Showing posts with label Nuclear energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nuclear energy. Show all posts

Sunday, May 3, 2026

Vaclav Smil on Nuclear Power Micro Reactors

I can't recall whether it was Doomberg or Robert Bryce who first drew my attention to Vaclav Smil.

Vaclav Smil educates the reader by explaining how interwoven the use of fossil fuels is with the functioning of modern society. He adeptly discusses the challenges with replacing fossil energy with the current generation of renewables (such as PV, wind, the out-of-favor nuclear, and nearly tapped out hydro) due to the scope of the existing infrastructure. This infrastructure cannot be replaced in a decade or two.
--C. Haynam

This author gives in his book what are the four pillars of our civilisation: concrete, steel, ammonia and plastic. It explains in concrete terms the reasons for that. Also, it demonstrate these four pillars depend heavily on fossil fuel. 
--MathEnthusiast

Václav Smil is a prominent Canadian scientist and policy analyst who has written extensively on various topics, including energy, environment, and technological change. His views on nuclear energy are nuanced and reflect a balanced perspective on its potential and challenges. Here are some of the key points he makes on this important topic.

Potential for Clean Energy

Smil acknowledges that nuclear energy has the potential to provide a significant amount of low-carbon energy, which is crucial for mitigating climate change. He notes that nuclear power generates electricity with minimal direct emissions of greenhouse gases compared to fossil fuels.


Technological and Economic Challenges

Smil points out the substantial challenges associated with nuclear energy, including the high costs of building and maintaining nuclear power plants. He emphasizes the economic difficulties, such as cost overruns and long construction times, which have plagued the industry.


Role in the Energy Transition

Smil sees nuclear energy as part of a broader mix of solutions needed for a sustainable energy future. He argues that while nuclear power alone cannot solve the global energy challenge, it can complement other renewable energy sources like wind and solar to provide a more stable and reliable energy supply.


Here is Professor Smil's website. vaclavsmil.com

He's someone with something to say, and he's saying it. 51 books, 500 papers and more. 


Related Links

Vaclav Smil's Made in the USA: The Rise and Retreat of American Manufacturing Is A Humbling Warning

Things People Don't Realize About Wind Energy and Why We Can't Shut Down Oil Production

Small Reactors, Big Potential Impact: NANO Nuclear Microreactors Shaping the Future of Energy Infrastructure

 

Friday, February 21, 2025

Minnesota Energy: Coalition Seeks to Lift Ban on New Nuclear

Today I received this media release from Generation Atomic, a Minnesota group whose mission  is to inspire and empower advocates for a clean future powered by atomic energy.

A coalition of Minnesota's largest labor unions, environmental groups, and business organizations recently sent an open letter to state lawmakers and the Governor, urging them to end the state's 30-year-old ban on new nuclear power development. The Coalition for Minnesota Nuclear, organized by local nonprofit Generation Atomic, warns that the state risks missing a generational opportunity as other states across the country race to attract billions in nuclear energy investment. 

"The science is clear: we cannot address climate change without nuclear power. Minnesota's moratorium blocks meaningful climate action, and if we're serious about protecting future generations, it must be repealed," said Dr. James Hansen, coalition member and climate scientist who famously warned Congress about global warming in 1988.

 

click to enlarge

The Coalition's formation comes as Minnesota grapples with the planned retirement of seven coal units by 2035, including the massive Sherco facility near Monticello. This transition presents both a challenge and an opportunity, according to Eric Meyer, Executive Director of Generation Atomic. "Nuclear could provide thousands of high-wage jobs at these existing industrial sites, which already have transmission infrastructure and cooling water access," Meyer said. "Recent Department of Energy analysis suggests the US will need 700-900 GW of new clean firm capacity by 2050. Minnesota’s share would be about 7 gigawatts – roughly six large reactors' worth of clean, reliable power."

