Atomic Insights

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

Coal

A Path from Coal to Nuclear is Being Blazed in Wyoming

By 36 Comments



Many of those who care about finding solutions to the physical distress that our climate is experiencing, as reported on this week in a landmark 1,300 page report by the IPCC‘s Sixth Assessment Working Group 1 (Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis), are not looking at Wyoming.

But based upon the announcement made in early June by Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon, together with senior Senator John Barrasso, Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, TerraPower founder and Chairman, Bill Gates, President and CEO of Rocky Mountain Power Gary Hoogevene and others, maybe they should.

In a well-orchestrated 30-minute event, Wyoming’s political leadership, while making no bones about their total support for coal, announced that Bill Gates’ advanced nuclear venture, TerraPower, had selected Wyoming and a yet-to-be-determined retiring Rocky Mountain Power coal plant, as the site to build and operate the first sodium-cooled advanced Natrium™ reactor, with matching funding from the DOE’s ARDP program.

Aside: Several times during the presentation, a speaker mentioned their interest in carbon capture and sequestration. Many of the technologies being pursued for that capability require nearly continuous clean power in massive quantities. Nuclear plants are the leading source for that kind of power. End Aside

The Governor’s plan to test the conversion of coal plants to new nuclear is being supported with a combination of private and federal funding as well as advance work by Wyoming’s legislature, which passed HB 74 with overwhelming bipartisan support, allowing utilities and other power plant owners to replace retiring coal and natural gas electric generation plants with small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). The bill was signed by the Governor immediately and is now House Enrolled Act 60.

Wyoming will see the development of a first-of-a-kind advanced nuclear power plant that validates the design, construction and operational features of the Natrium technology and enables Wyoming, which currently leads the country in coal exports, to get a lead in the form of energy best suited to replace coal—built right at coal plants, potentially around the world. This conversion path not only reuses some of the physical infrastructure at the coal plant but also takes advantage of the skilled people and supporting community that have been operating that plant.

In December, 2020, Staffan Qvist, Paweł Gładysz, Łukasz Bartela and Anna Sowizdzał published a study that looked at the issue of retrofitting coal power plants for decarbonization in Poland.  They published their findings in Retrofit Decarbonization of Coal Power Plants—a Case Study for Poland, showing that decarbonization retrofits worked best using high-temperature small modular reactor to replace coal boilers.

What makes this announcement truly “game-changing and monumental” in the Governor’s own words, is just how cost-effective and efficient converting a coal plant to advanced nuclear might be. According to the Polish study, retrofitting coal boilers with high-temperature small modular nuclear reactors as a way to decarbonize the plant can lower upfront capital costs by as much as 35% and reduce the levelized cost of electricity by as much as 28% when compared to a greenfield installation.

The analysis looked at the potential within a coal retrofit of re-using the existing assets that are already there. While there will be large differences across plants as to the effective age and useful life condition of major plant components, the study found that “compared to very early retirement, re-using non-coal-related auxiliary buildings and electrical equipment, turbogenerators, cooling water systems, cooling towers, and pumphouses can thus avoid the stranding of up to 40% of the initial investment at a new coal plant.” (See Qvist p. 7)



Additionally, converting to nuclear can maintain the level of energy output from the plant and even exceed it, while eliminating emissions. In contrast, annual output replacement would not be possible using other clean energy options such as biomass, wind, solar or geothermal. (See Qvist p. 11)


In October, 2020, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), awarded TerraPower $80 million in initial funding from the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) to demonstrate the Natrium reactor and energy system with its technology co-developer GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) and engineering and construction partner Bechtel. The award will provide TerraPower and its partners with up to $1.6 billion in federal funding during the project to build the reactor, to be operational within five to seven years. TerraPower is also partnering with PacifiCorp and Rocky Mountain Power, subsidiaries of Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Energy Northwest and Duke Energy, which will also provide expertise in the areas of licensing, operations, maintenance, siting and grid needs.

Currently, the DOE is funding a number of promising reactor development projects and President Biden’s recently passed Infrastructure Bill appears to have increased those budget allocations. That is very good news for the climate. According to the Qvist study, some 1,300 GW of coal power units globally could be suitable for retrofitting with advanced nuclear reactors by the 2030s. If large-scale retrofitting were to be implemented starting then, up to 200 billion tons of CO2 emission could be avoided, which equates to nearly six years of total global CO2 emissions, and “would make the prospects of reaching global climate targets far more realistic.” (Qvist p. 33)

For those of us anxiously logging milestones along the way towards our future 100% clean grid, TerraPower’s decision to site its new plant in Wyoming and Wyoming’s embrace of this opportunity—where not that long ago the legislature reacted with an “‘unheard of’ IRP investigation” to push back on PacifiCorp’s 2020 IRP showing the retirement of 20 of 24 coal plants—is remarkable. It is definitely worthwhile keeping an eye on Wyoming, where some entirely miraculous brew of audacious political leadership, climate-fueled economic anxiety and job-seeking technological brinkmanship appears to have paved the way for Wyoming to become a birthplace of 21 century clean energy. As Governor Gordon said, this is truly “game-changing and monumental” news—not just for Wyoming but also for the world. You can view the full announcement below.

