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 ...
If the promises of fusion power come true in a couple—these goals will be more than met.
agree. those are pretty good. I’ve also seen scenarios where they put them on barges and float them to their destination beside large cities. Indonesia or malasia has a lftr plant that does that. Its currently working its way through the federal labs systems for approvals. I don’t know when that’s due. But the host country is already working on the factory to build the small nuclear reactors.
do you buy the stories about nuclear fusion being available
before the end of the decade?
“does not account for intermittency”
Wow! The chart shows that the lifetime kwh cost from natural gas is a almost 3 times cheaper than coal or nuclear, which are about tied. Nuclear is creeping up. I’d think it would be coming down with more standardized designs being offered.
Not really. Remember that it’s not just ‘it works’, but it must produce far more energy than it consumes. This presents a large number of problems.
Fission reactors are simple. For example, pebble bed just needs you to put radioactive material in ceramic balls. Then when you put the balls in an “egg carton” pattern, they start generating a fixed amount of heat.
Natural gas was the big driver for retirement of coal plants before the greenie insanity arrived. Actually, the big increase in gas is what ignited and drove a lot of the greenie insanity.
The big advantage of gas is you can have combined cycle plants that combine the gas turbine making power (the Brayton Cycle) and a waste heat boiler running a steam turbine (the Rankine Cycle). You get a high peak cycle temperature in the gas turbine and a low exit temperature because of the heat recovery steam generator. Combined, they give you an overall efficiency of 60% to 65% which is way higher than the best coal plant (35%). The utility gas turbines were all derived from aircraft jet engines (”aeroderivative”), so they capitalized on that extensive R&D. The high efficiency keeps the fuel component of the total cost low. Plus, gas turbines can ramp up and down very quickly (more so for “simple cycle” gas turbines without a boiler at the back end). Also, the capital requirement for a a gas turbine is far below the capital required for a coal plant.
The industry has talked about a “gas bubble” for 35 to 40 years, but the supply just keeps growing — at least the supply that various states have not put off-limits with bans on fracking.
“The big advantage of gas is you can have combined cycle plants that combine the gas turbine”
I hadn’t thought of the fact that with natural gas you can drive a turbine directly from its combustion products but with coal you have to make steam to drive the turbine.
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.