Neptune Energy awarded subsidy by Netherlands Enterprise Agency for its offshore green hydrogen project

By George Heyneson Jul 22, 2021

 

 Translate 

NEWS

The Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO) is set to award a subsidy to the PosHYdon project, an offshore green hydrogen pilot on a working platform being led by Neptune Energy.

The subsidy, revealed today (July 22), has been awarded under the RVO’s Demonstration Energy and Climate Innovation (DEI+) scheme, which invites funding applications for investments in renewable energy developments, including hydrogen pilots.

Read more: Neptune Energy selected for offshore hydrogen pilot

Read more: Neptune Energy joins European Clean Hydrogen Alliance

PosHYdon, which will be hosted on the Neptune Energy-operated Q13a-A platform, aims to validate the integration of offshore wind, offshore gas and offshore hydrogen in the Dutch North Sea.

It will see the installation of a green hydrogen-producing plant on the Q13a-A platform.

The plant will convert seawater into demineralised water, then into green hydrogen via electrolysis, which will be blended with natural gas and transported to shore via an existing pipeline.

Lex de Groot, Managing Director for the Netherlands at Neptune Energy, said, “We welcome the award of this subsidy and look forward to progressing with this exciting project on our Q13a-A platform.

“PosHYdon will provide the insights necessary to develop large scale green hydrogen production at sea.

“The Dutch North Sea sector has an exciting future as a ‘new energy hub’ and can play a leading role in large-scale green hydrogen production for northwestern Europe, given its infrastructure that connects offshore with onshore.”

Groot continued, “The integration of energy systems supports net zero goals in a smart, efficient, and cost-effective manner and without disturbing existing sea ecosystems.

“The extensive infrastructure network is connected to international grids and can easily accommodate wind farms further out at sea by converting the production of green electricity into green hydrogen and transporting it to the grid onshore.

“PosHYdon will be the key to making this happen and we are excited to consider future opportunities that the pilot can help unlock.”

Hitting global climate target could create 8m energy jobs, study says


Researchers suggest net increase would mostly occur in renewables sector, with decline in fossil fuels

A worker inspects solar panels at a manufacturing plant in Singapore. 

Photograph: Edgar Su/Reuter 

Natalie Grover 

Fri 23 Jul 2021

If some politicians are to be believed, taking sweeping action to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement would be calamitous for jobs in the energy sector. But a study suggests that honouring the global climate target would, in fact, increase net jobs by about 8 million by 2050.

The study – in which researchers created a global dataset of the footprint of energy jobs in 50 countries including major fossil fuel-producing economies – found that currently an estimated 18 million people work in the energy industries, which is likely to increase to 26 million if climate targets are met.

Previous research suggests that pro-climate polices could increase net energy jobs by 20 million or more, but that work relied only on empirical data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries and generalised the results for the rest of the world using a multiplier. But the data varies dramatically across regions, driven by differences in technology and rates of unionisation, among other factors. For instance, extracting 1m tonnes of coal in India takes 725 workers, versus 73 in the US.

The latest analysis, published in the journal One Earth, combined such employment factors across a global dataset (including key fossil fuel, non-OECD economies such as Russia, India and China) with an integrated assessment model, which combines climate and economic estimates to predict the costs of climate change.

“This dataset makes the analysis more grounded in … reality, rather than using a multiplier,” said one of the study’s authors, Dr Sandeep Pai, who led the analysis as part of his PhD at the institute for resources, environment and sustainability at the University of British Columbia in Canada.

Under the target scenario of global temperatures being held well below 2C of pre-industrial levels, of the total jobs in the energy sector in 2050, 84% would be in the renewables sector, 11% in fossil fuels, and 5% in nuclear, the analysis found. Although fossil-fuel extraction jobs – which constitute the lion’s share (80%) of current fossil fuel jobs – will decline steeply, those losses should be offset by gains in solar and wind manufacturing jobs that countries could compete for, the researchers estimated.

However, while most countries will experience a net job increase, China and fossil fuel-exporting countries such as Canada, Australia and Mexico could have net losses.

Undoubtedly, there will be winners and losers. The winners will be people who take these jobs in the renewable sector, and there are the health benefits of fresh air and cleaner cities – but there will also be people, companies and governments who lose out, said Pai.