 

The Coalition opposed an earlier unsuccessful Senate bill that would only lift the ban for reactors 300 megawatts or less, written with the rationale that small modular reactors might be cheaper. "When people focus on nuclear costs, they often miss two key points," Meyer noted. "First, it’s experience that dramatically reduces construction costs -- the second AP1000 unit at Georgia's Vogtle plant cost 30% less than the first. Second, when you look at total system costs - including transmission, storage, and backup generation -- a grid with both nuclear and renewables comes in 37% cheaper than trying to do it with renewables alone. This is why, when looking at replacing Sherco's capacity, it might make more sense to build one larger reactor than several smaller ones. We should leave that door open and let the Public Utilities Commission and Utilities figure out what makes the most sense.”


"Over the past 18 months, Generation Atomic has engaged thousands of Minnesotans through community events, including handing out over 5,000 bananas at the Minnesota State Fair to demonstrate natural radiation levels. "When people learn that eating a banana results in a 0.1 microsievert dose -- more radiation than living near a nuclear plant for a year -- it helps put the safety discussion in perspective," said Joe Spartz, who leads Generation Atomic's Minnesota Volunteer Team. "While used fuel requires careful management, the robust containers we use have proven completely safe for decades. The real waste crisis we face is the billions of tons of carbon dioxide warming our planet."

 

Grace Stanke, Miss America 2023 and nuclear engineer brings a unique perspective from across the border. "As a proud Wisconsinite, I'm glad my home state got rid of its nuclear ban years ago," she said. "Nuclear plants create thousands of high-wage jobs while fighting climate change. Come on Minnesota - are you really going to let the Badgers beat you on smart energy policy?"

 

The timing is critical as neighboring states move quickly, in addition to Wisconsin, Illinois, and Kentucky, Montana, West Virginia, and Connecticut have passed laws allowing new nuclear in recent years, while shuttered plants in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Iowa are undergoing or planning restarts. Utah recently established a consortium to develop and deploy new reactors.

 

"While 80% of solar panels come from China, Minnesota's nuclear industry already provides 6,500 in-state jobs and $1.4 billion to our economy," Meyer added. "Federal funding and private capital aren't waiting. Every state that lifts its ban becomes a magnet for investment; every delay makes Minnesota a spectator in its own energy story."


* * * 

I believe energy is going to be one of the most significant issues we grapple with throughout this century. The time to get informed is now. 

Related Story: Is Our Energy Grid At Risk?


For more information about the Coalition for Minnesota Nuclear, visit MnNuclear.Org


About the Coalition for Minnesota Nuclear.

The Coalition comprises over 20 organizations representing a diverse cross-section of Minnesota stakeholders committed to advancing the state's clean energy future through nuclear power development. Members include major utilities like Dairyland Power; twelve building trades unions including the Minnesota Building and Construction Trade Council and Operating Engineers Local 49; influential business groups such as the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and Duluth Chamber of Commerce; leading environmental and advocacy organizations including Citizens' Climate Lobby - Minnesota, Generation Atomic, and Mothers for Nuclear; and notable experts including renowned climate scientists Dr. James E. Hansen and Dr. Kerry Emanuel, as well as Grace Stanke, Miss America 2023 and nuclear engineer. Coalition supporters also include major trade associations representing rural electric cooperatives, commercial real estate developers, and shopping centers across Minnesota. Recently the Coalition joined an allied effort, the Minnesota Nuclear Energy Alliance.

 

Full Disclosure: I became aware of this organization while researching an article last year regarding nuclear power and Minnesota's energy needs for Business North.

Friday, August 2, 2024

An Important Conversation about Global Energy

“Energy won’t end poverty, but you can’t end poverty without energy.”
--Scott Tinker

This past winter while working on an article for Business North (titled Is Our Energy Grid At Risk?) I stumbled across this talk which I conisdered so imortant that I felt compelled to share it. It is titled An Honest & Sensible Conversation about Global Energy by Scott Tinkerhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTfwqvNuk44


What does the future look like for those opposed to nuclear energy? 
What I've learned in reading and talking with people about these matters is that most people take it all for granted. In America, energy is not "top of mind" as a major concern. 


