Without the podcast ‘Age of Miracles’, I would never have researched or considered writing an article about nuclear power. So, I would like to thank Packy and Julia for running a awesome podcast series.
The current goal in the game of 'ENERGY' is 'carbon neutrality in 2050'. According to WWF, in order to meet the 1.5℃ goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement, we need to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 45% below 2010 levels by 2030, and reach net-zero emissions of all greenhouse gases by 2050. With global warming and the climate crisis beginning to be felt, these goals are challenging, but worth the effort.
In addition to carbon neutrality, I believe we should aim to produce much more energy. The concept of "Energy Superabundance" means, as the name suggests, producing much more energy. As I mentioned in my last post, energy is one of the main fuels for our society's growth engine, and more energy means more progress.
More energy enables services that were previously uneconomic. According to the CGO, a 1% increase in energy supply reduces energy prices by 1.75%, and a doubling of energy supply reduces energy prices by 70%. Cheaper energy can enable things that are currently economically "unfeasible," including things as follows:
In transportation, which accounts for 20% of global energy consumption, technologies that are currently uneconomical due to their energy consumption, such as VTOL taxis, hyperloops, and supersonic flight, could become commercially viable.
Practices such as vertical farming and indoor agriculture have high energy consumption, but use relatively little land. Once commercialized, these methods could allow for higher quality crops to be grown in smaller areas.
Traditional methods of producing materials such as concrete, steel, and plastic all have a negative impact on the environment through significant CO2 emissions. With access to cheaper energy, greener ways of producing these materials could become commercially viable. For example, iron is responsible for 7% of all carbon emissions, and a Swedish project called HYBRIT is attempting to create a greener iron using hydrogen. As energy becomes cheaper, these efforts are expected to increase.
Looking to the near future, electricity demand is expected to continue to grow due to the development of the manufacturing industry and the increase in the number of data centers. According to data from GridStrategies, within the past year, U.S. grid planners have doubled their forecasts for demand growth over the next five years, predicting a peak demand increase of 38 GW by 2028, emphasizing the need for rapid planning, construction, and investment in energy generation and transmission. And with recently updated metrics suggesting that these numbers are underestimated, more energy production should be our foremost goal, along with carbon neutrality.
I think Packy McCormick's point in his article that 'humanity has been able to afford to be more ethical through energy development' is a very refreshing perspective, and I agree. For example, in the past, energy resources like food were so scarce that it make sense for people to attack their neighbors to get them, but as the cost of accessing them has decreased, this has become economically unnecessary. Also, while the abolition of slavery was driven by a variety of political, ethical, and social factors, the use of fossil fuels and the development of the steam engine may have had a direct or indirect impact on this change by reducing the cost of mechanical labor, making slaves less economically valuable.
In the same way that current humans view slavery and the practice of harming neighbors for food as unethical, future humans who have reached Energy Superabundance may come to view our current, routine, and unavoidable labor as unethical.
???: 100 years ago, people were forced to spend a third of their day doing things they didn't want to do in order to make their living? That's so unethical.
While this article focuses on electricity, achieving true carbon neutrality will require a concerted effort to increase electricity's share of total energy consumption. Currently, electricity only accounts for about 20% of total energy consumption, so we need to increase this share while simultaneously reducing carbon emissions from electricity to near zero. In order to increase this share, electricity must become cheaper than its traditional competitors, coal, oil, and gas.
The issue then becomes 'how'. How should we structure our future energy portfolio to achieve a clean energy superabundance? First, take a look at the graph below.
Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, are a major contributor to global warming and will need to be gradually reduced to achieve carbon neutrality. According to the United Nations, fossil fuels account for more than 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90% of all CO2 emissions.
However, we humans should be grateful for fossil fuels. The infrastructure of agriculture, construction, communications, manufacturing, and more would not be possible without fossil fuels, and without them, global warming would have been slower, but on the flip side, more people would have died of drought and hunger. It's only that just as the age of firewood ended with the advent of fossil fuels, it's time for fossil fuels to retire with the advent of new alternative energies.