“That’s why … we want to work towards a ‘just’ transition, make sure nobody’s left behind,” he said. “The point is that unless politics and social context of different countries align, I think this technological transition will not happen soon.”

Johannes Emmerling, an environmental economist at the RFF-CMCC European Institute on Economics and the Environment in Italy, another author of the study, acknowledged that the analysis did not account for the gaps in skills.

People working in the fossil fuel industry do not necessarily have the expertise or the experience to carry out jobs in the renewable sector, but given that there are few estimates of jobs as the world aims to forge a greener future, the focus was on firming up estimates, he said, adding that skills were the next avenue of research.

Solar-Powered Desalination Device Aims to Deliver Water to 400,000 Kenyans

Turning seawater into drinking water is typically an expensive and polluting process, but this group hopes to change that.

By Sarah Marquart

Jul 23, 2021

Solar Water Solutions


Turning seawater into potable water is typically an expensive and polluting process. Now, Climate Fund Manager and Solar Water Solutions have a revolutionary solution with zero carbon footprint.

The groups are working together to install up to 200 desalination units in Kitui County, Kenya. The project's long-term goal is to provide clean water to 400,000 Kenyans by 2023. The total funding opportunity is estimated to be up to USD 15 million.

Typically, desalination requires a lot of electricity to keep the water at a constant pressure. This solar-powered technique, however, works without connecting to a grid - no batteries or chemicals, ever.

In a press release, Antti Pohjola, CEO of Solar Water Solutions explained, “this project marks a breakthrough in solar-powered water infrastructure. It wouldn’t have happened without the four key elements: A sustainable technology that brings down the cost of clean water, access to finance with a leading institutional investor, local partners, and a market-based business model.”

The stations themselves might not be visually impressive, but they are an ideal solution for remote areas. The standalone system is installed in a 20ft container. According to a press release, "The production capacity from 3500 L/h up to 7000 L/h treated from seawater, with total dissolved solids (TDS) 36,000 ppm. From brackish water sources, the production capacity is up to 10,000 liters per hour."

These shipping-container solutions offer hope to Kenyans who are suffering due to the effects of climate change on their homes, including severe droughts.

BC New plans in wildfire fight

Wildfire report author says heat dome highlights need for new plans in wildfire fight

The Canadian Press - Jul 24, 2021  | Story: 340951

Photo: The Canadian Press

The Tremont Creek wildfire burns on the mountains above Ashcroft, B.C.

One of the authors of a report examining what went wrong during British Columbia's extraordinary wildfire season in 2017 says this year's unprecedented heat dome demands new ways of approaching extreme weather events.

George Abbott, co-author of "Addressing the New Normal: 21st Century Disaster Management in British Columbia," said the current fire season shows more extensive efforts are needed than have been used in the past.

"I just think there's a new element of complexity in the challenge that was not there even three years ago when we did our report," Abbott said in an interview.

Heat scorched much of B.C. in late June, setting a Canadian record of 49.6 C in the village of Lytton the day before fire destroyed much of the community. The so-called heat dome and a lack of rain launched the fire season weeks earlier than normal.

Abbott, a former B.C. Liberal cabinet minister, co-chaired the independent review with Skawahlook First Nation Chief Maureen Chapman, who could not be reached for comment.

They made 108 recommendations, ranging from using prescribed burns for prevention to closing the spending gap between wildfire response and mitigation efforts of planning, preparedness and prevention.

As of July 6, the B.C. government says it has implemented 99 of the recommendations, although it did not respond directly to a question about which recommendations remain outstanding.

The BC Wildfire Service was overwhelmed on July 7, 2017, when a massive lightning storm sparked 160 simultaneous wildfires across the Cariboo region. More than 1.2 million hectares were burned that season and about 65,000 people were displaced by fire, while another 2,500 were forced from their homes by flooding from the spring runoff.

"The fires were of a magnitude the BC Wildfire Service simply couldn't cope with," Abbott said.

The review found there was untapped potential to partner on the ground with First Nations communities in particular, as well as ranchers, logging contractors, local firefighters and other community resources.

Criticism from local Indigenous leaders about the 2021 response suggests some of the same problems remain.

Chief Matt Pasco of the Nlaka'pamux Nation Tribal Council described the communication from the government during the fast-moving fire in Lytton on June 30 as "abysmal."