It's become apparent that in this year's election cycle many people are motivated by fear. For many, their perceptions are driven by news media and online social platforms. On the list of top fears we see cyber-terrorism, gun violence, crime, financial instability, personal health issues, environmental pollution, World War, identity theft, government surveillance, climate change and public speaking. 


On my own personal short list, the collapse of our energy grid is right near the top, which I did not see it on any list. Perhaps it's because most Americans are unaware of the fragility of the grid. And why? In part, because mainstream media has been hyping the bright future of solar and wind, EVs and the end of dependency on fossil fuels.


Whle discussing this issue recently with my brother-in-law, he compared our situation to the same illogical thinking as the folks on the Titanic. "Well no, we don't have enough life boats to accommodate everyone but don't worry, that's in our 10 year plan. By the way, the designers say there isn't room for any more life boats anyways, but don't worry, the engineers say it's unsinkable. Now just take your seat and enjoy the ride. We've got this."


Should we ignore the red flags, or get serious about addressing the need for reliable, affordable and safe energy? 


* * * 


Related Links 

Top Issues Americans Are Anxious About

Is Our Energy Grid At Risk? 

Interview with David Watson: Putting Nuclear Power in Perspective

Grid Fragility and a Book by Meredith Angwin

Small Reactors, Big Potential Impact


Friday, July 19, 2024

Is Our Energy Grid At Risk?

Minnesota energy providers say being carbon free by 2040 won’t be easy

On Feb. 7, 2023, Gov. Tim Walz signed Senate File 4, also known as the Minnesota Clean Energy Acceleration Act, pledging to lower greenhouse gas emissions by mandating a carbon-free electricity standard by 2040. Technically, the new legislation is a revision to previous energy targets with an updated renewable energy standard of 55% by 2035. The law also adds new carbon-free benchmarks that also must be met: 80% by 2030, 90% by 2035 and 100% by 2040.

While the new legislation stresses the importance of reliable, affordable and safe energy resources, some energy experts have expressed concerns about the fragility of our energy grid including the North American Electric Reliability Corp. NERC is a not-for-profit international regulatory authority. In its December 2023 Long-Term Risk Assessment report, it placed this region in the highest risk category. It says the “high risk” label indicates that electricity supply resources may not be adequate to meet demand in extreme situations. One reason is the moratorium on nuclear plant construction that has been in place since 1994. Nuclear is one of the only carbon-free alternatives that can always meet demand.


Though there are many challenges on the road ahead. Energy suppliers have been ramping up for the future for a long time. This article seeks to bring a basic understanding of how our energy systems work, the severity of threats and what is being done to ensure a brighter future. 


Understanding the grid

Most people give very little thought to where our electricity originates. We flick a switch and the lights go on. We plug in appliances and electronic devices expecting them to power up. Here’s what we don’t see.


The United States is actually composed of three power grids. The largest runs from the Eastern Seaboard to the Rockies. With the exception of Texas, all of these states are running in sync, interconnected and operating on the same frequency. The Western Interconnect, hugging the Pacific Ocean, is on a separate grid. Texas has a grid of its own.


Within the grid there are Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs), non-profit agencies that manage the electrical markets, acting like a New York Stock Exchange for wholesale power bought and sold on a minute-by-minute basis in its territory. Minnesota is in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator(MISO) region. Spanning parts of 15 states, MISO has two major roles: It balances the load on the large transmission lines within its region and it operates the wholesale power markets. MISO owns no infrastructure.


The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) stands as the overarching regulatory authority governing the entire system, with a mission to achieve “reliable, efficient and sustainable energy for consumers.” In addition to overseeing interstate electricity distribution, the agency regulates pipelines for natural gas and oil, as well as some related facilities and hydropower projects.