Few would argue that renewable energy is the energy of the future. Within the category of renewable energy, there are many different types: solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro. Wind and solar, the most prominent of these, are referred to as variable renewable energy (VRE) because their output varies depending on the natural environment, time of day, and season.
Currently, a variety of publicly available indicators show a positive outlook for the future of VRE. Electricity production from VRE has increased exponentially since 2010, and the levelized cost of energy (LCOE), the cost per unit of electricity produced, has decreased significantly. In addition, carbon emissions are very low compared to fossil fuels, and investment in VRE is increasing, as shown in the previous UNECE data.
However, the intermittent and variable power production of VRE poses several challenges:
Grid reliability issues: The grid must always balance demand and supply of electricity, and high demand and low VRE production can strain the reliability of the grid. In addition to simply balancing supply and demand, the grid also needs to regulate grid harmonics and reactive power (VAR), which, due to the nature of VREs using converters, requires additional investment in the grid.
The need for backup power plants: When the demand for electricity changes rapidly, backup power plants are needed to meet the demand. Natural gas is often used because it can be ramped up and down relatively quickly. The 2016 NEBR found that, on average, a 0.88 percentage point increase in the share of long-term VRE is associated with a 1 percentage point increase in the share of fast-reacting fossil generation capacity. Some might argue that this doesn't have much of an impact because the backup plant doesn't have to be operated all the time, but 1) the cost of the backup plant still has to be factored into the cost of VRE anyway, and 2) frequently shifting the load of a natural gas plant is bad because it emits more CO2 to produce the same amount of energy than running it at a constant rate.
The need for energy storage: For similar reasons to the backup plant described above, VREs need energy storage to store energy in batteries when power production is high and use it when production is low. Compared to backup power plants, it has the advantages of relatively faster response time, no CO2 emissions, and is more efficient because it uses stored energy, but it still has the disadvantages of high cost, short storage time, and high resource consumption.
Overbuilding and curtailment issues: Because VRE must be built based on low supply, it can lead to overbuilding and curtailment of output when supply is high. For example, in the case of solar, construction must be based on winter power production, which leads to high initial installation costs and wasted energy in other seasons.
With this trend toward reducing fossil fuel use and increasing VRE, two approaches are proposed as specific future energy portfolios for the Clean Energy Superabundance. Both take the form of increasing VRE, but compensating for the possible side effects of a higher VRE share in different ways.
The first approach is to source 100% of electricity from VRE, based on 'certain assumptions'. These are the following assumptions:
Intercontinental long-distance transmission networks: The output of VREs at any given point in time will vary significantly by region, and if intercontinental long-distance transmission networks are in place, the variability of VREs can be largely compensated for by interregional transmission.
Flexible Demand-side Management: If consumers can flexibly adjust their electricity demand to match the variable energy output of VREs, they can reduce their reliance on backup power plants and energy storage.
Very low costs: According to the study, once the percentage of VRE exceeds 60% of the total grid, the cost of energy generation and the amount of energy wasted due to output limits rises non-linearly and sharply. Therefore, filling the grid with 100% VRE must be accompanied by lower power generation costs.
Innovations in energy storage systems: Achieving 100% VRE will require significant advances in the storage capacity, duration, affordability, and efficiency of energy storage systems.
If the above assumptions are realized, 100% of the grid could be filled with VRE such as solar and wind,
The second option is to combine VRE with firm low-carbon energy (FLE). FLE refers to energy sources that have lower carbon emissions than fossil fuels, but unlike VRE, have a constant energy output. The main examples are nuclear energy, geothermal energy, and biomass energy, which, when used in combination with VRE, can compensate for the aforementioned shortcomings of VRE.
Rather than expecting certain assumptions of the first approach to be realized, I believe the second approach is more realistic, using FLEs that are already working effectively, and there are several studies that support this.
The Role of Firm Low-Carbon Electricity Resources in Deep Decarbonization of Power Generation, 2018
This study explores the role of FLEs in a deep decarbonization scenario through a model called GenX. The results show that the inclusion of FLEs in the energy portfolio lowers the overall cost of energy production, especially where VREs do not produce much. As shown in the graph above, the lower the carbon emissions limit, the greater the impact of FLEs in the northern U.S., where VRE production rates are relatively low.
Getting to Zero Carbon Emissions in the Electric Power Sector, 2018
The study draws insights from a compilation of nearly 40 deep decarbonization studies published since 2014. It shows that VRE is an important component of decarbonization, but as the graph above shows, once VRE makes up 100% of the grid, the amount of energy wasted due to cost and output limitations spikes non-linearly. This can be solved by using FLEs together, and the study argues that while it may be an easy decision to bet on VREs as the immediate winner, FLEs need to be researched and supported for the long term.
Clean Firm Power is the Key to California's Carbon-Free Energy Future, 2021
The study asked several research organizations to use the same data and run their models to predict how San Francisco could reach carbon neutrality in 2045, and the general consensus is that VRE alone will not do it, and that FLEs such as nuclear, geothermal energy, or natural gas generation with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology should be used in conjunction with VRE. As you can see from the data above, the introduction of FLEs improves a number of metrics.
Stylized least-cost analysis of flexible nuclear power in deeply decarbonized electricity systems considering wind and solar resources worldwide, 2022
The study uses a linear optimization approach called the Macro Energy Model (MEM) to examine the role of nuclear power, along with renewables, in a range of GHG emissions reduction scenarios based on regional data. The study shows that even at current costs, nuclear power can play a role in deep decarbonization scenarios in regions with weak wind energy, and the lower the cost of nuclear power production, the greater the impact.
Among the various FLEs, I believe that nuclear is a very attractive option and is relatively under-valued compared to other energy sources. Of course, there are advantages and disadvantages to all energy sources, and there is no absolute winner, but if we are to reach Clean Energy Superabundance, nuclear power is essential.
The chart below organizes FLEs according to various metrics. In general, the more siting flexibility, lower carbon emissions, and higher energy efficiency and output capacity an FLE has, the more suitable it is for a future energy portfolio.
Biomass energy offers siting flexibility, but its relatively high carbon footprint and low energy efficiency and capacity make it unattractive; geothermal energy is compliant in terms of carbon footprint, energy efficiency, and capacity, but its low siting flexibility makes it a less common choice. Hydropower has the best energy efficiency and capacity of the candidates, but is not a universal alternative due to siting limitations.
Nuclear power and fossil fuels with CCS perform well across all metrics, making them both good options. However, with the era of fossil fuels gradually coming to an end, I see nuclear power as a more long-term solution than fossil fuels with CCS.
The golden age of the nuclear industry was the 1970s.
After World War II, nuclear power began to be used for electricity generation and industrial applications through President Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" policy, and the 1970s saw the beginning of a golden age as the oil shocks brought nuclear power to the forefront as an alternative energy source. However, the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, and the Fukushima disaster in 2011 led to a deterioration in public opinion, a backlash from environmental groups, and a gradual decline in new reactor construction due to very high regulatory and safety standards.
As you can see, the public sentiment toward the nuclear industry has been negative for some time, but recently there have been signs of change. First, the public's perception of the industry has continued to change positively in recent years, and so have national policies. For example, at the recent COP28 climate conference, 24 countries, led by the United States, announced a commitment to triple nuclear energy by 2050, marking the first time in the history of the COP that nuclear energy has officially appeared as a solution to the climate crisis in a COP agreement. Other positive developments include the EU's inclusion of nuclear as a net-zero technology and Canada's inclusion of nuclear reactors and reactor refurbishment in its green bond program. In the commercial side, the latest news is that Microsoft is building nuclear power plant for its data centers.
Now let's look at the benefits of nuclear power. When you look at the actual numbers, there are quite a few that are different from what you might think.
First, nuclear power is safe.
Many people think that nuclear power is very dangerous, but the actual numbers show otherwise.
As you can see from the data above, nuclear power kills fewer people per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced than wind power and is comparable to solar. Historically, there have only been two events with large radioactive leaks, Chernobyl and Fukushima, and the number of deaths attributed to nuclear power in those events were as follows:
Chernobyl: 31 total deaths, 2 from direct explosion and 29 from acute radiation syndrome (ARS).