Pasco, who operates a ranch north of Lytton near Ashcroft, said the first contact he received from the government came 12 hours after evacuations began, and it was regarding his cattle, not affected community members.

"They had processes in places for our cattle but none for Nlaka'pamux people," Pasco said in an interview days after the fire.

Abbott said he believes the government still has work to do improving partnerships, particularly with First Nations, although he noted progress was likely stymied by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Forests Ministry and BC Wildfire Service say in a joint statement that they are making progress on Abbott and Chapman's recommendations, as well as those from subsequent reviews, with a focus on preparedness, prevention, mitigation and response.

Among the steps forward, they say the government has invested $129.5 million in the Community Resiliency Investment Program, trained 147 Indigenous firefighters and introduced a Wildfire App to better communicate with the public.

The First Nations Emergency Services Society has been working on an inventory of existing First Nations crews and to identify others interested in establishing crews, while the wildfire service has updated its procurement and contracting processes to identified resources before emergencies happen, the statement says.

Updated predictive services also meant that on Tuesday, the wildfire service was able to provide wind and weather warnings that assisted local authorities in putting evacuation orders in place, it says.

"We recognize that in a changing climate, we need to do more to prevent, prepare for, respond to and recover from emergency events like wildfires and floods," the statement says.

By Friday, more than 3,600 square kilometres of land had been charred and evacuation orders covered more than 5,000 properties, while another 17,500 were on alert.

Governments are facing overlapping crises this season, with COVID-19 and simultaneous wildfires in other provinces and U.S. states limiting the help that's available, Abbott said.

However, he said it's the heat dome that policy-makers should heed.

"That should be hugely alarming to us," Abbott said.

"If that is going to be a phenomenon that repeats itself in future years, and I have no reason to suspect that it won't, we are going to be vulnerable not only on the fire side of the equation, but also on the flood side," he said.

Abbott said he's concerned that if future heat waves arrive even earlier in the season they will cause catastrophic floods through a fast snowmelt, in addition to prematurely drying the forest.

The new threat means governments should be drawing together the best science and looking at what's happened in other places like Australia, he said.

"I hope that we will not look at our work in the months ahead as a blame-casting exercise, but rather look at it as our province trying to come to grips with what appears to be a faster paced rate of climate change."

Grim CO2 forecast by International Energy Agency puts Paris Agreement targets almost out of reach 

By Euronews • Updated: 20/07/2021

Smoke rises from the chimneys of Poland's Turow power plant in November 2019. The International Energy Agency warns record levels of CO2 emissions could be recorded by 2023 - Copyright Petr David Josek/AP


The highest levels of greenhouse gas emissions in human history are set to be recorded in the next two years, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned.

Forecasts newly released by the IEA on Tuesday predict carbon emissions will rise again this year and next, with the level in 2023 expected to surpass the record set in 2018.

The grim projections come as governments were criticised for having failed to invest in green energy as part of efforts to rebuild economies after COVID-19.


Europe must form a united front over climate action. Or the Green Deal will fail | View

Why food must be at the heart of environmental action before COP26

In the aftermath of the 2020 lockdowns, the IEA has warned, global carbon emissions are "already bouncing back, along with the overall economy, with 2021 on course for the second-largest yearly increase in history".

Even if action taken is now, the body said that achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, a key stated target of the Paris Agreement, could still be out of reach.

If countries proceed according to the same policies as they had in place in 2020, net emissions are expected to rise to a vast 34.7 gigatonnes of CO2 by 2025 - up from lows of 31.4 last year.

But even if every state perfectly followed the sustainable recovery plans set out by the IEA, emissions could still stand at a record 33.9 gigatonnes of CO2 in three years' time, the body said.

The IEA has launched a new 'sustainable recovery tracker' to measure how governments’ responses to the COVID-19 crisis were affecting clean energy investment and CO2 emissions.

25 cities are driving urban greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, says new study

A leader in climate policy: The EU's masterplan to slash carbon emissions within a decade

It found that so far, just 2 per cent of all coronavirus-related fiscal support - a total of about $380 billion worldwide - has been committed to clean energy transitions from 2021 to 2023. This is only 35 per cent of what the IEA says is needed to be on track for net-zero emissions by 2050.

