Nuclear Power Reduces GHGs and Provides Reliable Energy

What’s the problem?

• We need more energy, but from sources not contributing to global warming.
• World-wide demand for energy is increasing, however the vast majority of energy is still produced by fossil fuels. Even though the percentage of renewable energy sources is increasing worldwide, total fossil fuel usage is also increasing, contributing to the rise in GHG emissions. “Global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise reaching record levels in 2022.” (Energy Institute; Statistical Review of World Energy, 2023)
• This chart below shows total world energy consumption by energy source type. Oil, natural gas and coal dominate, providing about 83 percent of total energy source use worldwide.

• The chart below shows worldwide growth in both renewable and natural gas sources and a reduction in both oil and nuclear source uses. Renewables are less than 10 percent of all sources worldwide.

Won’t wind and solar save us?

• Renewables, without storage can not be more than a fraction of a regions energy source.  Even if every house on earth had solar panels and wind generation, you would still need a “reliable source of generation when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.  Claims of 100% renewable (wind and solar) generation is a fantasy, not readily achievable. (Note, individual households can be off-grid and rely alone on a solar and battery storage system. This is infeasible at large scale).
• The renewable energy you buy is not delivered directly to your home. Rather, electricity sourced from wind and solar facilities are fed into the electric grid and are combined with other sources of energy. (E.g., nuclear, hydro, geothermal and GHG producing fossil fuels). 
• Solar and Wind renewable sources are intermittent and relatively unreliable (e.g., they do not constantly produce power), and on average they only produce a small fraction of their claimed output capacity. For example, a 1000 watt panel only produces those watts under ideal conditions; which is a cloudless sunny day for some hours of the day depending on season.
• The impact of intermittent renewables on the energy system is depicted below on a predicted California scenario in 2030 (From: Senate Bill 350 Study, Volume 5 Cost Analysis, July 2016). The chart assumes all nuclear decommissioned in California as planned. Because of so-many installed solar panels there is an oversupply of renewable energy during daylight hours above the level of load (demand for energy). This condition of oversupply is already occurring in California. Note how other sources are called upon (dispatched) to provided energy for when solar (orange/yellow) is not available. Imports of energy provide sources on the shoulder hours (grey). Also note how geothermal is nearly a constant source of energy throughout the 24 hour day.

• Therefore; renewables alone will not reduce GHGs. Other GHG emitting sources of energy are needed and used to provide energy when renewables do not produce power.
• As other states adjacent California become more wind and solar dependent, the problem of solar oversupply will become more prevalent with adjacent states such that they may no-longer be willing to accept California’s excess supply.
• Alternatively, more consistently producing energy sources (geothermal and nuclear) could be relied upon to produce energy.

Aren’t renewables cheaper and better for the environment?

• The answer depends on the overall mix of energy sources within a state or country. The mix must be considered because state and country systems can’t operate off of wind and solar alone.
• A comparison of Germany and France is illustrative: The chart below shows how Germany’s system relies mostly on wind and solar with coal and natural gas as its reliability components. France relies mostly on nuclear and hydro power with some wind natural gas and not much solar.

• Given the large amount of solar and wind in Germany, shouldn’t Germany have the lowest GHG emissions and the cheapest rates?
• The chart below shows that France by far produces less emissions than Germany. How can this be? It is because wind and solar are not reliable sources of energy, rather they are intermittent, and therefore other GHG emitting sources must make up the difference.
• In other words, it doesn’t matter how much solar you install. Fill the planet with solar panels and sans storage, you still won’t have enough power.

• Isn’t wind and solar cheaper? Sunshine is free!
• The chart below shows that France has about 40% lower overall cost of electricity energy than that of Germany. This is because (among other reasons) France has invested in a standardized nuclear plant industry operating nearer to capacity than renewable and provides power reliably 24 hours per day.
• Nuclear power, like geothermal are the most reliable sources of non-GHG emitting energy sources and deliver nearly their claimed output capacity.

• The chart below shows that for every 1 gigawatt nuclear plant output, it would take a four gigawatt renewable to produce an equivalent amount of output over time. Even this overstates renewable capacity as the renewable plants are intermittent and require backup power to ensure reliably available power. In essence, it takes much more land dedicated to renewables to produce an equivalent amount of nuclear power. So in that sense renewables are more costly and damaging than nuclear.

Isn’t Nuclear unsafe and deadly?

