This post is in response to a blog post 100% renewables and 100% nuclear are both practically impossible by Janne M. Korhonen who, with Rauli Partanen, co-authored a book:
Climate Gamble: Is Anti-Nuclear Activism Endangering Our Future? 
and which I read cover to cover when first published and recommend that others read. Thus I was somewhat surprised to realize he doesn’t believe 100% nuclear is possible. After reading his reasons I felt the need to respond.
Consider the following statement closely: 100% nuclear is feasible while 100% RE is simply impossible. Should we be aiming to remove existing renewable from the grid? Of course that would be silly. However we must come to grips with the folly of intermittent renewable. To do otherwise would be sidetracking us to a dead-end street. Does that mean my position is in the minority of views expressed by nuclear supporters? Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
Actually this statement Janne made is making me wonder if in fact he is not a closet 100% nuker himself:
“However, the 100% nuclear argument is not as far-fetched as it may seem at first, and before arguing why I don’t quite believe in it I must first explain what it is all about.”
Aha! He agrees it’s not as far-fetched as it may seem at first! 😛
OK maybe he doesn’t quite believe it’s possible so perhaps I can turn him completely to the bright side by poking holes in his key objections.
I take no issue with Janne’s analysis of intermittent renewables other than the name he (and many others, especially renewables advocates) use. Variable renewables eh? Can’t all renewable power levels be varied? In fact, as I know Janne realizes, even nuclear power levels can be varied. That’s in spite of the miscomprehension by some who believe because nuclear runs at full power 24/365, it must run at full power 24/365. That’s not true of course. All sources of power can vary output levels. Thus the more accurate term to be applied to unpredictable energy sources like wind and solar is “Intermittent Renewables”. Thus IRE, not VRE, is the more accurate short-form to be used for such energy sources.
Side note: The other term I’ve noticed is Unreliable Renewables but that one seems overly evocative.
Janne accurately breaks down the dilemma of increased share in the use of intermittent renewable. Indeed it cannibalizes its own use as described in more detail by Jesse Jenkins and Alex Trembath.
But then Janne asks:
“Why do we nevertheless need all of the above?”
The correct answer is “we don’t” and here’s how his arguments supporting the affirmative to that question break down:
1. All low-carbon energy reduces fuel burn and conserves hydro reservoirs.
Yes. This is an especially important strategy allowing wind and solar to become feasible in many(most?) situations where otherwise they would become totally unfeasible. In reality the strategy too often is used to justify the use of fossil fuels like gas and coal because “well we reduced the use of fossil fuel by using wind and solar when that energy is available.” True, but the use of natural gas and coal would be reduced to zero if nuclear were used instead.
As for hydro, indeed coupling IRE with hydro is an important means of deferring hydro use. Hydro thus becomes a surrogate energy buffering method, a means of storing wind and solar energy (or nuclear for that matter) without having to convert electrical energy to gravitational potential energy. The problem with this strategy is that hydro facilities are limited to certain geographic regions. Also the use of hydro dams and reservoirs is increasingly under attack by environmental interests. Thus even if geography allows this technology, its use isn’t a foregone conclusion.
2. Totally discounting technological change is unwise.
A true statement but the laws of physics limit the possible pathways. However the way the ensuing argument is framed sounds a lot like the “but wind and solar are new technologies, give it time” argument.
Keep in mind that mankind has used wind and solar to our advantage for millennia. Solar to electricity conversion was discovered almost two centuries ago, wind to electricity conversion began about 150 years ago. Yet in all that time the intermittency issue hasn’t been resolved because it’s very difficult to store electrical energy in sufficient quantities to make enough of an impact. In fact the electricity to be stored must be converted to some other form of energy and subsequently converted back to electricity when demanded. These conversion steps thus introduce additional costs and inefficiencies.
It must be accepted that two key properties of wind and solar cannot be sufficiently overcome by technological advancements:
- Diffuse energy harvesting: There is simply no getting by the diffuse nature of direct (sun radiation) and indirect (wind) energy. Harvesting this energy requires elaborate structures spread over large areas that are best suited for harvesting said energy (southern latitudes for increased solar irradiance and hilltops for wind energy) and wide-spread electrical transmission facilities to distribute the harvested energy to where the energy is being demanded. The late Sir David Mackay covered this aspect quite well in his Without the Hot Air (pdf) book.
