WHY AUSTRALIA MUST GO NUCLEAR

Posted on by

If we want to have a cleaner environment, we will need to address a few fundamental issues: The source of electricity and the baseload power generation infrastructure must be upgraded. And that means we need to migrate to nuclear fission. If the goal is to stop using coal and natural gas, then this is the only logical way to power economies and cleanly “fuel” EVs. The power distribution grid needs to be completely upgraded. If we all had EVs today, the power grids would collapse. It couldn’t carry the load. And our aging power grids tend to lose between 7–15% of the electricity between the source of production and your EV. This is what is referred to as transmission and distribution losses (T&D losses). That means we have to burn extra amounts of fossil fuels for each unit of electricity delivered to an end user. The power generation of major developing economies like China and India must be addressed. These countries continue to increase their use of coal, especially China, despite developed countries around the world reducing the use of coal. The U.S. private sector continues to lead the world in terms of investment and technological innovation on both next-generation forms of nuclear fission (small modular reactors, or SMRs) and nuclear fusion technology. Sadly, nuclear fusion is not even close.

U.S. energy technologies are aggressively “doing something about it” rather than just talking about it over tea parties. Fortunately, the Trump administration is very pro-nuclear as a source of energy, which has not been the case in the U.S. for decades. We can also expect to see some major regulatory changes that will safely streamline the regulatory process for developing and commissioning nuclear fission reactors.

In summary, we need to follow America’s lead. Dutton has seen the light, and we should give him the reigns at the next election. What he proposes is the best and least expensive power generation option for Australia, particularly using the existing transmission lines by converting coal-fired plants to nuclear. Labour’s renewables with solar and wind are not a viable option, and from my standpoint, wind turbines are an eyesore.

WIND AND SOLAR IS NOT THE ANSWER: USA GOING TO NUCLEAR

Posted on by

USA is planning to convert closed coal-fired power stations to nuclear. Just as Peter Dutton suggests Australia should do with small modular nuclear reactors as well as new conventional nuclear reactors.

Nuscale Small Modular Nuclear reactor

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today released a report showing that hundreds of U.S. coal power plant sites could convert to nuclear power plant sites, adding new jobs, increasing economic benefit, and significantly improving environmental conditions. This coal-to-nuclear transition could add a substantial amount of clean electricity to the grid, helping the U.S. reach its net-zero emissions goals by 2050. 

The study investigated the benefits and challenges of converting retiring coal plant sites into nuclear plant sites. After screening recently retired and active coal plant sites, the study team identified 157 retired coal plant sites and 237 operating coal plant sites as potential candidates for a coal-to-nuclear transition. Of these sites, the team found that 80% are good candidates to host advanced reactors smaller than the gigawatt scale.  

A coal-to-nuclear transition could significantly improve air quality in communities around the country. The case study found that greenhouse gas emissions in a region could fall by 86% when nuclear power plants replace large coal plants, which is equivalent to taking more than 500,000 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles off the roads.  

It could also increase employment and economic activity within those communities. When a large coal plant is replaced by a nuclear power plant of equivalent size, the study found that jobs in the region could increase by more than 650 permanent positions. Based on the case study in the report, long-term job impacts could lead to additional annual economic activity of $275 million, implying an increase of 92% in tax revenue for the local county when compared to the operating coal power. 

“This is an important opportunity to help communities around the country preserve jobs, increase tax revenue, and improve air quality,” said Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dr. Kathryn Huff. “As we move to a clean energy future, we need to deliver place-based solutions and ensure an equitable energy transition that does not leave communities behind.” 

The reuse of coal infrastructure for advanced nuclear reactors could also reduce costs for developing new nuclear technology, saving from 15% to 35% in construction costs. Coal-to-nuclear transitions could save millions of dollars by reusing the coal plant’s electrical equipment (e.g., transmission lines, switchyards), cooling ponds or towers, and civil infrastructure such as roads and office buildings.  

Argonne National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory conducted the study, sponsored by the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy. 

Read the full report here.

HYDROGEN AS A FUEL SOURCE

Posted on by

The thought of powering our cars, trucks, trains, and even planes with the most abundant element in the universe, whose byproduct is just water, sounds like the solution to greatly reducing global carbon emissions. Hydrogen seems perfect on the surface. It stores three times as much energy per unit of mass as gasoline. When it is combined with air, the energy released can power a vehicle, and it combines with oxygen to produce water.

Hydrogen is produced from water. About 70 million tons of hydrogen are produced each year, primarily used for ammonia fertilizer. And 96% of hydrogen production is made by a process known as steam-methane reformation. This process uses energy created by natural gas, coal, and oil to produce hydrogen. The industry produces 830 million metric tons of carbon dioxide yearly to produce this “clean” hydrogen fuel.