• “So called “Clean”, non-GHG-emitting sources include renewables and nuclear. All sources have negative affects and it is difficult to assess relative damage between nuclear and renewables. Construction costs of any large scale renewable or nuclear plant is high. So on an absolute basis the damage of acres of land dedicated to solar, or impact of bird deaths due to wind turbines can be estimated along with a myriad of other damages and compare to a nuclear plant. However, when comparing total damages and costs per per mega-watt-hour of production, it is likely nuclear damages are lower than any other energy source, renewable or non-renewable simply because of its high capacity factor (almost constant usage over its lifetime) and concomitant high total output.
• The cost of productive farm land being converted to solar is not insignificant. China’s Hubei province is dealing with lost food production due to farmers converting farm land to more lucrative solar farms. (Solar Farms Crowd Out China’s Crops, Wall Street Journal, August 3-4, 2024, by Chun Han Wong).
• The chart below shows that nuclear has no more emissions than does wind or solar. Thus, nuclear is less damaging in terms of GHGs.

• The chart below shows that nuclear has few deaths per terawatt-hour, which is on par with, in between that of wind and solar.

• It is perceived that the risks of operating nuclear is greater risk than other renewables because nuclear facilities can melt down like Chernobyl and Fukushima causing death and long term effects. In Fukushima, all deaths were related to the Tsunami. And radiation exposure was small. In the case of Chernobyl, radiation exposure was great causing thyroid and other cancers due to damaged DNA for which damage was correlated with the amount of radiation exposure. However, no multi-generational (trans-generational) impacts have occurred to offspring of those initially exposed to the high levels of radiation.
• Nuclear requires smart regulations to avoid risks.  Both Cheyrnoble and Fukushima had significant design flaws.  The Fukushima radiation leak directly related to the poor placement of the plants cooling system generators next to a low sea wall.  The Chernobyl disaster deaths are due to a lack of a containment dome. 
• Nuclear waste can be recycled into nuclear fuel thereby reducing the life of waste radioactivity. Both Russia and Japan have nuclear plants that recycle unused nuclear materials (waste).
• Large nuclear power plants require extensive cooling, which are often using sea or local body of water for cooling.  This returned of heated water causes environmental damage. Smaller nuclear facilities are more flexible for siting away from large bodies of water as recirculating water systems can be utilized.

Who is receiving the subsidies?

• The vast majority of tax subsidies from Acts passed by the federal government since 1978 has gone to the renewables industry. The federal budget tax subsidy cost for fiscal years 2023 to 2027 is:
  • $230.1 billion to the Renewables Industry
  • $13.5 billion to Energy Efficiency
  • $34.3 billion to Alternative Vehicles
  • $17.8 billion to Alternate Fuels
  • $12.2 billion to Fossil Fuel industry
  • $10.1 billion to Nuclear industry
  • $4.8 billion to Carbon Capture and Sequestration industry
  • (Congressional research Services “Energy Tax Provisions: Overview and Budgeting Cost” updated Feb 26, 2024)   

What to do?

• Challenge environmental organizations to objectively rely on science and to view and report the facts instead of fear mongering. Remember that the fossil fuel industry has funded environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club for them to expressly oppose nuclear power.  I would suspect that the renewable power industry will also do everything they can to protect their government subsidies and financial/market interests and promote negative press about nuclear.  
• You can raise the issue of nuclear power as a solution to GHG emissions to your elected officials. Tell them to research the issue, to rely on facts and not promote fear mongering.
• Re-align subsidies. Too-much is going to the renewables industry relative to the nuclear industry. Providing so much subsidy to the renewables industry distorts market incentives and is helping to create “expensive energy” relative to cheaper market based, non-GHG emitting solutions that will reduces GHG emissions at lower cost to consumers.
• Further, we need a global solution to reduce GHGs: What we do in the United States to shift to renewable solar and wind power will have a negligible impact on total global GHG emissions if other countries continue to develop their economies predominantly using fossil fuels (as shown in chart 1).

References

• United States Government websites: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
• European Union websites: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/nuclear-energy/small-modular-reactors/small-modular-reactors-explained_en#:~:text=As%20they%20are%20smaller%20in,efficiency%20through%20economies%20of%20scale.
• Radiation Exposure to the Thyroid After the Chernobyl Accident —Vladimir Drozdovitch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH, DHHS, Bethesda, MD, United States
• Hannah Ritchie (2020) – “What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?” Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from: ‘https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy’ [Online Resource]