- Intermittent energy availability: The so-far-unrealized hope of intermittent renewable advocates is to have a means of storing electrical energy harvested from wind and solar farms that can cost-effectively put in place. Pumped hydro storage is by far the most deployed form of electrical energy storage but like river-dam hydro, its use is geographically limited and the size of reservoir required to make a sufficient impact becomes an environmental issue for many. That’s why the great IRE hope is continually-improved batteries will reach the point that they are sufficiently efficient, energy dense, and low cost for wide-spread deployment.
That expectation is proving to be a long wait indeed. The battery concept were discovered almost 300 years ago so you’d think that by now some genius would have figured out the magic formula. Actually there have been and still are some very smart people working to advance battery technology and it seems the end is in sight … reaching the limits of battery storage advancements. See When will the limitations of the battery be surmounted? (Quora) for example.
Conclusion: Counting on technological change to overturn physical realities is even more unwise. False hope must be pointed out for what it is otherwise we become mired deeper in a problem of our own making, with less of a chance of progression.
3. Electricity price crashes build necessary niches for critical decarbonization technologies.
Seriously? We need destabilized energy markets? How can business folks make rational decisions in the face of the uncertainty that accompanies such market instability? Certainly it’s reasonable to encourage market innovation with competitive motivators but to position the price crashes as some sort of market Darwinism in action is both misleading and foolish.
Take Feed-in Tariffs (FiT) for example. Yes well-intentioned to be sure however they run rough-shod over established reliable power generation plants that were justified on the basis of a steady cash-flow income. Sure some utilities have been complacent however the FiT mechanisms, giving IRE a chance to gain a foothold”, are closing down even well-run nuclear power generators. Why should utilities be forced to accept IRE power generated when it’s not needed? Why must stable, dispatchable power sources be threatened with bankruptcy when truth be told, stable power delivery should be encouraged, in fact should be demanded! If an intermittent power generator can’t match production with delivery needs, make that their issue to resolve. Power utilities are charged with delivering power to match demand in so-called deregulated energy markets. Don’t pass on power generation problem to the utilities.
BTW, deregulated market my ass! In spite of the “Deregulated” moniker, electrical markets are indeed very much regulated. However many of the regulations to encourage “green energy” are simply misguided and misapplied. “Deregulated energy” markets, at least in North America, might better be termed “privatized energy” markets — both at the wholesale and retail level. Power markets have been set up using the same monopoly-prevention paradigm as that applied to the communications industry a few decades ago. Indeed that paradigm worked reasonably well for communications markets; however there are some important differences that were ignored when regulators set the rules, allowed the combatants into the ring, and washed their hands of any further management responsibility. Where in the communications markets is there any equivalent to FiT and net metering regulation?
The key distinctions between the communications and energy markets are matters of physics:
- While information can be stored at atomic dimensions, electricity cannot be stored in bulk without taking up a lot of space;
- While information can be transmitted at ever-increased speeds and smaller transmission cross-sections, electrical power requires a cross-section proportional to the current being delivered at a given voltage level; and
- While information can be generated at ever increased volumes with ever-faster computer systems, electrical power generation requires space in direct proportion to the amount of power being generated by a given energy source.
Market mechanisms fail to recognize such key differences. There is no energy equivalent to Moore’s Law.
Application of the communications market paradigm to energy markets fails because the physical realities are completely different. Generators could compete on the basis of having “better” clean, sustainable energy but only if “better” equates to “when we need it would be good, not when you can produce it”. Transmission pipes could be shared but giving bulk discounts for transmitting more electrons, runs into the cross-section limit. Distribution could be virtualized but electrons can’t be labelled so as to tick meter “A” vs meter “B”.
Thus transmission and distribution must remain regulated by a monopolistic model whereas generation can be shoehorned into a competitive market arena. But then to handcuff some by demanding that the monopolistic distribution utilities take some electrons when and where they they are produced even though delivery of said electrons has to traverse a continent and cannot be guaranteed without turning off the tap of other electrons is simply a loony scheme. What would make a lot more sense is to tell the electron suppliers, “look we don’t need your remotely-located electrons right now so kindly store them until we have a demand for them and we’d be happy to take them off your hands when delivered to our doorstep.” would make a whole lot more sense.
4. Both 100% RE and 100% nuclear by 2050 are politically and technologically unrealistic pipe dreams.
I agree that 100% nuclear faces technological challenges however it faces political resistance at any scale. I disagree that 100% nuclear is technologically unrealistic.
Also I agree that in many (most?) locations, 100% RE faces technologically unrealistic pipe dreams but faces little political resistance, certainly at current scale. However when dispatchable RE resource limitations are exceeded, and IRE costs climb exponentially with further scale-up, I expect political resistance to increase way before RE gets even close to 100%.
