• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Archives
  • Links

Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

Clean Energy

Improved atomic energy offers a pathway that Princeton’s Net Zero America failed to acknowledge

December 23, 2020 By Rod Adams 12 Comments

Princeton’s Net Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure and Impacts charts five challenging, tortuous, investment-intensive paths to “net-zero” by 2050. A presentation that contains 345 slides of text, colorful graphs and wide area maps provides details about the selected scenarios. The Princeton research team promises peer-reviewed journal articles in the near future.

According to sponsor organization promotional materials, the slide deck was released before the journal articles “in recognition of the urgency to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the need for immediate federal, state, and local policy making efforts.” There’s little doubt that the project sponsors and the authors have a strong policy-influence agenda.

All five chosen scenarios involve technology and infrastructure deployments “at historically unprecedented rates across most sectors.” They represent “expansive impacts on landscapes” that have not yet been planned in communities whose permission has not yet been obtained.

Overlooked path

The NZA study ignores a straight, wide, blazed trail. As documented in Goldstein and Qvist’s 2019 book titled A BRIGHT FUTURE: How Some Countries Have Solved Climate Change and the Rest Can Follow, several major electricity grids have successfully eliminated coal and been nearly completely decarbonized. 

In those grids–France, Sweden, and Ontario–a combination of nuclear power and hydroelectricity did the job. In each case, it took about two decades of sustained effort.

None of history’s successful decarbonization efforts required a complete reordering of the economy. The nuclear energy portion of the country- or providence-wide efforts that now provide reliable, abundant electricity from non-combustion sources that do not dump carbon dioxide to the environment did not result in “expansive impacts on landscapes.”

Electricity can do most of the work

Though electricity is only a part of total energy use, the Princeton study makes the reasonable assumption that decarbonized electricity grids can be expanded to supply the energy services needed to decarbonize most of the rest of the energy supply. 

That same assumption continues to work if the electricity decarbonization path includes a successful effort to improve nuclear energy products and projects. Unlike wind and solar, atomic energy is a thermal energy source that can directly supply heat energy useful for industrial processes. Some of the electrification expansions that NZA assumes to be necessary to supply all energy demands might be accomplished more affordably with direct heat use.

Improved atomic energy systems can provide a major share of the energy that NZA scenario models supply using combustion accompanied by some form of carbon capture. If the carbon capture systems are retained while replacing combustion with abundant nuclear energy, we can draw down the current excess CO2 that has been accumulated in the atmosphere. Warming doesn’t stop if the blanket remains in place.

Choosing to discount nuclear improvements 

Unfortunately, all three of history’s successful efforts to replace combustion stopped growing several decades ago. They were halted before making major impacts on energy consumption outside of electricity. Other jurisdictions that started down the nuclear energy path quit even earlier in the process.

Such a long time has passed since those successes that many, including the Princeton research team, have either forgotten they ever happened or assume that the conditions enabling atomic success can never again be achieved.

A discussion with Jesse Jenkins, one of the lead authors of the Princeton NZA pathways study, helped me to understand why nuclear energy played only a minor role in the modeled results. Based on a handful of recent nuclear projects located in “western” nations, the group assumed that nuclear generation would cost $6,600/kw in 2020 and only decline to $5,500/kw by 2050.

Since the NZA study uses models designed to produce “cost optimized” selections, nuclear didn’t make the cut until after 2030. Only then did it get selected and only in the single scenario that included modest constraints on siting renewables and transmission lines. Waiting until 2030 to begin building new nuclear helps to guarantee a significant delay in improving nuclear.

It’s difficult to improve anything without practice. It’s also difficult to displace recently built infrastructure.

Assuming that nuclear doesn’t improve very much makes some unlikely actions look more attractive. It can even can make actions described in the following statement seem almost reasonable.

“The current power grid took 150 years to build. Now, to get to net-zero emissions by 2050, we have to build that amount of transmission again in the next 15 years and then build that much more again in the 15 years after that. It’s a huge amount of change,” said Jenkins.

Princeton University: “Big but affordable effort needed for America to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, Princeton study shows”

Aside: It might not be obvious to people who aren’t deeply entrenched in the electricity supply business but building major transmission lines is never easy or quick. The planning and execution process often takes decades; it’s not uncommon for projects to be abandoned after substantial investments are made.

The Energy Institute at the University of Texas Austin has a 25 page white paper titled Estimation of Transmission Costs for New Generation that helps explain some of the complexities in an intrastate system. Those can expand geometrically if multiple states get involved. End Aside.

Does improved nuclear change the conversation?

A growing and strengthening group of independently minded experts agree that expensive nuclear will never be an optimum choice, but they also have evidence to believe that it’s possible to dramatically improve nuclear costs. Choosing just one example out of many, General Electric – Hitachi (GEH) has published a cost target of $2,250/kw for their simplified, tenth generation BWR, the BWRX-300.

If the Princeton researchers gave as much credit to atomic innovators as they did experts from BP, Exxon and Occidental, they might have produced a scenario that included achievable nuclear cost improvements. Instead, they sought expert advice from major multinational oil companies to develop a “notional capacity-cost curve for CO2 transport and storage” while more than doubling estimated costs coming from nuclear energy experts. (Note: Alluding to page 4 of “Annex I (NZA). CO2 Transport and StorageTransition DRAFT 2020-12-13.pdf”, which is available from the folder titled Princeton NZA Annexes at https://bit.ly/NetZeroAmerica)

Princeton researchers deny that they are fundamentally opposed to nuclear. They advocate for an investment of almost $20 B during the coming decade for advanced nuclear energy R&D. This suggestion, however, should be understood in the following context.

“Its comprehensive modeling of the country’s future energy pathways for decarbonization indicates that $2.5 trillion in additional investments will be needed over the next decade, on top of an estimated $9.4 trillion the country would be expected to invest in energy over the next decade under a “business-as-usual” pathway.”

GTM: “Princeton Study Charts a $2.5T Pathway to a Net-Zero Carbon US”

For those who don’t routinely do math with big numbers in their heads, that means that the Princeton team recommends spending 0.8% of their recommended additional energy investments for the 2020s developing improved nuclear energy products.

When asked about including improved nuclear in future model runs, Jesse Jenkins provided a thought-provoking answer. “I’ve run plenty of models with very cheap nuclear. That’s why I can confidently say that if costs are <$3500 the model eats nuclear up, and if not, it doesn’t.”

What can we do to improve nuclear energy outcomes?

Nuclear energy improvements are not guaranteed, but they are at least as credible and achievable as the massively impactful efforts envisioned in the Net-Zero America study. 

In many places, the proven decarbonization path based on reasonable improvements in atomic energy needs to be cleared of accumulated debris. In other places, there are fewer barriers but a greater need for new infrastructure that has not yet been deployed. We–in the global, humanity-wide sense–have done this before and can do it again.

We can build better fission power sources now than we did in the past. Some countries, notably Russia, China and South Korea have nuclear energy industries that are already building cost-competitive nuclear projects on reasonably predictable schedules.

Even under democratic “disadvantages” we can manage nuclear projects better; we can enable a wider variety of systems that supply a wider variety of customer demands; we can mobilize abundant, affordable capital and we can ensure that “safety” is not used a code word for stopping innovation and continued expansion.

Not only do we have historical examples of success to follow, but we have developed many useful tools in the several decades since those successful efforts were abandoned before achieving full potential. Those new tools will enable us to achieve even greater success this time than during the First Atomic Age.

The better Atomic Age will require new thinking and aggressive actions. It is being influenced by disruptive ventures led by people who believe we can learn from history without repeating the same mistakes again and again.

Disclosure: Rod Adams, the author, is a Managing Partner at Nucleation Capital. He has a keen, vested interest in enabling advanced nuclear energy system success. 

Filed Under: Clean Energy, Climate change, decarbonization, Nuclear Performance

Atomic Show #283 – The Good Energy Collective

October 10, 2020 By Rod Adams

Jessica Lovering, Rachel Slaybaugh, and Suzy Baker founded and lead Good Energy Collective, a policy research organization that is actively “building the progressive case for nuclear energy as an essential part of the broader climate change agenda.”

Inspired by the dynamic leaders and new organizations that are successfully making the case that addressing climate change is an imperative that demands immediate action, they determined that now is the time to build coalitions and join forces with others who share similar concerns.

They recognized that nuclear energy is often left out of discussions, and they believed that needed to change. They have each been studying and working in nuclear energy fields for a decade or two and understand that it is fundamentally capable of supplying the clean, abundant, reliable and affordable energy that should be more equitably available to everyone.

But they also recognized that “nuclear” needed to look very different from the image that it currently creates when the word is spoken or written.

Not only is there a need for additional new technologies and designs that make nuclear energy accessible to broader applications and a greater diversity of customers, but methods used to talk about nuclear energy need to be improved and modified to suit current times. Old ways of doing things need to be altered in recognition of past failures, real and perceived.

Though they believe there is a continuing role for large nuclear power plants that can serve the needs of densely populated cities, they also know that the spectrum of communities and customers is so large that it demands a wide variety of solutions.

They are devising and promoting new ways of engaging with people who might eventually choose to use nuclear technology to address their energy needs. But before that happens, they have to learn, trust and accept. They want to help create situations that have better chances of success because entire communities are supportive and encouraging.

Good Energy Collective was officially launched in August 2020, but it has been busily publishing reports, stimulating discussions and developing coalitions. Its leaders do not believe there is any time to waste. They are highly motivated to make rapid changes that will enable a better story to be told about the future of nuclear energy.