The IEA has also warned of sharp disparities between developed nations and emerging ones, with wealthier countries earmarking an average of $76bn a year from 2021 to 2023 for clean energy, compared to $8bn in developing nations. About 90 per cent of the forecast growth in emissions is expected to come from the developing world.

Executive director Fatih Birol said: “Since the Covid-19 crisis erupted, many governments may have talked about the importance of building back better for a cleaner future, but many of them are yet to put their money where their mouth is.

"Despite increased climate ambitions, the amount of economic recovery funds being spent on clean energy is just a small sliver of the total. Governments need to increase spending and policy action rapidly to meet the commitments they made in Paris in 2015."

Scaled down SMR pilot project remains on course

23 July 2021

Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) now expects to build six 77 MWe NuScale Power Modules on a site at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), rather than 12 units as previously planned. A 2030 start-up date for the plant - known as the Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP) - is still envisaged.

How a NuScale SMR plant could look (Image: NuScale)

The CFPP, launched by UAMPS in 2015, was initially envisaged as a 12-unit power plant using 50 MWe NuScale Power Modules. The capacity of the NuScale module - a pressurised water reactor with all the components for steam generation and heat exchange incorporated into a single unit - has since been uprated, firstly to a 60 MWe version and then, in November last year, to 77 MWe per module. UAMPS said it would evaluate options for power plant size - the so-called 4-pack, 6-pack, 8-pack or 12-pack module configurations - to ensure the best overall way to meet the needs of its members.

According to a report by the American Nuclear Society (ANS), UAMPS' participants have now decided that the plant will contain six 77-MWe modules giving an overall capacity of 462 MWe. This is about 64% less than the 720 MWe that could have been generated from 12 of the 60-MWe modules.

UAMPS plans to submit a combined licence application to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2024, and the change to six modules is not expected to delay the overall schedule, UAMPS spokesperson LaVarr Webb told ANS publication Nuclear News. "The project is in great shape and is on schedule … The first module is still scheduled to be operational in 2029, and the full plant in 2030," Webb said.

The number of participants in CFPP has also reduced from the original 33. "There are 28 project participants, with a number of outside utilities expected to join the project over the next several months to reach full subscription," Webb said.

UAMPS is a political subdivision of the State of Utah that provides wholesale electric-energy, transmission, and other energy services to community-owned power systems throughout the Intermountain West region of the USA. Its members are located California, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico and Wyoming as well as in Utah. Energy from the CFPP will replace electricity from coal plants that are nearing the end of their life cycles. UAMPS has previously said the CFPP will enable its members to add significantly higher amounts of intermittent renewable energy, especially wind and solar, to energy portfolios, allowing many to completely decarbonise.

Researched and written by World Nuclear News

US study sees future markets for microreactors

22 July 2021

The deployment of microreactors in the short-to-medium term could support energy markets not available to large nuclear plants, but some significant challenges must be overcome for them to capture new market shares. In the longer term, they will be able to contribute to decarbonisation efforts. These are amongst the findings of a recently published technical report from the US Department of Energy's (DOE's) Idaho National Laboratory.

Domes Beach, Puerto Rico, home of the now decommissioned BONUS prototype reactor (Image: Gordon Tarpley)

The report, Global Market Analysis of Microreactors, focuses on future global microreactor markets and the potential for microreactors, assessing their unique capabilities and potential deployment in specific global markets in the 2030-2050 timeframe. The 147-page study summarises work on the economics and market opportunities for microreactors conducted under the DOE's Microreactor Program. It uses "top-down" and "bottom-up" analysis techniques to evaluate emerging market trends, derive a range of possible demands and rank potential markets in 63 countries including current nuclear energy users and so-called newcomer countries.

Microreactors are a subset of small modular reactors (SMRs) of 1-20 MWe capacity - sometimes referred to as "nuclear batteries" - and include light-water reactors, molten salt reactors, gas-cooled reactors, metal-cooled fast reactors and heat pipe reactors.

The report references studies of potential applications for microreactors in Alaska, Puerto Rico and US federal facilities carried out under the programme during 2019-2021. These are: a study by the University of Alaska Anchorage, to identify markets, applications and economic development potential for nuclear-powered microreactors in Alaska and the Arctic and export potential for remote locations around the world; a study by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, to define the potential role for microreactors at US government installations, at off-grid or at remote sites needing secure, stand-alone power and on-grid sites, for secure backup power; and a study by Puerto Rican-led not-for-profit organisation Nuclear Alternative Project (NAP), under contract from Idaho National Laboratory, to investigate the feasibility of the use of SMRs and microreactors to provide resilient power for island territories such as Puerto Rico.

By 2030, initial deployments of such reactors could potentially expand nuclear's contribution in North America and Western Europe, areas that would otherwise show low future nuclear growth, the report concludes. Mid-term deployments beginning around 2035 could see expansion in Eastern Europe and Asia, where energy infrastructures are under development, and to support new nuclear markets in emerging economies. Longer-term deployment, over the period 2040-2050, could be in urban markets and megacities lacking access to energy and susceptible to climate change, disaster relief by replacing portable diesel generators, and in low-carbon shipping, it says.

Challenges

"Results indicate significant potential for global deployment of microreactors, but also significant challenges in achieving the technical capacities, meeting regulatory requirements and international accords, achieving competitive costs and for gaining public acceptance," the report finds. Future market demand is seen to be particularly strong across Asia and Eastern Europe "in isolated operations and distributed energy applications".

Build rates in the hundreds of units by 2040 and in the thousands by 2050 would be needed to attain market penetration at scale and to fill "gaps" in the replacement of fossil sources for both electric and non-electric uses, as well as complementing variable renewable technologies such as solar and wind in distributed systems, the report says.

"In basic market terms, for microreactors to achieve deep penetration in markets will require achieving specific aggressive cost targets; however, they will not compete with centralised energy sources," the report notes. "Consideration of costs beyond the demonstration units is necessary to insure producibility and scalability for factory deployment."

"For microreactors to capture new market shares, some significant challenges must be overcome, and an appropriate balance achieved between market demands, technology performance, costs, regulatory compliance costs and public acceptance," the report concludes. It notes that the "novelty aspects" of microreactors, competition for one or more dominant designs, and limited operational data "translate to uncertainty in the regulatory and planning domain".

Key questions that remain to be answered include the transport of microreactors and their fuel, while the potential for remote and semi-autonomous use merits additional scrutiny for cyber and physical risks, the report finds. Collaborations and technical exchanges - including ongoing efforts by the US and Canadian regulators, the International Atomic Energy Agency and US federal programmes - are focusing on some of these priorities.

Island opportunities

Puerto Rico, an unincorporated territory of the USA in the northeastern Caribbean, was the site of a US-developed prototype boiling-water superheater reactor known as BONUS, which operated from 1965 to 1968 and has since been decommissioned. Today, the island is heavily dependent on imported fossil fuels.

"Puerto Rico needs a scalable, resilient and reliable base load power source," NAP CEO Jesus M Nunez told World Nuclear News. "Microreactors could be part of a future modern and strong Puerto Rico."

The DOE Microreactor Program is conducting fundamental research and development to reduce uncertainty and risk in the design and deployment of microreactors and facilitate more efficient technology commercialisation. Concurrently, the Department of Defence's Project Pele initiative is on track for full power testing of a 5 MWe transportable microreactor prototype in 2023.

Researched and written by World Nuclear News

Is The Fear Of Nuclear Energy Justified? 

YES, BUT THIS ARTICLE DISAGREES WHILE GIVING EVIDENCE OF IT

By ZeroHedge - Jul 24, 2021, 

Many of the world’s political leaders and people of influence have made it very clear that they view climate change as an existential crisis. President Joe Biden in his first days in office declared climate change the “number one issue facing humanity.” The UN warns that we have but twelve years to avoid a climate catastrophe, that searing, unrelenting heat could lay waste to large swaths of the planet, killing millions who have no means to escape a massive climate event. Unabated carbon pollution will spawn heatwaves exceeding the absolute limit of human endurance. According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), net-zero CO2 requires “transformative systemic change.”

The International Energy Agency calls decarbonizing the energy sector “perhaps the greatest challenge humankind has faced.”

Many of the world’s leading climate scientists state that there are only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even a half degree will significantly worsen the risk of droughts, floods, extreme heat, and poverty for hundreds of millions of people. Vice-President Kamala Harris has determined that climate change is “driving migrants to the U.S. Border.” U.S. climate envoy John Kerry says the world needs a ‘wartime mentality’ to combat climate change. Even Hollywood is engaged with Angelina Jolie saying climate change will force hundreds of millions into refugee status and Rosanna Arquette warning that fossil fuels ‘will be the end of mankind.” Rising CO2 levels are also being named as a potential cause of the condominium collapse in Surfside Florida. 