Where dispatchable RE is not available in sufficient amounts, 100% RE is simply not feasible within the GDP of nations to implement. And even if the funding were available, resource limitations would prevent anything even close to 100% RE.
Now just because the current political climate is decidedly anti-nuclear, at least in most democratic countries, can that not be changed? In fact, the biggest political resistance is due to costs. Surely the expected price drops when Generation IV nuclear hits the market in the early 2020s, will change the hearts and mindsets of many (most?) politicians and the citizens who elect said politicians. Yes build rates will have to increase drastically but factory-built cores in airliner-style assembly lines as envisioned by Hargraves and other SMR developers will achieve dramatic results.
Many have questioned if sufficient nuclear can be built quickly enough, pointing with derision at the huge number of nukes required to power the world. Of course they fail to question how many wind farms, how many solar panels, how many wave and tide facilities, how many geothermal plants, etc. would have to be built instead.
I think the best way to approach this is to ask how much scarred landscapes, money, material resources, etc. It would take of each potential source of power to produce the equivalent amount of dispatchable power. That must include process heat power needs, not just electrical power requirements. While history can teach many lessons for future actions, the wrong approach is to use sunk costs and resources as the basis of proceeding in future energy expansion policy, plans, and projects.
Examining power production capabilities for the next increment, e.g. 1 GWh of clean, sustainable power, clearly nuclear is the correct approach. Yes there will be niche micro-grid applications where nuclear is less competitive however even for smaller grids, nuclear SMRs can fit the bill. Any implementation of power production facilities that do not take advantage of the best incremental value, represents an opportunity cost lost to the wind.
Conclusion
I have no doubt that at some time in the future, mankind will realize IRE is a dead-end technology sector. No doubt in time it will be recognized that the best electrical energy storage medium — the best battery if you will — is the potential energy residing in atoms that can be fused or fissioned to release that energy. Yes, in fact a nuclear reactor can best be viewed as a battery; a power source periodically recharged with fuel that has the nuclear energy locked in place since being placed there by supernova — which subsequently created the matter comprising our solar system. The real question is how long it will take us to collectively come to that realization.
We would be foolish if we don’t make use of nuclear energy to advance our societies with energy prosperity and the ability to reverse climate change mechanisms. The mechanisms set in motion by our continued practice of unlocking CO2 from its long slumber as the earth locked up those deposits and cooled will have to be reversed. Nuclear energy is the only means we have of making that possible.
Bright Side Energy Viewpoints 
Okay, a quick reply despite having just said I’m busy :). Thanks for this, I enjoy a good counterargument, but I must say I’m not yet willing to change my opinion.
I do agree that 100% nuclear might be easier to achieve than 100% RE, although I suspect the difference is so small it doesn’t matter in practice. Nuclear technology is still politically problematic due to its sadly unavoidable connections with nuclear weapons, even if we discount opposition due to other reasons entirely. I’m the first to state that proliferation fears regarding civilian nuclear technology are generally overblown, but to me it seems that international politics doesn’t really work that way and those fears still matter to great powers.
I also agree that IF nuclear reactor designs now on drawing board pan out, we may see a surprisingly strong role for nuclear in the more distant future. However, what I’m interested in is the next few decades. This timeline is likely to be too short to see major rollout of completely novel nuclear reactor designs, which, it must be said, still remain mostly untested – therefore, it is too early to state with certainty that their economics (for example) will outcompete the alternatives.
In the time span I’m interested in, I don’t actually believe we’re going to quit fossil fuels. We really should, but I’ve already bet a bottle of Scotch that in 2050 the world energy system will use all the energy sources it contains today, although (hopefully) our reliance on fossil fuels will be smaller. (The idea here is hedging: that I’ll drink myself senseless if my prediction turns out to be correct, and if it doesn’t, I’m happy to buy a bottle.) We may use CCS to some extent, but I believe there will be plenty of unmitigated burning going on, despite all we can do to speed up the transition.
Given that I believe we’re going to continue burning stuff for energy, I also believe that all low-carbon energy generation will help to reduce the fuel burn in one way or other. Perhaps this will not be true everywhere, but even where variable (or intermittent) renewables do not reduce fuel burn, they will increase energy available to humans with generally little cost to the environment. Of course, I don’t favor any low-carbon energy source at any cost; and the same applies to nuclear as well.