The primary aim of energy providers and regulators is three-fold: reliable, affordable and safe energy. In fact, it’s mandatory. Each of these is essential; none can be neglected or compromised. This is one of the primary challenges with which energy providers concern themselves.


Co-ops and utilities

On the state level, energy is delivered through co-ops and utilities. According to Joe Miller, director of communications for the Minnesota Rural Electric Association (MREA), its electric co-ops serve 1.7 million Minnesotans through 44 distribution cooperatives in all 87 counties while operating the largest distribution network in the state with more than 135,000 miles of electric lines. A percentage of these, like East Central Energy and Great Lakes Energy, are member-owned cooperatives. A larger number, like the 3,000 electric customers in Proctor, are served by municipal co-ops. 


The co-ops do not create most of the electricity they deliver to homes and businesses. Rather, they resell power that comes from a multitude of companies that own and operate the power plants, solar arrays and wind farms. 


When it comes to meeting the ambitious net zero carbon targets by 2040, all three primary providers – Minnesota Power, Great River Energy and Xcel Energy-Minnesota – expressed confidence that they are well on their way toward meeting or exceeding the mileposts laid out by state government. 


Kevin Coss, senior media relations representative for Xcel Energy, noted “Xcel Energy was the first electric company in the nation to set a vision to deliver 100% carbon-free electricity. We supported the 2040 legislation and are committed to achieving a zero-carbon future as quickly as possible while also ensuring affordability and reliability. The electricity we currently provide to our Minnesota customers is nearly 70% carbon-free.” Two-thirds of this is from the Monticello and Prairie Island nuclear-powered plants.


John Brekke, vice president and chief power supply officer at Great River Energy (GRE), likewise affirmed that its Minnesota-based member co-ops “will be 90% carbon-free by 2035. We are aligned with that target.” 


Minnesota Power’s Communications Director Amy Ruttledge stated that the Duluth-based utility has been actively moving in this direction for nearly two decades. 


“We were 95% coal-based in 2005. We have since closed seven of our nine coal plants,” she said. Minnesota Power already delivers more than 60% renewable energy to their customers, Ruttledge added. “We’re not starting from scratch. We are actively carrying out objectives.” This includes eventually closing the Boswell 3 and 4 plants, putting out RFPs for  new solar (300 MW) and wind (400 MW) projects and making other investments in the grid. 


“Grid resilience is critical,” Ruttledge said. 


The role of nuclear

“Nuclear energy will play an important role in the clean energy future as a source of ‘always on,’ carbon-free electricity,” said Xcel’s Coss. “Our two nuclear plants have reliably provided Minnesotans with carbon-free energy for about 50 years and currently constitute 28% of the electricity we serve to customers. Neither of the nuclear plants have been scheduled for decommissioning; in fact, we are currently taking the steps needed to extend the operating license of our Monticello nuclear plant and will follow suit with our Prairie Island nuclear plant in an upcoming regulatory filing.” These extensions, after a full in-depth safety analysis that takes years to complete – will allow the Monticello and Prairie Island nuclear plants to remain online until 2053 and 2054, Coss explained. 


In early December, Justin Jahnz, president and CEO of East Central Energy, discussed with BusinessNorth some of the intricacies of this issue. 


“Energy is a complex conversation. At first it seems easy but is quite complicated. One hundred percent carbon free is different from 100% renewable. Wind, which is affordable and prevalent, can cover a lot. We also need capacity. In the next 60 to 90 days there will be cold weather and cold nights. There’s no solar at night and often not a lot of wind. We need to have dispatchable resources.” 


This is where peaking plants currently come in. Natural gas peaking plants are designed to meet temporary peaks in electricity demand. They operate only when the demand for electricity is high, typically for short periods in the heart of winter here or hot summer months in the South. This makes them different from baseload power plants, which run continuously to meet the constant minimum demand for electricity.


