Nuclear energy had fallen further and further out of favor in the face of falling costs for renewable energy systems. But the hints of his death are greatly exaggerated. The $ 1 trillion bipartisan treaty approved by the Senate earlier this month provides $ 6 billion in support of nuclear power. And some utilities are considering mini-reactors to aid in their emissions reduction efforts.
Perhaps there is no better evidence that nuclear power is needed in the net-zero world than the fact that the 2,700-page infrastructure law is designed to support existing nuclear power plants that are becoming uneconomical to compete with cheap gas and renewable energies. Obviously, these projects have to be made economical again in order to secure the future power supply of an economy which, if the plans work, will be predominantly powered by electricity.
The bill also provides for funding for new nuclear reactors – small, modular ones. Small modular reactors seem to be gaining popularity as an alternative to the huge and expensive nuclear reactors of the past.
There is only one problem with small nuclear reactors. They still need to be approved for use.
The Department of Energy allocated $ 3.2 billion over seven years to the development of small modular nuclear reactors last year, wrote Elena Shao of the Wall Street Journal in a recent article. A number of such projects are being tested in the United States and elsewhere, but they have yet to pass regulatory reviews that would give them the stamp of approval required to build the actual reactors. According to the article, this is unlikely before 2030. Worse, the modular reactors have to prove inexpensive to have a future.
China seems to be one step ahead. Earlier this year, the state-owned China National Nuclear Corporation began building the world’s first small modular nuclear reactor. The Linglong One project passed the International Atomic Energy Agency safety review. Once completed, it could meet the energy needs of over half a million households. The Linglong One reactor is the result of decades of research on small modular nuclear reactors.
The story goes on
“Expanded SMRs offer many benefits, such as relatively small physical footprints, reduced capital investment, the ability to be placed in locations that are not possible for larger nuclear power plants, and provision for incremental power increases,” says the US Department of Energy. “SMRs also offer significant protection, security and non-proliferation benefits.”
They also seem to complement wind and solar systems. Indeed, they could prove to be a necessity if the net-zero scenario is to materialize.
“A full decarbonization by 2050 is a gigantic undertaking that requires the full range of low-carbon energy sources,” said Henri Paillere, head of the IAEA’s Planning and Economic Studies Section, at an industry event earlier this year. “We will need enormous amounts of low-carbon electricity, heat and hydrogen, and nuclear power can contribute to their production, provided there is clear political support.”
Of course, the IAEA is unlikely to speak out against nuclear energy.
Here’s what the International Energy Agency, a staunch and increasingly vocal proponent of renewable energy, has to say about nuclear power. It claims that global nuclear capacity expansion must double annually for the Agency’s Sustainable Development scenario to work.
Related: Big Oil continues to increase investment in South America
A not widely known fact about nuclear power is that it is the second largest low carbon power source in the world. France, for example, relies on nuclear power for more than two thirds of its energy needs, and its energy system has a lower carbon footprint than Germany’s despite the abundant wind and solar capacity.
In other words, nuclear works.
Nonetheless, the criticism remains high, as does the fear of a meltdown despite technological advances. This fear has a rational basis: nuclear reactor meltdowns can be extremely rare – and they are – but when they do, the effects are enormous. And yet, like solar cell technology, nuclear reactor technology has advanced, with safety a top priority.
Let’s assume that nuclear power is indeed a safe way to produce electricity reliably and reliably around the clock. How inexpensive is it? It depends on whether. The WSJ Shao writes that TerraPower’s sodium reactor, with a capacity of 345 MW, will cost about $ 1 billion and produce electricity at staggered costs between $ 50 and $ 60 per MWh, so a company spokesman. This is offset by costs of 44 to 73 US dollars per MWh for gas-fired power plants.
So, on the one hand, sodium is comparable to nuclear power’s biggest competitor. Other nuclear projects could soon become competitive if the clean electricity norm recently proposed by a group of Democratic senators goes into effect. This standard would penalize emitters and reward low-carbon electricity producers, which would certainly tip the balance in favor of nuclear power – small and modular or otherwise.
By Irina Slav for Oil Genealogie
More top readings from Oileli:
Read this article on OilPrice.com
Comments are closed.