Is the U.S. on the Verge of Becoming a Pre-Civilization?

What would the U.S. be like in a post-energy world? What will it be like if the lights really do go out?

One of the many new things I learned about the power grid this year is how interconnected it all is. That is, our energy grid in the U.S. is comprised of three grids. There is a West Coast grid, a Texas grid and the rest of the country connected in a single grid. Each grid is comprised of power plants, energy distribution substations and lots of power lines.

The more I learned about energy generation the more concerned I have become over the future of life as we know it. Today's Wall Street Journal carries an op-ed titled, The Coming Electricity Crisis. The subtitled expresses my concerns precisely: Artificial-intelligence data centers and climate rules are puusing the power grid to what could become a breaking point. 

But it's not just data centers that are the problem. It's everything. Anther article says the Biden administration's EV mandates are going to bring down the grid because we aren't creating power plants fast enough to meet the need. And why not? We've known for years about this need for more energy. Part of the hangup is NIMBY. Not In My Back Yard.  Part of the hangup is that it takes about 100 times as many regulation clearances to get nuclear plants running as it does other kinds of plants. So it takes twice as long to roll them out, if they can be rolled out at all because of the legal challenges at every level.

Here in Minnesota we are de-commissioning coal plants while maintaining a mandate against any new nuclear power plants.

THE FUTURE
So what will living in the United States be like if the energy grid permanently collapsed? Are you ready? First off, it would be extremely challenging and would lead to widespread disruption and hardship. 

Here's a short list of impacts:

Loss of Basic Services: Lighting, heating, cooling, and refrigeration would cease to function. Hospitals would struggle to operate, and access to clean water could become compromised as water treatment plants rely heavily on electricity.

Communication Breakdown: You can forget about your cell phones, telephones and internet services. 

Transportation Challenges: Once our cars run out of gas, then what? Trains and airplanes rely on electricity in some form. All air traffic control centers would come to a halt. 

Economic Collapse: The economy would naturally suffer due to the inability to power businesses and industries. Production and distribution of goods would grind to a halt, leading to shortages of essential items and skyrocketing prices for what remains available. Where will we get our toilet paper? No more avocados.  

Social Unrest: Food riots? When grocery store shelves are depleted, what then? 

Health Risks: Forget about surgeries. Perishable medical supplies needing refrigeration will disappear.

Alternative Energy Sources: Some people say communities will need to rely on alternative energy sources such as solar power, wind power, or localized microgrids to meet their energy needs. Unless you are already set up, however, few will have the expertise or materials to make that happen.

Government Response: No question the government would likely declare a state of emergency but without media who will hear that? No doubt each political party would likely blame the other party and spend more energy jawboning than accomplishing anything else.

ANTHEM 
Ayn Rand's novella Anthem (SPOILER ALERT) takes place in an imaginary future where the two heroes escape from the "civilized" fallen society and discover in the forest a house from the forgotten past. They are amazed at the contrast between the civilization that preceded their and the one they had been living in, which was supposedly "better."

I've not read the book in 50 years but the impressions it left are still with me today. Here in the U.S. we think life is better than anywhere in the world. Yet our schools are failing, our roads disintegrating, and crime in our cities multiplying like cancer cells in a petri dish. The intangible factor that concerns me most is the loss of our ethical foundations, that is, a common belief in the notions of right and wrong. Machiavellian ethics have more sway over our leaders today than the Biblical virtues or humility, generosity, truthfulness, kindness, mercy and compassion. The moral decay has left us awash in a tidal wave of spew.

Alas.

Getting back to my primary concern: the energy grid... 

"Projections for U.S. electricity demand growth over the next five years have doubled from a year ago. The major culprits: New artificial-intelligence data centers, federally subsidized manufacturing plants, and the government-driven electric-vehicle transition."

And a little further, the editorial board writes:

"Don’t expect the power to come from New York, which is marching toward a power shortage as it shuts down nuclear and fossil-fuel power in favor of wind and solar."