“Natural gas is affordable in summer, but expensive in the winter,” Jahntz said. “When needed, it can be dispatched. Reliability trumps everything, and should. But (we) should also be thinking about progress so we can reduce the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere.”


He currently has concerns, however, about meeting the 2040 targets without nuclear. 


“There’s a lot of development around SMRs (small modular reactors). Some organizations are making great progress, and I think there’s a lot of potential. The political appetite here is relatively low.” 


When the 70-year history of nuclear submarines was noted as an example of DMR safety, Jahntz said “a lot of those nuclear reactors were run by the federal government, which does not operate on a financial/economic basis.”


“The biggest misconception people have is this,” said Jahntz. “There is no realistic storage function of the grid. There is a lot of demand volatility. We may see situations where we have rolling blackouts. I don’t think people will put up with that very long.”


The problem, according to Miller, is that both wind and solar are intermittent sources. “And those sources are not controlled by the generation company like all our other sources. The generation company has to adapt to a continuous fluctuation in power generation.”


Additional concerns 

Lake Country Power, a Touchstone Energy Cooperative, serves parts of Aitkin, Carlton, Cass, Itasca, Koochiching, Lake, Pine and St. Louis counties. The co-op provides electricity and other energy related services to nearly 43,000 members in the rural parts of northern Minnesota. With more than 8,200 miles of distribution lines within 10,872 square miles of service territory, LCP is geographically Minnesota’s largest electric cooperative.


Lake Country Power receives and distributes power from its supplier, Great River Energy. GRE is a not-for-profit electricity provider owned by 28 distribution cooperatives in Minnesota and Wisconsin, including Lake Country Power. GRE generates and transmits electricity.


Mark Bakk, general manager at Lake Country Power, expressed concerns about meeting the renewables target in the governor’s energy bill. 


“To me, we’re going to have a problem. If they are really serious about being carbon free, we need nuclear. Right now, the target is 80% carbon-free by 2030.”  The biggest problem with nuclear, Bakk said, is the public’s perception. “We have to get over the fear.” After citing Three Mile Island and Fukushima, he added, “They don’t build nuclear plants that way anymore. There is new technology, including small modular reactors (SMRs) that have been effective for decades.”


Bakk stated that energy distribution is exceedingly complex. “Keeping everything going involves a lot of moving parts. It’s not as simple as people think.”


Storage

In the 15 years that Ruttledge has been with Minnesota Power, she’s found it quite striking how quickly things have changed. 


“This transformation of our industry is amazing,” she said. This applies to every facet, including the challenges.


“Storage is something that is evolving. We’re exploring storage technologies. It’s about being commercially viable and cost effective. Storage will definitely play an important part in this transformation,” Ruttledge said. “We’re continuously investigating these new forms of technology. This transition is happening fast, and storage plays an important part.”


Transmission lines

Transmission lines were another matter addressed in various ways by several energy spokespersons. The rollout of wind farms and solar arrays is taking place in areas not presently serviced by adequate power lines, if there are power lines at all. Even when the technology is ready, permitting can create delays. 


Bakk pointed out that “if you look at the state where we are, the lines are owned by GRE or Minnesota Power. They have open access, the two providers using each other’s lines. Working on a joint transmission project, permitting reform is needed to meet deadlines. Solar panel arrays and wind farms aren’t sited where the energy is used, so more transmission lines are needed, and it all costs money. There are going to have to be changes, common sense changes for reliability and affordability. A better-defined process and better-defined timelines are needed.”


The risk

Returning to the matter of risk, Philip Hult, development coordinator at Generation Atomic, helped explain the dilemma. The best way to understand it is to chart the trajectories of renewables and carbon-free energy, past, present and future. The renewables targets established in 2007 were a set of stairsteps up to the 25% by 2025 which Minnesota providers have done well to exceed by means of wind, solar, small hydro, biomass and trash.  