Clearly, no one should have any doubts that many genuinely believe the Earth is facing a tipping point of no return unless radical and drastic action is not immediately taken to reduce ‘carbon pollution’ emissions. Yet there is one threat that seems even more ominous than the CO2 generated from burning fossil fuels…..and that is nuclear energy which produces 20% of U.S. electricity. I wonder how it’s possible that a power source with such a small footprint and large energy intensity, that can reliably produce massive amounts of electricity and that generates no CO2, can be even worse than electricity generated from fossil fuels.

What is causing the fear of nuclear energy? Is it a connection with nuclear weapons? Growing up during the Cold War, I can certainly understand this, the periodic testing of warning systems, howling sirens, and interruptions of TV programming from testing of the emergency broadcast system. Is it the fear of nuclear winter and mutual mass destruction? Is it also the fear of what we cannot see since radiation is invisible? Perhaps this is similar to being afraid of the dark, something I experienced as a child. Certainly Hollywood does not help either with such movies as the China Syndrome which was based on Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island nuclear power plant emergency in the late 1970s. I had to drive just west of that plant on my way to college during the emergency and hoped the wind didn’t change in my direction. Even today, movies such as “Chernobyl,” continue to fuel nuclear fear. 

The recent closing of the Indian Point Nuclear Power plant near West Point, NY, just north of New York City, highlights this point. This power plant, with its zero CO2 emissions, supplied ten percent of the state’s electricity as well as 25% of New York City’s power. Governor Cuomo worked diligently to close the plant and recently celebrated his success doing so “this is a victory for the health and safety of New Yorkers, and moves us a big step closer to reaching our aggressive energy goals.” However, the closure of the plant is causing statewide CO2 emissions to significantly increase. In the first full month without the plant, there has been a 46% increase in the average carbon intensity of statewide electric generation compared to when the Indian Point plant was fully operational according to Environmental Progress.

The State also emitted 37% more carbon dioxide from electricity generation on an absolute basis. It appears that many, including Governor Cuomo, view nuclear energy to be so absolutely dangerous that a significant rise in carbon pollution caused by the closing of nuclear power plants is simply worth the price. While the state enjoys an abundance of clean hydroelectric power replacing reliable nuclear energy with wind and solar power might be more difficult than many realize. One can easily observe the state’s sources of power using the website of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). The hundreds of wind turbines in the state produced a minuscule 0.034% of energy generation one morning last month, significantly less than the 10% percent of energy reliably produced by the Indian Point plant while it was operational.

The calls for the closure of nuclear power plants have become even more pronounced with the major reactor accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima. The damage from both accidents could have been limited had the Chernobyl plant been constructed with a containment structure and if the Fukushima plant had been fortified to protect against tsunamis. At Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have died as a result of exposure to radiation though 31 died at the beginning of the accident, two from the blast, and 29 firemen who fought the fire. 

At Fukushima, there have been no deaths or serious injuries due to the release of radioactivity though 19,500 people there were drowned by the tsunami. These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 18,500 cumulative reactor years of commercial nuclear power operation in sixteen countries (World Nuclear Association). Nuclear energy has the lowest fatality rate per unit of energy than any source of electricity and including wind and solar. Deadly tsunamis will undoubtedly occur again so perhaps the abandonment of threatened populated coastal zones might be of greater benefit to public safety than the closing of zero CO2 emitting nuclear plants.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) specifies that reactor designs must exceed a theoretical 1 in 10,000-year core damage frequency but modern designs exceed this. U.S. utility requirements are 1 in 100,000 years. The best currently operating plants are 1 in one million and those likely to be built in the next decade are almost 1 in ten million (WNA). Even with the Three Mile Island accident where the reactor core did melt, the effects were contained as designed, without radiological harm to anyone. There was talk at the time about a potential “China-Syndrome,” a scenario where the heat from the core would melt its way through the floor of the reactor and keep going, perhaps as far as China. In reality, the molten core only penetrated 15mm of the floor and is now frozen at the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel (WNA).