Trump’s Energy Policy Is Scary To Multinational Petroleum Interests

By

Trump’s plan for American energy strength is rightfully causing angst among people who believe that renewable energy is the inevitable path forward to reduce society’s dependence on fossil fuel. It is likely to cause even more fear among the people who are betting on fossil fuel to continue dominating the world’s economy and geopolitics.

Trump’s campaign statements and careful attention to Senate confirmation hearings for his nominees for EPA Administrator (Scott Pruitt) and Secretary of Energy (Rick Perry) lead me to the conclusion that we are headed for an era of cheap and abundant power. Trump and his key cabinet members have promised to work to remove artificially imposed barriers to developing increased supplies. They plan to replace those barriers with pragmatic solutions and regulations based on science and the rule of law.

Even if the brief summary of the plan fails to specifically mention nuclear energy or uranium, the general strategy plays directly into atomic energy’s strongest suit. It doesn’t have much of a political backing – yet – but its scientific and engineering potential is unmatched.

This optimistic – scary to multinational petroleum interests – pair of graphs were on the last slide in a March 1956 presentation by M. King Hubbert to the American Petroleum Institute
This optimistic – scary to multinational petroleum interests – pair of graphs were on the last slide in a March 1956 presentation by M. King Hubbert to the American Petroleum Institute

When it comes to artificially imposed barriers to developing indigenous raw material supplies, the relatively recent declaration preventing new claims for uranium mining in key locations is roughly equivalent to the federal government declaring the Permian Basin or the Marcellus Shale to be off limits for oil and gas development.

In another example, Gov. Perry stated his determination to come to a pragmatic and working solution to the “nuclear waste” bottleneck that has been used to constipate the nuclear industry since the early 1970s. He briefly, but importantly, told Illinois Senator Duckworth that he was interested in nuclear fuel recycling technologies developed at the Argonne National Lab. He also responded with enthusiastic support for small modular and advanced reactors.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has made it clear that he intends to run an agency that bases its regulation on sound science and that remains within the limits of the authority granted by laws enacted by Congress. If he acts consistently with that stated position, one of his first wins might be in the office of Radiation and Indoor Air by directing an open and honest review of low dose radiation research that could change regulations based on the 1950s era assertion that all radiation is harmful to human health.

Abundant Supply Leads To Low Prices

Most segments of the fossil fuel industry and its backers – both political and financial – will have a difficult period of financial adjustment in this abundant energy economy. Many people who have difficulties understanding the long term and unavoidable effects of the law of supply and demand may be confused by that statement.

Restrictions on developing new sources of energy are exactly what keeps fossil fuel so profitable and so geopolitically important. Without placing vast areas of potential resources off-limits and without an incredibly diverse set of artificial burdens placed on abundantly available energy from actinides like uranium, plutonium and thorium, prices for oil, natural gas, and coal would be several times lower than they are today.

It is often in the interest of existing suppliers to suggest and support rules that slow or stop their competitors. The most egregious examples of these anticompetitive actions often include grandfather clauses that exempts the existing suppliers from the most costly provisions of new regulations. As part of the regulatory sales job, the public is often told that these new rules are opposed by “the industry.” The truth is that there are many different points of view and interests at stake among all industries.

Environmental Effects Of Abundant Energy Policies

Removing artificial barriers to development would not automatically result in a dirtier environment; quite the opposite is more likely. It’s important to understand that even industrialists have families that appreciate clean air and clean water. Not only will laws designed to address real problems of pollution and its effects on the property and health rights of neighbors remain in place, but from the perspective of a systems engineer, pollution is visible evidence of economic inefficiency and waste.

For example, the “stuff” that pours out of the furnace of a coal stack is often non-combustible material that was dug out of the ground thousands of miles away from the power plant and then expensively transported to the power plant only to burden filters, grinders and conveyor belts and then stream out of the smokestack all while not providing any useful energy in return.

It’s possible and potentially lucrative to invest cheap, clean nuclear energy early in the fuel cycle to remove polluting impurities from coal before wastefully transporting those impurities and putting them irretrievably into the atmosphere, landfills or waterways. Some of the components of natural coal that cause major problems when left as impurities to be run through the cycle could be valuable raw materials if separated and purified in processing plants located in coal country.