The economics of large-scale nuclear rollout are quite problematic in any energy system outside centrally planned ones. The price trends of solar PV in particular are genuinely promising, and I think it is very likely that absent banning solar PV or taxing it to death, there is little anyone can do about people and companies seeking to generate more daytime power from the Sun. This, in turn, will drive up transmission costs, since O&M costs do not scale down with reduced grid energy demand. In turn, this causes solar power to be more competitive, since it avoids transmission costs, and so on. There will be an equilibrium – and I believe it’ll be reached far sooner than many RE advocates think – but I have little doubt that the economics of solar PV are going to make it an important energy source in the future. To some extent, the same applies to wind power, which is already the cheapest incremental source of low-carbon energy in the Nordics. For the economics of nuclear, this is a problem, although I believe not as large as some would believe – but these developments may well mean that nuclear will stay relegated to baseload generation and the baseload share (plus or minus something) will determine the maximum economically feasible share of nuclear energy.
We’ve been having some quite high quality discussions about these topics in the Finnish “Uusi energiapolitiikka” (New energy policy) Facebook group, and there is strong consensus that European energy policy at least will include more renewables until foreseeable future. The technological, economic and above all political momentum is simply so strong. Many thoughtful pro-RE commentators have actually agreed that including nuclear in the mix would probably make decarbonization easier and cheaper, but they also have a point when they argue that rich societies seem to be capable and willing of bearing the extra cost of more renewables – at least for now – whereas there is a very strong aversion against nuclear. I believe we’re going to have to use much more nuclear or decarbonization will stall far too early, but I’ve been wrong in the past too.
Fighting this momentum is, in my opinion, unwise. The situation may be different in America, for example, but here in Europe we could spend all our rhetorical ammunition and not make much of a dent in this juggernaut. I’ve also noticed that dismissing RE entirely is a very fast route towards creating enemies; perhaps dissing RE is well-founded (you may very well be in the right, and I may be in the wrong) but it is certainly not productive in terms of politics. This is a lesson we learned in Finland from an abortive attempt to build the fifth nuclear reactor in 1993; the post-mortem analysis concluded the key reason for its rejection was the attitude of its supporters, who were extremely dismissive of all the alternatives and therefore alienated many who were on the fence at the beginning. The more successful 2005 bid took an entirely different, inclusive approach – too bad the French then proceeded to make an example of how not to build a nuclear power plant at Olkiluoto 3.
I obviously can’t say what will work – even here, much less elsewhere – but I think there are some signs that a constructive and inclusive “all of the above” policy has better odds of gaining public support. Just a week or so ago, an important Finnish Green party politician proposed a “national nuclear consensus” that would allow ongoing projects to be completed, a replacement for aging Loviisa reactors to be proposed should the operator want it, money allocated to the development of new nuclear technologies, and in general reduce the hostility between pro-nuclear and pro-renewables folks. This, in my opinion, is great development. I’m also 100% sure that calling for 100% nuclear in Finland would simply gain no political traction at all, at least not for several decades. (We have other interest groups besides the Greens, and burning biomass for energy is particularly attractive to the agrarian Center party.)
Even if it turns out that we can’t get high RE penetrations to work (and I say it’s too early to state with confidence that this can’t be done), such a policy seems to offer a better hope for eventually turning towards nuclear than trying to drive 100% nuclear now and alienating people who often do have fairly good arguments about the possibilities of variable renewables, backed with a combination of various energy storage systems, better grid integration and demand management. (For example: one of the more promising storage ideas is to store heat, not electricity – we’re already planning to use our baserock as storage and heat pumps to extract the stored energy. Obviously, there are limits to how much there is demand for low-quality heat, but this alone would go a long way towards easing integration problems.)
To recap, I believe the 100% nuclear route may be more feasible from a technical point of view, but 100% renewables is much more attractive from a political point of view. I don’t believe the most reliable route to decarbonized society goes through either extreme, though.
LikeLike
Well your response is appreciated. I didn’t expect I’d change your mind but perhaps there are some thoughts here that will make my case a bit more persuasively.
Yes agreed that nuclear is a tougher sell politically. Yes there is the connection with nuclear weapons. However history has shown that politics are very transitory; political will is not cast in stone. People’s hearts and minds can be changed by making the case with truth and honesty. Of course their physical, mental, and financial well-being must remain uppermost in mind in making that case.
I assume you are using 2050 as the reference timeframe. That’s 35 years. A lot can happen in 35 years. In ten years, perhaps earlier in the case of China, we will see Generation IV nuclear power generation implementations having passed design certification and ready to tackle the job at hand with cost profiles comparable to coal power generation. Some design estimates project overnight costs even lower than coal, with reactor cores that can be mass produced in assembly line fashion. If that transpires, coupled with the much lower fuel costs, nuclear deployment will expand rapidly. As you know, nations have achieved high power production share in as little as 15 years.