The new carbon-free standard signed into law in February 2023, which includes all the renewables above plus nuclear, is 100% by 2040 and 55% renewable by 2035. The climb to 55% renewable will be a challenge, but does not seem absurdly out of reach. The leap to 100% carbon-free, however, will be impossible without a lot of firm, dispatchable carbon-free power, many energy experts agree. With the technologies available currently, that means nuclear. There’s simply too great of a gap between the projected decarbonization trajectory and the targets of upcoming years, Bakk and other fear.


The Minnesota mandates appear incompatible. The 2023 mandate can’t be achieved. without carbon-free nuclear power. The 1994 mandate prohibits new nuclear.


Despite the concerns raised and challenges to address, there is a surprising amount of optimism about the future. Jahnz said, “We need to be pragmatic and have conversations about the future of energy in this country. I am confident the legislature will continue to listen and work toward better solutions. I believe our best years are ahead of us. I try to stay politically agnostic. We’re involved in politics but we’re working in the best interest of our customers.” 


--This article originally appeared in the February 2024 issue of Business North 

Saturday, March 30, 2024

Here's What I Learned This Winter When I Wrote About the Power Grid

Trying to stay warm on a chily night.
The first part of the winter I spent time researching the reliability of our energy grid and whether nuclear energy plants might be a solution for meeting the ever expanding electircal needs our country, and especially our state of Minnesota needs. 

Part of my interest stems from the discovery that Minnesota has had a moratorium on new nuclear power plants since 1994 while simultaneously closing coal plants and embracing a net-zero by 2040 carbon policy. Some expert in the energy field believe this 2040 target will be impossible to reach solely by "approved" renewable energy sources --solar, wind, biomass, rivers.

1. Three Grids. Before studying this I believed that the country was made up of a patchwork of grids. In one sense it is, but in another there are only three systems in place. The Pacific Coast has its own grid. Texas is its own grid. The rest of the country operates on the same frequency, which is good because the different regions can draw energy from other regions if on the same system. Texas, being its own system, was unable to pull energy from surrounding grids when it collapsed a couple winters ago. 

2. Contradictory Objectives. Nuclear is safe and produces zero carbon, but Green advocates are opposed to it. For this reason, efforts to lift the nuclear moratorium in Minnesota have failed. Proposals to do so remain locked up in committee and never get a hearing on the floor at the Capitol in St. Paul. As one nuclear expert I spoke with put it, "The belief that we can meet future energy needs by renewables alone and without nuclear is La La Land thinking."

3. Wind and Solar energy are intermittent. They are not within our power to control. Wind is erratic and the sun sometimes hides its face for days on end. Power needs are ongoing day and night. Which lead to this concern...

4. Power Plants generate energy to meet present need. The energy is used as needed. There is no "storage" depot where it gets accumulated for future use. This applies to wind and solar as well. You can't store today's Wind and Solar power for future use when needed (other than for a few short hours).

5. Building new power plants takes twice as long and costs twice as much as it ought to. The reason is primarily caused by aggressive opposition, legal obstacles, red tape. 

6. No one died at Three Mile Island and there was only one death in Fukushima. 36 people die per year from dog bites, and bee stings kill twice as many as that.

In 2022, 10 people died in the United States coal mining industry, which is 10 of 66,172 occupational fatalities.  

7. Fears concerning nuclear waste are overblown. People worry about nuclear waste. In truth, all the extremely dangerous nuclear waste ever produced since the start of our nuclear energy age would currently fit into an Olympic sized swimming pool or (if you prefer) the leaning Tower of Pisa.

How dangerous is the other radioactive material? Consider this: According to SpringerLink, nearly 10 million patients each year undergo radioactive material injection or ingestion in medical procedures. 

* * * 

I learned a lot more than this, but for today these are a few things off the top of my head that I'd not thought about before.

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE:

Is Our Energy Grid at Risk?  

http://www.businessnorth.com/businessnorth_exclusives/is-our-energy-grid-at-risk/article_8c762ece-c44b-11ee-a7e0-4f412ac3356d.html

Popular Posts