Clean Power Professionals Group
This special interest group is for professionals to connect and discuss all types of carbon-free power alternatives, including nuclear, renewable, tidal and more.
Shared Link
IAEA: nuclear power was "resilient, reliable, and adaptable" during COVID outbreak
"According to the IAEA’s data summary, nuclear power in 2020 played an important role as an adaptable and reliable supplier of electricity during the pandemic:
- Global operating nuclear power capacity was 392.6 GWe from 442 operational reactors in 32 countries.
- Overall, nuclear capacity since 2011 has gradually increased, including some 23.7 GWe added by the connection of new units to the grid and upgrades to existing reactors.
- Nuclear power reactors supplied 2,553.2 TWh of low-emission and dispatchable electricity, accounting for about 10 percent of total global electricity generation and almost one third of the world’s low-carbon electricity generation.
- Nuclear power production was slightly lower compared to 2019’s 2,657.1 TWh. Since 2012, however, there has been an increase of more than 8 percent.
- Five new pressurized water reactors with 5.5 GWe of nuclear capacity were connected to the grid.
- Over 44 percent of new capacity, equating to more than 2.4 GWe, was added by two countries with no previous nuclear power operating experience: Belarusian 1 (1,110 MWe) in Belarus and Barakah-1 (1,345 MWe) in the United Arab Emirates.
- At the end of the year, 52 reactors with over 54.4 GWe of capacity were under construction in 19 countries, including in two countries building their first power reactors.
- The global median capacity factor was 84.6 percent, in line with the load factor in recent years."
IAEA: nuclear power was "resilient, reliable, and adaptable" during COVID outbreak
In 2020, 52 reactors were under construction in 19 countries - including two countries building their first power reactors.
Discussions
Heres the most important part of that press release:
Nuclear power reactors supplied 2,553.2 TWh of low-emission and dispatchable electricity, accounting for about 10 percent of total global electricity generation and almost one third of the world’s low-carbon electricity generation.
Nuclear power production was slightly lower compared to 2019’s 2,657.1 TWh
In other words nuclear generation dropped by over 100 TWh in 2020 vs 2019. Big step backwards.
Looking at the IAEA website you can see that nuclear generation in 2020 dropped back to where it was way back in 2002. Nuclear has been running in place for the last 20 years.
.jpg){kind=spacer}
In the meantime, solar/wind will grow by at least another 200-300TWh in 2020 vs 2019.
One thing I am not clear on - how much water do these reactors use?"
If they have closed, once-through cooling system like the one at Diablo Canyon, they don't use a drop - 2 billion gallons are borrowed and returned to the ocean each day.
It's the wrong question, anyway. The question should be, "How much fresh water do these reactors provide?"
"As the pressures of water security become more acute around the world, the significance of desalination as means of ensuring potable water supplies has never been greater. But with the expected growth of global desalination capacity comes a problem: processes remain heavily reliant on fossil fuels. According to the Global Clean Water Desalination Alliance, global installed desalination plants emit some 76 million tons of CO2 per year, an amount expected to reach around 218 million tons by 2040.
In Abu Dhabi, UAE, four nuclear power units of 1400 MW are being constructed at Al Barakah; [International Desalination Association Director Dan] Awerbuch expects the developments to have significant consequence in advancing the Abu Dhabi power and desalination program."
One thing I am not clear on: how much electricity will that $570 million solar project generate at night...none? No fresh water comes out of the spigot? Tsk, tsk, what a waste of money. If residents want a glass of water at night in a solar-powered UAE, I guess they're out of luck!
OK Matt, fair enough. Here's another parallel - using windmills to mill wheat.
Milling grain isn't dependent on instantaneous generation of energy to create flour at the moment the customer demands it, either. A commercial baker could fill up a hopper with grain at night, and in the morning have a tub of fresh flour to make the daily bread. So why aren't all grain mills taking advantage of "free" power of the wind to get the job done?
Because like solar desalination, renewable energy is woefully deficient in reliability, quality, and quantity compared to using fossil fuel-powered electricity:
"Solar distillation has been used for thousands of years. Early Greek mariners and Persian alchemists produced both freshwater and medicinal distillates. Solar stills were the first method used on a large scale to convert contaminated water into a potable form...
Solar desalination in the United States began in the early 1950s when Congress passed the Conversion of Saline Water Act, which led to the establishment of the Office of Saline Water (OSW) in 1955. OSW's main function was to administer funds for desalination research and development projects. One of five demonstration plants was located in Daytona Beach, Florida. Many of the projects were aimed at solving water scarcity issues in remote desert and coastal communities."
Just like UAE!
"In the 1960s and 1970s several distillation plants were constructed on the Greek isles with capacities ranging from 2000 to 8500 m3/day. In 1984 a plant was constructed in Abu-Dhabi with a capacity of 120 m3/day that is still in operation. In Italy, an open source design called "the Eliodomestico" by Gabriele Diamanti was developed for personal [use] costing $50.
Of the estimated 22 million m3 daily freshwater produced through desalination worldwide, less than 1% uses solar energy. The prevailing methods of desalination, MSF and RO, are energy-intensive and rely heavily on fossil fuels. Because of inexpensive methods of freshwater delivery and abundant low-cost energy resources, solar distillation has been viewed as cost-prohibitive and impractical [emphasis mine]. It is estimated that desalination plants powered by conventional fuels consume the equivalent of 203 million tons of fuel a year."
In the Netherlands, one can still buy flour milled at windmills. It's a souvenir, a curio, for rich tourists to take home with them. A baker would have to be crazy to try to compete with a commercial mill, though, even with a modern wind turbine.