Today, March 29, 8 percent of our Minnesota energy is coming from solar and 23 percent from wind. More than half is coal and natural gas. But we're shutting down the coal. Shouldn't we wait till we have something in place to replace it? 

Nuclear Energy Progress and Regress: A Comparative Status Report

The U.S. nuclear energy movement is being strangled by red tape and regulation. Although we have 93 nuclear reactors operating at 54 nuclear power plants, there are currently only two new nuclear reactors that have been in the works lately, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia. The first just came online and the second will soon follow. 

By way of contrast, many countries are committed to significant growth in this field. I asked Google for details on some of these countries currently experiencing the fastest adoption of nuclear power, and one that has fled in the other direction.

Here is what I learned.

China is one of the world's largest consumers of nuclear power and has been rapidly expanding its nuclear energy capacity in recent years. As of last year China had 55 nuclear power plants in operation, with 22 more under construction, and more than 70 others planned.  

 

Russia has long been a major player in the nuclear energy sector and despite its Chernoble setback, Russia continues to invest in the expansion and modernization of its nuclear power infrastructure. The Russian government sees nuclear power as a key component of its energy strategy and exports nuclear technology to other countries. They currently have 37 operable nuclear reactors with a combined capacity of 27.7 GWe. These reactors are located at 11 nuclear power sites, including a floating plant in Pevek. Russia's nuclear plants generate more than 19% of the country's electricity.

India has ambitious plans to expand its nuclear energy capacity to meet growing energy demand and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. As of February 2023, India had 22 nuclear power plants in operation, with a combined capacity of 6,780 megawatts electric (MWe). India plans to add 18 more nuclear power reactors with a capacity of 13,800 MWe by 2031-32.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has emerged as a significant player in the nuclear energy sector, with the construction of the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant, which became operational in 2020. Thought the UAE government views nuclear power as a crucial component of its energy diversification strategy they currently have only three reactors.

South Korea, as of July 2023, has eight active nuclear plants. The government has proposed adding six more nuclear plants by 2036, and plans to increase nuclear generating capacity to 31.7 gigawatts (GW) by 2036. South Korea also plans to export 10 nuclear power plants by 2030. 

France, as of January 10, 2023, had 56 active nuclear reactors, with 12 of them off the grid. In 2022, France announced plans to build six new reactors, and in November 2023, President Emmanuel Macron said France could build eight new nuclear plants by the end of 2026. France's nuclear power plants account for about 70% of the country's electricity needs.

* * * 

The U.S., on the other hand, seems stymied by numerous handicaps. In 1994 Minnesota passed a moratorium on building nuclear power plants. Even if this were lifted, the turnaround time to get a new reactor online will take ages, it seems. At least we're not going the route of Germany.

Germany at one time had nine active nuclear facilities, including six research reactors and three nuclear fuel cycle facilities. In November 2022, the Bundestag passed an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act to keep the remaining three nuclear power plants in operation for a limited time. On April 15, 2023, the three remaining nuclear power plants shut down, marking the end of Germany's nuclear era.

Those countries actively investing in the expansion and adoption of nuclear power to meet energy demand, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and enhance energy security are to be commended. The world we live in requires energy. Not only are we dependent on energy, we're dependent on cheap energy. 

Of all these things much more can be said. 

Related Links

Interview with David Watson: Putting Nuclear Power in Perspective

Grid Fragility and a Book by Meredith Angwin

Small Reactors, Big Potential Impact

IF ANYTHING HERE IS INACCURATE, PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT

Five Minutes with Joe Heffernan on Nuclear Energy

"The perception of radiation risks is out of whack with the reality."
Wall Street Journal, October 4, 2021

Photo by Patrick Federi on Unsplash

I was first awakened to the possibilities of nuclear energy through a series of Tweets by Michael Shellenberger last year. Throughout his career Shellenberger has been quite vocal with regard to climate issues and environmental awareness. What concerned him was that the warnings being disseminated were being heard as proclamations that "the end is near." This prompted him to write Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All. 