Of course, the demand for coal as a power plant fuel will be governed by the overall competitiveness of the product when compared to other fuel sources. The customers in well-designed markets will not limit their purchasing criteria to the cost per unit of heat provided, but will also consider factors like the ability to stockpile fuel to avoid supply interruptions, the availability of appropriate equipment for burning the fuel, and the proximity of the resource to the customer.

Easily mined coal may even be a prospect for conversion into cleaner, more valuable and more readily transported liquid fuels through the addition of a bit of heat and hydrogen in coal to liquid processes that have been well understood since the early part of the 20th century.

Abundant Energy Can Preserve Remote, Pristine Areas

An abundant energy economy will not result in increasing extreme extraction from remote locations. Those efforts can only be justified in markets where the fuel prices are high enough to support the very real and unavoidable costs of building new infrastructure, paying people to accept harsh living conditions and fighting against the elements that kept the area remote and pristine in the first place.

Instead, very low energy prices will encourage efficient use of existing infrastructure, deeper drilling in already developed resource areas, and efforts to take advantage of very low cost, easily transported and stockpiled fuels – like uranium, plutonium and thorium. Low prices will increase demand, but that is not a bad thing if the demand is supplied by clean and readily available fuel sources.

Another way to look at energy conservation is that it is the avoidance of work that could be accomplished if the energy was used. Conserving energy when we know that E=MC^2 with both M and C as large numbers is about as important as conserving bits in a gigabyte economy.

“All of the above” policies that are honestly aimed at making energy abundant so that it can be used to drive a vigorous, manufacturing economy can produce ever increasing wealth among the vast majority of its participants. The eventual and almost inevitable result should be a sustainable transition to cheap, abundant, emission-free uranium, plutonium and thorium.

That achievement will be a boon to lovers of clean air, clean water, and prosperous people. The possibility that this vision might come to pass is a scary prospect for those who continue to bet their wealth, power and careers on the assumption that the hydrocarbon economy will never end or on the myth that unreliables can do it all.

A version of the above was first published on Forbes.com under the same headline used here.

Inside a German Lignite Mine

By

The BBC made a visit to a German lignite (brown coal) mine. I’d like the people who favor the EnergieWende to explain how they can like this energy source better than nuclear power.

Smoking Gun – NCPC & John F. Kennedy

By

There is a folder in the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum titled National Coal Policy Conference that documents an apparently successful effort to influence a rising political star to support national policies that favor coal over natural gas, residual oil and atomic energy. The NCPC, whose existence lasted from its founding in 1959 […]

Smoking gun – Antinuclear talking points coined by coal interests

By

Some of the earliest documented instances of opposition to the development of commercial nuclear power in the United States originated from designated representatives of the coal industry. They were the first people to mount sustained opposition to the use of taxpayer money to support the development of nuclear power stations. They testified against the implied […]

Smoking gun: AEC told President Kennedy why coal industry was opposed to nuclear energy

By

It’s been quite a while since my last smoking gun post on Atomic Insights. It may be time to revive the series to remind nuclear energy advocates to follow the money and know their opponents. In the battle for hearts, minds and market share it is always useful to know why vocal opposition exists, but […]

On Germany, coal and carbon

By

By Paul Lorenzini Germany’s nuclear phase-out has an obvious and unavoidable consequence: they will burn more fossil fuels and emit more carbon. They may succeed in lowering carbon emissions using some artifact (comparisons to some historical year) but only a fool would contend that their carbon emissions will be not be higher than they otherwise […]

Dieter Helm – Nuclear saga cannot go on (Leaders must push to a happy ending)

By

Dieter Helm has generously shared an April 2013 article written for Prospect Magazine titled Stumbling towards crisis. In that article Helm points to US energy decision making as a good example that serves as a contrast to UK energy policy making. He sees chosen path in the UK as almost guaranteeing a crisis. In his […]

Does nuclear energy need to do it all?

By

At The Energy Collective, there is an active comment thread on a post titled Is Bill McKibben Really Serious About Climate Change? that has been sustained since March 8, 2013. Recently there was a comment that provided an opportunity to address a frequently expressed meme that is often used by people who oppose the use […]

Visual – How much material does it take to run a 3,600 MWe coal plant

By

Utility companies that operate both coal and nuclear power plants rarely use the important communications techniques of comparison and contrast to help people understand the benefits of nuclear energy. There is some business logic behind that policy. I have a different set of interests and am not constrained by a need to protect any particular […]

Coal down, nuclear up – punchy ads from Bruce Power

By

Warning – these ads from Bruce Power might offend those who make their living by selling coal, financing coal, transporting coal, burning coal, mining coal, or selling systems that attempt to make coal cleaner. The general theme of the series is: We’re proud to be nukes! Supplying clean, affordable, reliable nuclear power that empowers prosperity […]

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy