming.
That 5-7 years is going to get get sweaty and cold ..... meanwhile my genset, power wall and solar panels continue to purr along.
Need to cool down? Come visit. Need to warm up? Stop by. I like Czechvar beer by the way. A sixer of Noonan will do in a pinch.
Fission is the bridge to fusion; the price of going there will be enormous. The question that remains is what is the price of not going there.
Fission is not a bridge, it is just easier. Fusion is a completely different process.