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident: 1. In 2018, the Japanese government announced that a worker had died from lung cancer caused by radiation exposure. Also, in 2021, the United Nations reported that the Fukushima nuclear accident is unlikely to increase cancer rates. Separately, a total of 19,729 people were killed by the earthquake and tsunami.
In the case of the Three Mile Island accident, the leaked radiation levels were below natural levels, so there were no casualties, but the synergy with the movie ‘China Syndrome’, which was released the year before the accident, was a big factor in creating a distrust of nuclear power in the United States.
Let's look at other energy sources. First, in the case of biomass and fossil fuels, carbon particulates from combustion cause respiratory distress in the upper airways, a kind of indirect black lung. In the case of hydropower, fatalities are rarely caused by dam failures, and in the case of wind power, workers fall from wind turbines during maintenance.
Second, nuclear power has very low carbon emissions.
According to the data above, the carbon footprint of nuclear power is less than that of VREs like solar and wind.
Third, nuclear power is highly productive.
We typically measure the efficiency of a power plant's electricity production through its capacity factor, which is the ratio of its installed capacity to the amount of electricity it actually produces in operation. As you can see from the data above, nuclear power has one of the best capacity factors of any energy source.
Fourth, space and fuel efficiency.
In terms of space efficiency, wind requires 260-360 times more land and solar 45-75 times more land to produce the same amount of energy as nuclear. In terms of fuel efficiency, 6 grams of nuclear fuel produces the same amount of energy as a ton of coal, 120 gallons of oil, or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas.
Fifth, it produces less waste.
Contrary to popular belief, the waste generated by nuclear power is not only small compared to the amount of electricity it produces, but it is strictly managed, and historically there have been no human casualties from nuclear waste. According to the source, a nuclear power plant generates about as much waste as a brick to power a person for a year, of which only about 5 grams is high-level radioactive waste. A typical 1000 MW nuclear power plant generates enough electricity to power more than 1 million people, and if the used fuel is recycled, it produces 3 m³ of high-level waste per year.
By comparison, a fossil fuel power plant produces about 300,000 tons of ash and emits more than 6 million tons of CO2 each year to generate the same amount of electricity. While recycling waste as fuel is currently prohibited in the U.S., it is permitted in several countries, and the next generation of reactors currently being developed may be able to reuse the fuel. Additionally, all of the nuclear waste ever produced in the United States historically would be stacked less than 10 meters high on a football field.
When we look at other energy sources, we see that air pollution from fossil fuels kills many people every year, and according to this study, solar panels produce 300 times more waste per kilowatt hour than nuclear power, and heavy metals like lead and cadnium contaminates groundwater.
Regardless of the theoretical merits of nuclear power and its promise for the future, the recent report card of nuclear power plants is disastrous. As shown in the table above, all recently built nuclear power plants have exceeded their initial promises of 1) construction time and 2) construction costs by several orders of magnitude. Most notably, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia are seven years behind schedule and $17 billion over budget, and Summer Units 2 and 3 in South Carolina have been halted after the estimated cost of construction rose to $24 billion from an initial $4.1 billion.
A key reason for this is that the nuclear industry is an industry with a negative learning curve, where average costs increase over time, and as production increases. Unlike other energy industries where costs have decreased as technology has improved and knowledge has accumulated, nuclear power generation has actually regressed over time.
I believe that costs are the most important issue the industry faces today. If the cost of nuclear power plants is not reduced in the future, it will not be economically viable to build more nuclear power plants, which will not help us achieve a clean energy superabundance. There are many reasons why the cost of nuclear power has increased, but they can be broadly categorized into construction, regulation, and financing.
About 33% of the cost of building a nuclear power plant, excluding financing, is indirect costs, which include items such as reactor design, engineering services, and project management.
The problem is that these indirect costs account for a large portion of the rising cost of nuclear power. Studies have shown that indirect costs accounted for 72% of the increase in the cost of nuclear power from 1976-1988, and are the primary cause of the increase in the cost of nuclear power from 2010-2020.
So why have indirect cost risen?