Reading Shellenberger gave me an understanding of the possibilities that lay ahead if we change our way of thinking with regards to energy. The push to eliminate carbon may be noble, but if it leaves our power grids broken, then what? Shellenberger wrote that we can turn to nuclear energy.

These past few weeks I've discovered that developments in the nuclear field have been quietly ongoing for decades, with many smart people striving to ensure that our grandchildren will inherit a safe, healthy planet earth.

Since interviewing Margaret Angwin at the end of September, I've met (through social media) several people with insights related to this topic. Joe Heffernan of Scotland is one of these.

* * *   

EN: You have six years experience in the energy field and have primarily served as a geotechnical engineer. What caused you to become an advocate for nuclear energy?

Joe Heffernan: Around the age of 50 I had a bit of crisis and thought about a change of career.  When I looked around to see what would have the biggest impact on making the world a better place I began to look at nuclear power. The more I looked at it the more I saw what a great world, in my opinion, it would be with more extensive use of nuclear power. I never did change career but my enthusiasm for nuclear power has continued to grow.

EN: We hear people say "trust the science" when discussing global warming, but when it comes to nuclear energy these same people say "ignore the science. Nuclear is not safe." In your opinion, why are the advocates for eliminating carbon so opposed to nuclear?

JH: I think that the reasons that some advocates of eliminating carbon are opposed to nuclear are:

• Many of the NGOs who are most vocal about low carbon have a constituency that is vehemently anti-nuclear.  They know where their pay check comes from and have to keep the faith with their constituency.
• Nuclear power would be very disruptive to the current companies and countries that depend on the extraction and sale of fossil fuels. It is not in their short term economic interest to see nuclear succeed.
  
• People are poor at understanding the concept of 'relative risk'. Based on data nuclear power is the safest form of energy but that is not the perception.
  
• Some people have an attachment to what they imagine is a pastoral existence and nuclear power doesn't fit into that narrative.

EN: It seems like the effort to ramp up EVs has some pretty high hurdles if we don't strengthen our electrical grid. What's your take on that?

JH: I am troubled when discussions about decarbonization seem to only concern themselves with the electrical grid. In rough terms our energy consumption is divided into thirds. One third is electricity, one third is transport and one third is heat. All the conversation about clean electricity ignores around two-thirds of power we consume.  Society's interest in electrifying transport never seems to consider that if we do electrify transport that means the grid will have to practically double in output. I personally feel that electric transport within cities is the way to go as it has good impacts on air quality. But I very much advocate for high density towns and cities where walking, cycling and public transport will work well.

I am a big advocate of Small Modular Reactors. I would very much like to see SMRs used in our towns and cities to provide combined heat and power. Some of that power would be used for public and electric transport rendering the need for private cars less important. This also has the advantage in that it allows power production close to the end use. This reduces transmission requirements. I also believe that this would increase robustness and resilience.

I recognize that changing the layout of towns and cities is a huge challenge.

EN: Will renewable energy -- specifically, solar and wind -- ever replace oil and coal?

JH: In a word no, not if we expect to have a high energy consumption modern life.  Nuclear power can go a long way, in my opinion, to reduce the consumption of coal, oil and methane. I recently finished reading Energy Transitions: Global and National Perspectives, 2nd Edition by Vaclav Smil.  In this book you see that once we start using a source of energy we continue using it forever. As an example, we still use lots of wood and agricultural waste. We will always need oil, coal and methane in my opinion but I would hope we can eventually move away from burning the majority of these materials and use them for chemical feedstocks.

One thing this book brings out is the difficulty of extracting energy from low density sources such as wind and solar. 

EN: If someone were interested in learning more about nuclear energy, are there any books you might recommend?

JH: For me, my entrance drug to nuclear power was Thorium. Therefore I would recommend THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal by Robert Hargraves. He has another book that I expect to read soon. It is titled Electrifying Our World: for climate, for people, with fission

EN: Thank you, Joe, for the book recommendations and your insights on this important issue. 

* * * 

Related Links

One Reason Nuclear Power Has Been Overlooked

Grid Fragility and a Book by Meredith Angwin