Every power source has its dangers and limitations but in order to provide for the greater good for society, energy must be reliable, abundant, and affordable. Bill Gate’s advanced nuclear reactor company TerraPower had teamed up with Warren Buffett’s PacificCorp to design and eventually construct the first Natrium reactor in Wyoming. A Consortium led by Rolls-Royce has designed a mini reactor that can power 100,000 homes. France has the lowest CO2 density in the EU by generating over 70% of its electricity from nuclear power and supplies surplus power throughout Europe. About 17% of France’s energy comes from recycled nuclear fuel.

Several environmentalists have begun to recognize the many challenges we face with regard to energy choices. One is Michael Shellenberger who now strongly supports nuclear energy. Another is Michael Moore whose movie Planet of the Humans questions if renewable energy technology is a workable solution to climate change.

Others have attempted to end nuclear power by depriving the industry a permanent nuclear waste repository. While nuclear waste does remain dangerous for a very long time there simply is not much of it. Today, this country generates about 2,000 tons of waste annually. The 83,000 tons of waste generated here since the 1950s would fit in a single football field with a depth of fewer than ten yards. I am sure a permanent waste facility such as the one begun at Yuka Mountain in Nevada would be safer than where nuclear waste is now stored at nuclear plant parking lots. Per unit of energy solar panels produce 300 times more toxic waste than nuclear power plants. The only energy waste that is safely kept out of the environment is from nuclear plants. All other energy waste, from coal, natural gas plants, wind turbines and solar panels ends up in the environment in landfills.

A 2013 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Technology found that nuclear energy has saved an estimate two million lives by replacing coal-fired and other high emission energy generation.

It’s easy to understand why wind and solar power, appear on the surface, to be more attractive as a source of energy than nuclear power but wind and solar power are inherently unreliable since the wind does not always blow nor the sunshine. They certainly won’t work without significant battery backup. Today’s battery technology is not up to the task simply because there are not enough minerals on this planet to make enough of them and we could not afford them even if there were. Our country has been blessed with a reliable and affordable electricity generation and distribution system. If people are really serious about fighting climate change and achieving the goal of net-zero emissions, I don’t understand how this will be possible without them also embracing zero CO2 nuclear energy.

By Zerohedge.com

Viewpoint: Nuclear's transformative role in delivering net zero

21 July 2021

Delivery of the UK’s net-zero goals requires a vast increase in the production of zero-carbon electricity, hydrogen and district heating. Nuclear can make a vital and commercially viable contribution to the rapid scale-up of these energy vectors, write Dr Paul Nevitt, technical director of the Advanced Fuel Cycle Programme (AFCP) at the National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL), Kirsty Gogan and Eric Ingersoll, managing directors at LucidCatalyst, and Scott Milne, head of insights at Energy Systems Catapult.

From left to right: Kirsty Gogan, Eric Ingersoll, Scott Milne and Paul Nevitt

"It is impossible to overestimate the scale of the challenge ahead for the UK in reaching net-zero by 2050. With a range of low-carbon technologies in the mix, visualising the country's future energy landscape is no simple task. System-wide, forward-thinking analysis, however, helps paint this picture.

Last month NNL, the UK's national laboratory for nuclear fission, along with our expert teams at Energy Systems Catapult and LucidCatalyst, published the UK Energy System Modelling report - a ground-breaking new publication that gives a comprehensive insight into the role nuclear can play in decarbonising our energy system.

Commissioned by AFCP as part of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s (BEIS) GBP505 million (USD692 million) Energy Innovation Programme, the report considers, for the first time, how advanced nuclear technologies can and should be used alongside other nuclear and low-carbon technologies to evolve the UK’s energy system.

Why nuclear has been missing from modelling so far

Nuclear has long been under-represented in mainstream energy system modelling.

The reason for this is twofold. Firstly, there is a lack of understanding about what drives cost in nuclear construction. Too often, nuclear technology is presented as being expensive in the first instance and retaining a high fixed cost. In reality, any nuclear build undergoes substantial programmatic cost reduction and, when combined with innovative delivery and deployment models, can be delivered at low costs.

Secondly, the broad applications of nuclear technology beyond electricity generation are yet to be fully considered and embraced by the energy sector. Not only can nuclear technologies be deployed to generate electricity but also to produce hydrogen, heat and synthetic fuel. It is critical that this multiplicity in nuclear's potential roles is accounted for in any modelling going forward.