This is because labor costs, which account for 80% of indirect costs, have risen. I believe this is due to 1) an increase in the need for specialized labor and 2) a decrease in labor productivity. First, due to advances in nuclear research and rising safety standards, nuclear power plants require a greater number of highly qualified engineers and specialists, which naturally leads to higher labor costs. However, this tendency is common to all industries, so it is difficult to explain the exceptional negative learning curve of the nuclear industry solely by the need for more specialists.
Therefore, we must further look at the decline in labor productivity. According to a 1980 study, 75% of all labor hours were wasted unproductively. Eleven hours per week were lost due to lack of materials and tools, eight hours per week due to coordination with other workers or overcrowding in the work area, and 5.75 hours per week due to redoing work. Labor productivity has continued to decline over time, and as of 2020, labor productivity in the nuclear industry was 13 times lower than industry projections in recent years. Personally, I think this is largely due to the fact that fewer and fewer nuclear power plants are being built, and there is a growing shortage of workers with experience in the industry.
It is true that nuclear power has a relatively high risk of accidents, and since there have been accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima, it requires higher safety standards and stricter regulations than other energy sources. At the same time, however, regulations have contributed to a significant increase in the cost of nuclear power, with the study showing that from the late 1960s to the mid-1970s, the cost of building a nuclear power plant increased by 176% as regulations increased.
The agency responsible for regulating nuclear power changed from the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), established in 1946, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), established in 1974. There are many criticisms of the AEC and NRC, but here are just a few.
The NRC requires entities applying for regulatory review to pay 90% of the cost of that review, which creates an incentive to unnecessarily lengthen the review process.
The Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model asserts that there is no safe level of radiation exposure and that the risk of cancer increases linearly with radiation exposure. Based on the LNT model, As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) is a radiation protection standard that, as its name implies, mandates efforts to reduce radiation levels as much as possible. While I understand the intent of ALARA, I believe it is currently playing a major role in making nuclear power plants less economically competitive, as it imposes unrealistic safety regulations. In addition, recent studies have shown that LNT is not based on sound data, and LNT and ALARA in general need to be updated.
In fact, in the 1990s, the NRC tried to revise ALARA to a Below Regulatory Concern Policy (BRCP). However, the backlash from public opinion and environmental groups was so severe that it was canceled, and the NRC cannot be solely blamed for this strict regulation.
QA and QC requirements imposed by the NRC also have a significant impact on costs. In nuclear power plant construction, 23% of total concrete costs and 41% of steel costs are attributed to QC requirements, and according to EPRI's analysis, nuclear-grade components can cost as much as 50 times more than off-the-shelf industrial components. In fact, nuclear-grade doesn't necessarily mean higher performance; instead, it requires more documentation and testing. These requirements are a huge burden for manufacturers, which naturally leads to supply chain issues.
Frequent changes in NRC regulations are also a big problem. In fact, for the David-Besse plant, which was completed in 1977, a study found that 60% of the total cost was due to modifications to NRC regulations and their cascading effects, while the lower construction cost of a French plant from a similar time period was due to no regulatory changes during construction.
Compared to other power plants, the construction of nuclear power plants involves large initial construction costs and a long construction period, so it takes a relatively long time to generate revenue. Because of this, financing costs have a significant impact on overall costs, with 67% of a nuclear plant's levelized cost of electricity (LCOCE) coming from financing costs, of which 20% is interest and 47% is the required rate of return. For this reason, a longer construction period due to a variety of factors can have a significant impact on overall costs.
To date, various methods have been proposed to reduce the cost of nuclear power.
Regarding design and supply chain
First, it is important to finalize the plant design and supply chain before construction begins. This may seem obvious, but in the case of Voglte and Summer in the US, construction began before the plant design and supply chain were reliably finalized in order to meet the timing of tax credits, which contributed significantly to the cost and duration of construction.
Second, building multiple units at once, and building them over and over again, can also help reduce costs. Building multiple nuclear power plants in the same location at one time can save money because various site preparation and infrastructure can be shared. Studies have shown that when nuclear power plants are built in pairs, the cost of the second plant is reduced by about 15%. In the case of Barakah, which was recently built in the UAE, the cost of the fourth unit was about 50% less than the first. In addition, having a fixed plant design and building it over and over again can save on non-recurring costs such as licensing fees, and it is easier to secure a stable supply chain and specialized personnel.