If we have to burn massive amounts of carbon-based fuel to put hydrogen in our cars, we aren’t helping the environment. We are only displacing where the carbon emissions take place, not whether or not they happen in the first place.

It is no different than fueling our electric vehicles with electricity produced from coal, natural gas, or oil. It is nonsensical to think that we are helping the environment.

Currently, 4% of hydrogen production is produced using electrolysis which uses electricity to split the hydrogen out of the water. However, the costs are four times higher than steam-methane reformation. To put things in perspective, it takes about 50–55 kilowatt hours of electricity to produce a single kilogram of hydrogen fuel. That’s the equivalent of about two days of electricity consumption for an average home in America. Two days of an entire household’s energy consumption just to produce one kilogram that provides enough fuel to travel 70 miles. Also, its volume is a problem It takes up a lot of space, so we can only carry about 5–6 kilograms of hydrogen in our tank. The other tricky nuance is that hydrogen molecules are so tiny, that they easily leak out of most containers.

Without billions of dollars in subsidies, hydrogen just doesn’t make economic sense; and because of where the energy comes from in the production of hydrogen – mainly fossil fuels – it doesn’t even make environmental sense.

For hydrogen fuel cells to be both environmentally sustainable and economical, the world must address how it produces baseload power. This is the kind of power required to manufacture the 70 million tons of hydrogen produced every year.

The most desirable technology to achieve this is nuclear fusion technology but it is still a long way off. Nuclear fusion is the same process that powers the sun and other stars and is widely seen as the holy grail of clean energy. Experts have worked for decades to master the highly complex process on Earth, and if they do, fusion could generate enormous amounts of energy with tiny inputs of fuel and emit zero planet-warming carbon in the process. In the meantime, nuclear fission providing carbon-free emissions with limited radioactive waste is a sustainable energy production strategy and one we should all be using. Both Small Modular Nuclear Reactors and Large-Scale Reactors are the way forward and progressive countries are already pursuing that strategy.

ADOPTION OF SMALL MODULAR REACTORS

Posted on by

Britain’s new Labour government has said small nuclear plants will play an important role in helping the country meet its net-zero targets.

Britain’s Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR) said the Rolls-Royce SMR 470 megawatt (MW) Small Modular Reactor (SMR) design had completed stage two of its three-step generic design assessment (GDA) – the formal process for approving a new reactor.

“The team will move directly into Step 3 of this rigorous independent assessment of our technology – ideally positioning us to deliver low-carbon nuclear power and support the UK transition to net zero,” said Helena Perry, Rolls-Royce SMR’s Safety and Regulatory Affairs Director.

The overall duration for the Rolls-Royce SMR GDA is expected to be 53 months, reaching completion in August 2026.

A unique approach

According to Paul Stein, Chairman of Rolls-Royce SMR, “The UK SMR heralds a new approach to the cost of nuclear power by broadly rethinking the manufacturing and construction methods and by the extensive use of digital twinning, keeping the physics package exactly the same. The SMR uses a pressurised water reactor, a type we know and love.”

The production will utilize commercially available, off-the-shelf components from within the UK supply chain, injecting revenue into the British economy and avoiding high-risk, complex construction principles.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

The second volume of The NEA Small Modular Reactor Dashboard is another milestone in the ongoing efforts of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) to comprehensively assess the progress toward commercializing and deploying SMR technologies. It is important to note that the present publication is not an update to the complement of reactors assessed in Volume I. Instead, the work extends the same methodology to a further 21 SMR designs worldwide to evaluate their progress toward commercialization and deployment as of 21 April 2023.

Australia is a member of the OECD and has access to the publications of its Nuclear Energy Agency on SMR’s and would be aware that the widespread use of SMRs is underway.

Notable public announcements, even in the intervening months since NEA published Volume I in March 2023, now reflect technology choices and plans by chemical manufacturers, oil companies, and copper mine owners. Market signals suggest that this trend will only continue to accelerate as awareness grows about the potential for SMRs to provide alternatives to fossil fuels for both power and non-power industrial applications.

Nuclear Energy allows us to use the existing transmission lines and infrastructure, which is extremely important in Australia with a widely distributed, small population in a large country. The proposal submitted by the Liberal Party for replacing cold fire power stations with SMRs and larger-scale nuclear reactors utilizes the existing transmission lines so is a cost-efficient option.

Wind and Solar in remote locations means a whole new transmission infrastructure to get the power to where it is needed. Moreover, they only work when the wind blows and the sun shines, so the power output is unreliable.

Blocking nuclear is a major setback for Australia’s industrial sector. In the past with our own coal and natural gas Australia provided industry with comparatively cheap energy that will change dramatically without nuclear. Also, Australia has the world’s largest economic demonstrated resources of uranium. In 2021, it was the world’s 4th largest uranium producer. However, Australia has only one commercial nuclear power plant therefore, it has limited domestic uranium requirements. It has and will continue to provide excellent export income.