Compare to the solar desal plant in Abu-Dhabi that's still operational - it's capable of meeting the fresh water needs of 300 of UAE's 9 million citizens. It would certainly be possible to build 30,000 more like it - but why?
For the people who depend on it, renewable energy is a loser, a failure. Society has already learned that lesson - we don't have the money or time to learn it again.
Why would UAE make the same mistake Dubai made?
"The Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Park in Dubai, when completed, will have a capacity of 5 GW at an estimated total construction investment of $13.6 billion."
With capacity factor, Dubai is paying $13.6B, for only 1.2 GW of solar electricity, by 2030.
Instead, UAE paid $8B for even more nuclear electricity at al Barakah, and it went online three years ago (2018).
Obviously cheaper, faster, and easier to build than solar.
"Let's see which source provides more generation in UAE by 2030 and which is more supportive of water desalination."
"Let's see?" No, we've already seen, Joe. Time's up.
Below: another reason why UAE isn't following blindly in the footsteps of Dubai.
Boo-hoo. If it isn't snow and ice in Germany, it's sand in the Middle East!
Yet another country is closing down its old nuclear reactors as their licenses expire and deciding not to build replacements.
Taiwan nuclear power generator about to end 40-year run
The No. 1 generator at Taiwan's second nuclear power plant will be shut down for good and enter its decommissioning stage Thursday night after producing power for 40 years, state-run utility Taiwan Power Company (Taipower) said Wednesday.
The generator's 40-year operating permit does not expire until the end of 2021, but because its spent fuel pool was almost full, Taipower reduced the unit's power generation capacity by about 20 percent since late February.
Given that the pool is now full, Taipower said the No. 1 985 MW generator at the Kuosheng Nuclear Power Plant in Wanli District, New Taipei, will end operations Thursday night in preparation for a major overhaul of the unit to make sure it is safe before it is ultimately decommissioned.
The plant's other generator is scheduled to operate until March 2023 when its operating permit expires, according to Taipower.
Taiwan's government is committed to phasing out the use of nuclear power by 2025 and replacing it with renewable energy so that renewable energy will account for 20 percent of the country's energy mix.
Taiwan had over 40TWh of Nuclear generation just a few years ago... this will drop to zero after 2025. Nuclear power WW is continuing its one step forward two steps back.
Note: there are now over 90GW of nuclear reactors WW that are 40+ years of age. Gonna be a lot of retired generation to replace in the next decade or two.When will we see WW generation reach the peak that it had back in 2006. Maybe never?
"Taiwan's government is committed to phasing out the use of nuclear power by 2025 and replacing it with renewable energy..."
That's interesting. Looking at the graph below (from here), a person interested in reducing emissions of global CO2, reducing local air pollution, and improving our sustainability would likely see the rapidly growing fossil fuel curve (in red), and conclude that reducing fossil fuel use should be the primary concern with Taiwan's (and global) electricity production. The article gives the 2020 numbers as: "45% of Taiwan's electricity generation came from coal, 35.7% from natural gas, 11.2% from nuclear, and 5.4% from renewables." That is clearly a phony clean energy policy.
So the answer to your question question Joe: "When will we see WW [nuclear] generation reach the peak that it had back in 2006." is "as soon as people open their eyes and reject the phony clean-energy policy that is anti-nuclearism."
With the help of anti-nuclear activists, fossil fuel has continued to dominate our energy system, long after we've come to realize the high price in human health and damage to the natural world that fossil fuel extraction and usage cause. Under this mis-guided policy, concerned citizens are encourage to support renewables instead, even though grids are clearly "easier" to manage, when sources of supply/demand variability & mis-match are addressed using a large percentage of dispatchable generation (rather than adding more variable energy sources), and fossil gas is clearly the cheapest way to provide that dispatchable generation.
In other words, adding variable renewables makes fossil fuel use more appealing, and helps to protect fossil fuel market share from competitors like nuclear (and geothermal btw).
It's no surprise that over three decades into the era of modern renewables, there are still no examples of deep grid decarbonization using renewables, whereas France, Sweden, and Switzerland have all achieved clean grids using nuclear and hydro. When renewables advocacy groups look at these nuclear clean energy success stories, instead of saying "now they should decarbonize transportation", they typically say, "they should replace nuclear with renewables (and fossil fuel) for electricity". It is very hard for me to perceive renewables advocates as pro-environmental.
Your implicit argument, that since global nuclear power hasn't seen significant growth in the recent past, we should continue to not grow it, makes no sense. Unless of course your goal is to protect the fossil fuel industry.
I know you want to dodge blame, but the numbers are clear: for the energy produced, nuclear uses an order of magnitude less concrete, steel, and energy than renewables; that is a clear success. Cost comes only from material & energy usage, and human/organization errors. It is us that are failing, not nuclear.
There you go - double-down. Just another way of saying "Nuclear is technically the best product and should be winning. It's not the product fault, it's the implementers or it's the customers".
Again, good luck with that strategy.
Meanwhile in the real world, the Solar and Wind industries will continue to improve their product, will continue to break into new markets, will continue to lower costs and most importantly will continue to scale.
BP just came out with their latest annual - Statistical Review of World Energy 2021" Here is a chart using their data.
Renewables averaged an additional 300 TWh/year over the last 5 years and about 340TWh/year over the last two years. Looking at current trends there is no reason that this can't scale to 500 TWh/year by the end of the 2020s.
It's pretty clear to me which product is better.
Get Published - Build a Following
The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.
If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.
Your access to Member Features is limited.
Sign in to Participate