Based on news announcements of nuclear advancements over the past five years or so, China is poised to radically transform its energy supply to nuclear power by 2030. If, over the next 10 years, that bears out, industrially-advanced nations will have no choice but to follow China’s lead or be left at a huge competitive disadvantage. I predict that all new power production builds of any significance will be based on nuclear technologies by 2040. By 2050, most of the world’s new construction of power production facilities will be nuclear.
If I’m wrong and we continue to burn fossil fuels as we do now, you’ll want to stock up on a few cases of scotch because our biosphere can’t take too much more of this. Perhaps I’m more optimistic than yourself because I believe while acceptance of the effects of continued carbon emissions is slow in coming, as us old farts die off, the coming generation of all peoples, with more of a stake in the future well-being of our biosphere, and with less reason to fear nuclear proliferation and not so damned radiophobic, will advance their future prosperity with nuclear energy.
The economics of nuclear will change drastically in about a decade if not sooner based on cost estimates I’ve read. Sure price estimates of renewables look good … in isolation. But when the complete system cost is taken into account; buffering requirements specifically, intermittent renewable power harvesting doesn’t look so promising.
Sure local solar generation will be “democratized” but what will be the solution for night time use? For northern climates with low solar irradiance? There is simply no way of avoiding the need for transmission, storage and/or line-in energy buffering. Also as intermittent power supply market share increases, it becomes less competitive as it not only undermines base load power supply, IRE also eats its own young. And if FiT programs are dumped, as they should be, stable baseload can survive financially but IRE then cannot. It’s either/or. IRE and stable baseload supply don’t work well together.
It seems to me you all may be too close and in the shadow of our modern-day middle-earth Mordor; Germany and under its spell. The German bubble will inevitably burst. Haven’t they already cut off new wind project financing? Will Frodo please step up and seize the ring!
I believe it’s wise to point out the fallacies of IRE because that path is a dead-end street. At some point dispatchable, clean nuclear power supply must provide the power which IRE cannot supply. Yes there’s a case to be made for keeping quiet so as not create animosities and perhaps lull resistance to nuclear into inaction. I rather suspect though that many IRE advocates recognize the strengths of nuclear and the inherent incompatibilities that make it an either-or proposition. The IRE advocates that recognize that this comes down to an either/or proposition will never give an inch so you may as well stop trying. Those of us on the bright side of the energy advocacy spectrum, have an obligation to cut off the nuclear Grimm Fairy Tale fables being told before they are propagated further; to instill some wisdom and hope for the future in our youth.
I truly believe that economics will change everything. But even before Generation IV economics come into play, the folly of IRE economics must be conveyed to the unknowing public at large. Here in Ontario, Canada people generally believe nuclear is expensive while natural gas, wind and solar are inexpensive. They have bought into the program and drunk from the IRE kool-aid. When I point out the Ontario Solicitor General found quite a different set of financials to be the case, I generally get greeted with surprise …even from nuclear advocates! Perhaps we’ve all been drinking from the IRE cool-aid.
I say with certainty that 100% IRE is impossible. Sure 100% RE is possible where there’s plenty of hydro or perhaps geothermal and yes making use of heat storage is a good idea, especially in northern climes. Beyond that, whatever happened to KISS? All these elaborate schemes just to make room for IRE end up resembling a Rube Goldberg machine. How can that not add costs? Elaborate schemes that end up costing more than if nuclear were used instead. KISS!
I can’t disagree with you as to the current realities however in my opinion we must, and will, move towards the 100% nuclear extreme. I’d bet you a bottle of Scotch we’ll be close to 100% incremental nuclear deployment by 2050 but I’ll likely be six feet under by then. 😉 Whatever the future may hold, for the sake of my children and their children, I sure hope that time will prove me right.
LikeLike
Thanks Ike, good response. Still not convinced though, largely because everything involving “nuclear” seems to be slow as molasses and there are little signs of things changing significantly.
I’ve seen a briefing from China, for example, where Chinese nuclear experts stated that they themselves do not expect to have 4G reactors in commercial use before 2040s, even if their program proceeds as planned. Perhaps this can be accelerated; definitely it should be. But to me it seems our planet is going to have plenty of burning going on in 2050, so plenty of opportunities for intermittent sources to reduce emissions as well.
LikeLike