Posted on 12/03/2023 6:37:51 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
The U.S. and 21 other countries want to triple the global generation capacity of nuclear power by mid-century. The pledge, announced at the United Nations’ COP28 climate summit in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, comes as more of the world’s governments say increased use of nuclear power is critical to reduce emissions of carbon and combat climate change.
Countries involved are the U.S., Canada, the UK, France, South Korea, and the UAE. Officials have said increasing nuclear power in Europe would help European nations reduce dependence on oil and gas from Russia, while conceding it will require major investment. Data from nuclear power analysts has shown that in countries with the most nuclear power capacity, many projects over the past several years have experienced delays and cost overruns.
Unit 3 at [Georgia Power's] Plant Vogtle came online this summer, seven years after it originally was expected to begin service. Unit 3 is the first newly-constructed nuclear unit in the U.S. in more than 30 years. Unit 4 at Vogtle is expected to enter operation in the next few months...two units surpassed $34 billion—more than double original estimates.
Craig Piercy, executive director of the American Nuclear Society said about the “Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy”: “On behalf of America’s nuclear professionals, we applaud the historic commitment made today by the U.S. and 21 other countries to tripling global nuclear energy production by 2050. This is real, tangible climate action in meeting the world’s clean energy needs. Tripling the world’s nuclear energy supplies by 2050 is the catalyst required to halt rising temperatures and achieve a sustainable future while lifting millions out of poverty.”
The International Atomic Energy Agency reported that global nuclear power generation capacity was about 371 GW at the end of 2022, with 411 reactors in operation.
(Excerpt) Read more at powermag.com ...
"...the cost to build the two nuclear units at the Vogtle Station has surpassed $34 billion—more than double original estimates."
SEVENTEEN BILLION per unit? That is staggering. That's 17 times higher than when I entered the power industry in 1973.
Good luck expanding nuclear power generation in the USA with those unit prices.
I haven't run the numbers, but I suspect that even tripling the world's nuclear power output by "mid-century" (say, 2040-2060) will be too late to make up for the insane electrification push and the insane, premature shutdown of fossil plants.
I did run some quick numbers to understand the price of this global expansion using the reported Plant Vogtle capital costs.
| Capacity | GW |
|---|---|
| Global nuclear capacity 2023 | 371 |
| Retirements by 2050 (guess 40%) | 148 |
| Capacity after retirements (2050) | 223 |
| Capacity goal (2050 - 3X 2023) | 1,113 |
| Additions (expansion plus replace retirements) | 1,336 |
So how much will that cost?
| Costs | Value | Units | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vogtle 3 & 4 output (two units) | 2.5 | GW | |
| Vogtle 3 & 4 price | 34 | $ billilon | |
| Vogtle 3 & 4 unit price | 13.6 | $ B / GW | |
| Global Expansion price | 18,170 | $B |
That is an $18 TRILLION investment.
“Countries involved are the U.S., Canada, the UK, France, South Korea, and the UAE. Officials have said increasing nuclear power in Europe would help European nations reduce dependence on oil and gas from Russia”
I guess no one told these clowns that RUZZIA is the nuclear fuel capital of the world.
The silver lining may be that huge projected electrical loads from EVs aren't going to materialize as quickly as feared, because consumers are figuring out that they're not a good idea. (Yet, maybe it'll get better in time.)
Now if we can just get China to switch from coal to nuke, they can start to reduce the godawful air pollution in their cities. But they have to generate huge amounts of power in the meantime, so coal.
“...Tripling the world’s nuclear energy supplies by 2050 is the catalyst required to halt rising temperatures.”
* * * * * *
These are merely code words to please the feelings of all the greenies and climate alarmists out there.
Finally, there’s a sense out there that windpower and solar panels are not enough to provide the power needed.
Ford and GM’s recent decisions to tank their electric car production (because almost nobody wants these cars) also helped push thinking the right direction.
Maybe — just maybe — things are headed in the right direction.
One needs to understand how long it takes to build a nuclear power plant from planning to completion including government permits. It is quite an undertaking. 2006 - 2023 or about 17 years.
From wikipedia -
“On August 15, 2006, Southern Nuclear formally applied for an Early Site Permit (ESP) for two additional units [units 3 &4], and on March 31, 2008, submitted an application for a Combined Construction and Operating License (COL).”
This entire exercise will be fun to watch. On one side we have the Climate Greenie Weenies stopping glow-bull warming and on the other we have the Anti-Nuke Greenie Weenie crowd who thinks every nuclear plant will be 3 mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukushima.
Greenies eating themselves. PRICELESS!!!
Idiots.
We could have done this 30 years ago, but nooooo!
Time to re-release “The China Syndrome”? 🤣
As always, the devil is in the details.
In the US, nuclear power was pretty much only giant commercial generating stations connected to the power grid.
However the technology today *can be* different. There are “pebble bed” reactors that are much smaller, but generate less power. There are also small reactors that can only power say, an industrial district. A dozen companies are working to create a marketable one.
A fave of mine is a self contained, factory sealed reactor about the size of a shipping container. Placed in a concrete pit with a lid, it provides power for high consumption mostly residential use, for a limited period of time. When it is used up, the lid is opened, and the reactor is lifted to a flatbed truck to be returned to the manufacturer for repair and refueling, and a replacement reactor is left in its place.
And where did you get THAT idea? If you meant uranium mining, Kazakhstan leads by a country mile, and Muskovy isn't even in the top five.
I don’t care what other countries do. For the US to be strong and powerful, we need Nuclear power, enough to power the grid for say 500 million people, and use coal for smelting steel for the world, and sell to China. We can keep mining coal for our miners, and sell it to anyone we can.
Chinese coal may be less harmful in the long run than Chinese tofu dreg nukes.
THORIUM. Safer by far, and almost no high-level waste. Look it up.
With the brilliant offshoring and outsourcing of the DC Globohomo Regime that you love, it is dependent on Russia processed nuclear fuel. It is unsanctioned.
What is truly sad about all of this is the China Syndrome was a fiction movie; so we based our energy policies on a fiction movie. Unbelievable!
The reality of renewables is starting to sink in.
Buy uranium miners.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.