Third, simplification. Recently, third-generation nuclear power plants such as the AP1000 have introduced a passive safety system that utilizes gravity and natural convection to significantly reduce the number of valves, pipes, and pumps required compared to previous models. These features can help reduce costs by reducing the number of materials and components needed.
Finally, nuclear-grade components need to be reconsidered. If there are some components that can be used in conventional industry without compromising safety, it is beneficial to switch to conventional industry components to secure the supply chain and reduce costs.
Regarding project management
The construction of a nuclear power plant is very complex and involves the collaboration of many different types of teams. In order to successfully complete the project, an experienced entity is required to take responsibility for the project at the highest level, coordinating the relationships between the teams, procuring materials and equipment, managing the workforce, managing finances, and the schedule.
The introduction of new processes, such as building information modeling (BIM) or a knowledge management system (KMS), can also help improve project management efficiency. However, this should be done with caution, as it is easy to fail without sufficient budget and effort to train workers and manage new risks.
Regarding regulation
When it comes to regulations, it is important to make them stable and predictable. Regulatory changes can have a significant impact on the cost and duration of a new nuclear power plant if they occur during construction. In addition, an overall enhancement of safety regulations based on LNT and ALARA is likely to be required.
Regarding financing
Personally, I believe that reducing the cost of financing needs to start with a positive feedback loop: first, show investors that nuclear power plants can be successfully built within the expected cost and timeframe, and then they can be financed more cheaply.
Energy Superabundance is more than just providing more energy and cheaper energy, it can take our quality of life to the next level and make human life more ethical through innovations in transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, and more. Therefore, we should aim for a "Clean Energy Superabundance," which is the pursuit of more energy production while pursuing carbon neutrality.
In order to achieve Clean Energy Superabundance, we need to reduce fossil fuels and increase the share of VRE, but there are side effects of having the entire energy portfolio filled with VRE, and some assumptions need to be realized in order to solve them. Therefore, I believe that the approach of combining VRE with FLE should be considered as a risk hedge in case these assumptions do not hold true in the future. I also believe that there should be more public attention, academic research, policy support, and investment in FLE as well as VRE, as the various studies mentioned above support this argument.
In a scenario where VRE and FLE are used together, I believe that nuclear is the most common option. Hydro is a good option, but it is limited in terms of siting, and for fossil fuels with CCS, it is questionable whether it is a long-term solution. Each energy has its own strengths, so it is not possible to rank them, but nuclear certainly has its own strengths compared to other FLEs and VRE.
However, the current reality of the nuclear industry is not so bright. Recently built nuclear power plants have significantly exceeded their projected construction costs and timeframes, and unlike other industries, nuclear power plant costs continue to rise over time. This is largely due to construction, regulatory, and capital costs, and there are a number of ways to reduce the cost of nuclear power.
So, what does the future hold for the nuclear industry? In fact, small modular reactors (SMRs) are one of the key candidates for solving the aforementioned problems, and are being heavily promoted as the future of nuclear power. This article doesn't address the question, but are SMRs the future of nuclear power plants? Or are they a lower-cost alternative to large nuclear power plants?
We don't know for sure what the future holds for nuclear power, but we do know that it will grow in importance. The goal of this article is to convincingly communicate the importance of nuclear energy to a wider audience. In doing so, I hope that people will become more interested in nuclear energy and that this article will change their minds, especially if they have a negative view of the industry.
Unlocking Reductions in the Construction Costs of Nuclear: A Practical Guide for Stakeholders
The Role of Firm Low-Carbon Electricity Resources in Deep Decarbonization of Power Generation
Getting to Zero Carbon Emissions in the Electric Power Sector
Clean Firm Power is the Key to California’s Carbon-Free Energy Future
Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors
Power plant capital investment cost estimates: current trends and sensitivity to economic parameters
STABILITY IN LICENSING REQUIREMENTS: A TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE *
Moyed