What the UK Energy System Modelling report tells us

Completed using the policy-neutral cost optimisation model, Energy System Modelling Environment (ESME), our findings fill a gap in publicly available data and represent a crucial assessment of the central role of nuclear in ensuring we meet our national climate change targets.

To achieve net zero we need to vastly increase production of three zero-carbon energy vectors - electricity, hydrogen and district heat. The report assesses how a range of technologies might work together to do this. In this analysis, levels of nuclear deployment were consistently significant and included roles across all three vectors.

Looking first at electricity generation, the modelling shows that excluding nuclear - a constant energy source - from the energy mix results in a substantial increase in grid capacity to compensate for times when other intermittent sources are unable to produce energy. By replacing nuclear with renewable sources, for example, grid capacity grows from around 100-140 GW to over 200 GW. Not only does this represent additional cost to the energy system, for the required additional generation, as well as associated transmission infrastructure, but also risk that such scale of deployment is feasible. Therefore, diverse pathways such as those modelled here - which include nuclear technologies - serve a critical role in de-risking and lowering the cost of the transition.

Nuclear and wind are shown to be the main technologies to ensuring our energy system has the ability and importantly, the capacity, to generate flexible, affordable and reliable emissions-free power for homes and businesses at the necessary scale.

For the second of our key energy vectors - hydrogen - there are many production options but few that are high volume, low cost and low carbon footprint. To therefore decarbonise hydrogen production, our modelling suggests that nuclear technologies can bring hugely valuable additional energy services to achieve affordable and timely net zero.

In scenarios where speculative technologies such as Carbon Capture Storage (CCS) 99% carbon capture rates are not available, this means a combination of thermochemical hydrogen from advanced nuclear, electrolysis and biomass with CCS (95% capture rates). Where speculative measures are available, our analysis shows that advanced nuclear operation can shift away from hydrogen production and be successfully prioritised towards power generation - demonstrating its flexibility as a highly economical energy source.

Thirdly, for district heat generation, scenario analysis suggests that heat supply from nuclear can be a very cost-effective option when deployed in cities at scale; light-water nuclear Small Modular Reactors, Gen III+ and advanced nuclear systems are all effective solutions. While costs are dominated by piping installation, siting options for smaller systems may enable shorter connecting pipes which in turn would lower costs for many networks.

What is clear across the hundreds of scenarios we have modelled is that nuclear, as part of the energy mix, has a high option value and can contribute to achieving net zero at least cost to society.

Excluding low carbon nuclear energy significantly increases the complexity and risks of failing in what is already an immensely difficult challenge. Combining nuclear and renewables proves to be highly complementary, while de-scoping, de-risking and lowering costs of the overall system.

The Next Steps: Fuelling Net Zero

We are under no illusion that achieving net zero will be easy. On the contrary, we recognise that it is going to be tough and will require cooperation from across the energy sector.

Nuclear is already the single largest and most reliable zero-carbon energy source in the UK and advanced technologies hold even more potential for generating clean hydrogen, heat and electricity. Advanced technologies are being commercialised now and will be coming to market in the late 2020s - it's vital that markets are ready for deployment at scale, which means appropriate licensing authorities, policy makers, investors, supply chain and customers need to be preparing now.

So how can we make sure our ambitions for nuclear are supported?

Off the back of this transformative modelling, NNL has performed detailed fuel cycle modelling using its ORION capability. This research is what underpins NNL’s report, Fuelling Net Zero: Advanced Nuclear Cycle Roadmaps for a Clean Energy Future, also published in June this year.

These comprehensive roadmaps set out two main fuel cycle opportunity areas that the UK can evolve to help meet its clean energy ambitions: Advanced Fuels Development and Advanced Fuel Cycle Technologies. They enable government and industry to plan strategically for how we can capitalise on our existing nuclear capability and develop a zero-carbon energy system.

At a time when society is waking up to acting on the environmental crisis our planet faces, there is a growing public consciousness about the role each and every one of us can play towards net zero. But behaviour change alone will not be enough; with nuclear the UK can meet its net-zero goals on time.

Our hope is that our modelling report provides the evidence needed for ensuring that nuclear does play the part it must in a balanced energy portfolio."