Please listen carefully to these amazing women tell their story and share their plans to modernize nuclear energy products, projects and perceptions.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/AtomicShowFiles/atomic_20201009_283.mp3

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 45:35 — 52.3MB)

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | RSS

Filed Under: Atomic Advocacy, Clean Energy, Podcast

Atomic Show #282 – Chris Keefer, Decouple Podcast

October 4, 2020 By Rod Adams

Chris Keefer is the creator and host of the Decouple Podcast. He is an emergency room doctor whose activist bent and desire to make the world a better place has led him to become a nuclear energy proponent. Chris is the founder and a director of an organization called Doctors for Nuclear Energy. One of […]

Filed Under: Atomic Advocacy, Clean Energy, Podcast

Shell executives should give themselves permission to discuss clean nuclear energy

July 19, 2020 By Rod Adams 29 Comments

Climate Action’s July 16 webinar announcement caught my attention and generated some surprised commentary among people who discuss energy and climate on Twitter. The headline for the event wasn’t all that special. “Rising to the Net-Zero Challenge.” Neither was the subtitle. “As we emerge from lockdown following the global health crisis, can leaders from across […]

Filed Under: Clean Energy, Fossil fuel cooperation

Review: Juice: How Electricity Explains the World

May 25, 2020 By Rod Adams 3 Comments

It’s clear that Robert Bryce and Tyson Culver like living on a planet populated by humans. They have produced a movie that celebrates electricity as the key enabler of the modern world that we have created. Their film challenges us to keep on building and improving our technology until everyone has abundant, reliable access to […]

Filed Under: Clean Energy, Documentary review

Nuclear energy makes a cameo appearance in Jeff Gibbs’s Planet of the Humans

April 24, 2020 By Rod Adams 38 Comments

Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs teamed up to produce a piercing, controversial, gut punching documentary titled Planet of the Humans. Partly as a result of the global closure of theaters, and partly as a result of wanting to make an impact on the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day, they released their film for free on […]

Filed Under: Alternative energy, Biomass, Clean Energy, Climate change, Solar energy, Wind energy

Atomic Show #270 – Fastest Path to Zero

March 27, 2020 By Rod Adams 5 Comments

Fastest Path to Zero logo

Suzanne (Suzy) Hobbs Baker serves as the Creative Director for Fastest Path to Zero. I recently spoke with Suzy and Steve Aplin, a consultant to the Canadian nuclear industry and frequent Atomic Show guest, about the work that Fastest Path to Zero has done and plans to do in the near future. Fastest Path to […]

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, Alternative energy, Clean Energy, Climate change, Podcast, Smaller reactors

Atomic Show #269 – Robert Bryce, A Question of Power

March 24, 2020 By Rod Adams 5 Comments

Cover of A Question of Power

In the modern world, countries need a reliable electricity grid to prosper. Globally, demand for electricity is growing as a result of population growth, new ways to use electricity, and the effort to spread access to electrical power to a greater portion of the world’s population. For the past four years, Robert Bryce has been […]

Filed Under: Clean Energy, Grid resilience, Podcast

The Fearless Green Deal

October 22, 2019 By Guest Author 66 Comments

By Robert Hargraves Democratic president Franklin D Roosevelt proclaimed at his 1933 inauguration, “…the only thing we have to fear is…fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”  In years past Republican presidents were conservative stewards of the environment. Theodore Roosevelt started National Parks. Nixon created the […]

Filed Under: Clean Energy, Climate change, New Nuclear

Sharing message at #StrikeWithUs – We can use nuclear energy to address climate change

September 22, 2019 By Rod Adams 21 Comments

On Friday, September 20, I took to the streets with a couple dozen other locals as part of the Student Climate Strike. I’m pleased to note that this political action seems to be part of a movement that is capturing attention and providing numerous “teachable moments.” Like any good activist, I carefully chose my attire […]

Filed Under: Clean Energy, Climate change, Uncategorized

Atomic Show #264 – Building momentum in advanced nuclear energy

January 28, 2019 By Rod Adams 7 Comments

It’s not glaringly obvious, but preparatory steps enabling a take off for advanced nuclear power systems are making measurable progress. Enabling legislative acts have been passed by both the Senate and House and signed by the President, turning them into laws requiring actions. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is back to full strength and under a […]

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, Atomic politics, Clean Energy, Climate change, Podcast

UN Environment Program Rejects WNA’s Money. Won’t Allow Sponsorship Of Sustainable Innovation Forum (SIF17)

November 7, 2017 By Rod Adams 12 Comments

The UN Environmental Program (UNEP) has rejected the World Nuclear Association’s (WNA) offer to provide financial support to the 8th Annual Sustainable Innovation Forum (SIF). Described by its chairman as the “largest business-focused side event during the annual Conference Of Parties” the event is scheduled to take place alongside COP23 in Bonn, Germany. Originally accepted as a gold sponsor […]

Filed Under: Atomic politics, Clean Energy, Climate change, International nuclear

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Search Atomic Insights

The Atomic Show

Atomic Insights

Follow Atomic Insights

Recent Posts

How did an oil shale investor hamstring his atomic energy competition? (Ancient but impactful smoking gun)

Improved atomic energy offers a pathway that Princeton’s Net Zero America failed to acknowledge

Adams Engines™: Design Concepts

Will heavy nitrogen become a widely used fission reactor coolant?

Is there a conspiracy against nuclear energy?

  • Home
  • About Atomic Insights
  • Atomic Show
  • Contact
  • Links

Search Atomic Insights

Archives

Copyright © 2021 · Atomic Insights

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy