Nuclear Power

[Crafty_Dog]

The U.S. Needs a Nuclear Energy Makeover
Bipartisan legislation in Congress could make it easier to deploy reactors and reduce waste.
By David T. Stevenson and Robert M. Bauman
March 29, 2024 4:36 pm ET



Bipartisan legislation moving through Congress could solve America’s nuclear-waste problem and make it easier to deploy nuclear reactors, propelling the U.S. toward a clean-energy future.

Nuclear fuel rods, which power reactors, have life spans of only 18 to 24 months. Yet once they’re removed from their reactors and placed into on-site cooling ponds, they still retain more than 90% of their potential energy. The U.S. every year generates some 2,000 metric tons of this spent nuclear fuel and has accumulated more than 80,000 metric tons in the past 50 years.

France derives about 17% of its electricity from recycled nuclear fuel. The U.S. has mistakenly passed on making use of its own. Our current pile of spent fuel rods contains enough energy to power the nation’s electric grid for about 100 years, according to a projection from nuclear researcher Jess Gehin at Idaho National Laboratory, as reported by CNBC.

Enter new small modular nuclear-reactor technology, which could be a game-changer in repurposing nuclear waste. This technology burns spent fuel in fast, high-temperature reactors, while requiring refueling only every nine years or so, lowering power-plant downtime. This approach would substantially reduce the volume of stored waste and the time that waste would have to sit in storage.

Congress is getting wise to the issue. The House on Feb. 28 passed the Atomic Energy Advancement Act, co-sponsored by Reps. Jeff Duncan (R., S.C.) and Diana DeGette (D., Colo.). The bill would expedite the approval process for the next generation of nuclear power plants and change how the U.S. processes nuclear waste. It would also offer a financial incentive for the first licensed project using recycled fuel. The Senate has put forward a similar bill: the Advance Act of 2023, co-sponsored by Sens. Tom Carper (D., Del.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R., W.Va.).

These bills reflect an important reality: Nuclear waste is waste only if we don’t reuse it; otherwise, it’s unspent nuclear fuel with great potential.

According to the Energy Department, the U.S. derives 19% of its base-load electricity from an aging fleet of 92 nuclear reactors, whose service life may extend only another 20 years. In the past 30 years, only two new reactors have come online. Intermittent wind and solar power can’t scale and won’t be able to fill the void when the reactors are spent. Other than expanding fossil-fuel power plants, the only viable alternative is the rapid development of new small modular nuclear reactors.

The House and Senate bills offer special incentives for project developers to install new small modular nuclear-reactor technologies at existing or retired nuclear sites—which have trained personnel and distribution infrastructure for connection to the electric grid—and on brownfield land. We suggest installing these technologies at military bases, which also need microgrids to enhance resiliency and readiness.

The U.S. lags far behind its global competitors in nuclear energy. Along with our aging fleet, we have an aging workforce that will retire soon. We predict that the potential for new reactors will draw a new generation of skilled workers into the industry. The Atomic Energy Advancement Act and the Advance Act are positive but insufficient steps forward. To accelerate development in the next decade, we will need more funding along with a multiyear, multiagency commitment—akin to what it took to put men on the moon.

We suggest that Congress also pass legislation enabling dollars from the existing Nuclear Waste Fund to be repurposed for recycling. The U.S. government ought to prioritize nuclear power using spent fuel, which will prove essential to preserving our way of life, building a clean-energy future and ensuring our future prosperity.

Mr. Stevenson is director of the Caesar Rodney Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment. Mr. Bauman is the president and CEO of Trusted Systems Inc.

[Crafty_Dog]

Looks like the chickens are coming home to roost , , ,


==========
FO

(4) RUSSIA URANIUM BAN TO DRIVE UP LONG-TERM NUCLEAR ENERGY COST: President Biden is expected to sign the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act, which will ban Russian enriched uranium imports, which make up 24% of foreign uranium fuel imports.
Nuclear fuel market research firm UxC president Jonathan Hinze said the spot price of uranium fuel could jump as much as 20% if the Biden administration does not continue waivers for Russian uranium fuel imports.

According to Energy Information Administration data, U.S. sources account for only 5% of uranium fuel deliveries to U.S. nuclear power generators.

Why It Matters: Uranium fuel contracts are negotiated years in advance. However, this will very likely contribute to increasing energy prices as uranium fuel prices increase. Russia could retaliate with an immediate export ban to the U.S., undermining likely Biden administration plans to continue Russian uranium import waivers. This will likely spur domestic uranium mining and enrichment development, but this could take years. In the meantime, many coal power plants are slated to shut down by 2030 when new EPA emissions rules require coal plants to implement carbon capture technology or shut down. – R.C.

[Crafty_Dog]

(1) BIDEN NUCLEAR GROUP TOO LATE TO FIX POWER SHORTAGES: The Biden administration announced it will form a nuclear power expert group to support the buildout and prevent construction delays of new nuclear power plants.

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, multiple U.S. utilities are considering building new large-scale nuclear reactors, and some states are beginning construction of small modular nuclear reactors.

Why It Matters: This push for nuclear reactor construction is too late to address coming power shortages. Small modular nuclear reactors that are already planned are not expected to come online until at least 2030, and any new large-scale nuclear reactors would very likely take significantly longer. This is an indicator that the Biden administration is aware of the coming power shortages, higher prices, and grid fragility and is scrambling for a solution. However, large-scale nuclear plants have a high upfront cost and a long construction timeline, and they commonly go over budget and past schedules. This new initiative and the Biden administration’s “grid enhancing” push are very unlikely to positively impact power shortages in the next few years. – R.C.

[DougMacG]

This is the definition of cognitive dissonance of the Left.

For 600 Billion Euro less, Germany could have emitted 73% less CO2 to generate the same amount of power.

What is the matter with these people?  Tell us your priorities and do the opposite.

Check the tape, did anyone know this would happen?

The unreliable sources of 'base power', wind and solar, require fossil fuel sources to fill the gaps, which means solar and wind are CO2 hogs compared to the logical alternative.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/08/29/study-quantifies-germanys-disastrous-switch-away-from-nuclear-power/

Study Quantifies Germany’s Disastrous Switch Away From Nuclear Power
2 days ago Guest Blogger 86 Comments
By Ross Pomeroy, Real Clear Science

At the dawn of the millennium, Germany launched an ambitious plan to transition to renewable energy. “Die Energiewende” initiated a massive expansion of solar and wind power, resulting in a commendable 25 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2022 compared to 2002. 

But while Energiewende slashed pollution through building out renewable energy sources, it also phased out Germany’s fleet of safe, carbon-free nuclear power plants, a longtime goal of environmental activists afraid of nuclear’s salient – but in actuality small – dangers. The result, according to a new analysis recently published to the International Journal of Sustainable Energy, has been a boondoggle for consumers and for the environment.

In 2002, nuclear power supplied about a fifth of Germany’s electricity. Twenty-one years later, it supplied none. A layperson might think that cheap wind and solar could simply fill the gap, but it isn’t so simple. Once up and running, nuclear reactors provide reliable, affordable “baseload” power – electricity that’s available all the time. Ephemeral renewables simply can’t match nuclear’s consistency. And since an advanced economy like Germany’s requires a 100 percent reliable power grid, fossil fuel power plants burning coal and natural gas were brought online to pick up wind and solar’s slack. 

The net result of German politicians’ shortsightedness in phasing out nuclear power is a vastly pricier grid. The new analysis shows that if Germans simply maintained their 2002 fleet of reactors through 2022, they could have saved themselves roughly $600 billion Euros. Why so much? Well, in addition to their construction costs, renewables required expensive grid upgrades and subsidies. Moreover, in this hypothetical scenario where nuclear remained, Germany enjoyed nearly identical reductions in carbon emissions. 

Jan Emblemsvåg, a Professor of Civil Engineering at Norway’s NTNU and the architect of the analysis, imagined another scenario out of curiosity. What if the Germans had taken the money spent on expanding renewables and instead used it to construct new nuclear capacity? According to his calculations, they could have slashed carbon emissions a further 73% on top of their cuts in 2022, while simultaneously enjoying a savings of 330 billion Euros compared to the massive costs of Energiewende. 

Policymakers in other countries looking to decarbonize their grids should take note.

[ccp]

interesting and not surprising.

other then she now tells us she was for fracking and said so in 2020 (NO she did not.  She said Joe Biden was for fracking in '20 - NOT herself)

I don't recall hearing much about "climate change" from her.

Trump has opportunity to make it his own instead of calling simply a "scam".

That could reduce the angst of some of the Climate above all else crowd.

And the above is a perfect example of "data" to use as gunpowder.

[DougMacG]

"she was for fracking and said so in 2020 (NO she did not.  She said Joe Biden was for fracking in '20 - NOT herself)"

Right,. They asked her about her positions in her campaign. She said something about being for it in 2000. Her campaign ended in 2019.

The first question they should have asked her, do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?

[DougMacG]

https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2024/08/30/switzerland-reverses-course-on-nuclear-power-n3793870

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx#/

[DougMacG]

https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx#/

I approve this message.    It's time to do this.

[Crafty_Dog]

The Defense Department (DOD) broke ground on the Project Pele transportable nuclear reactor test site in Idaho. The assembly of the final reactor will begin in February of 2025. The DOD will transport the reactor from Virginia to Idaho in 2026. The stated goal is to provide “power to mission-critical DOD operations in remote and austere environments.” (While this is likely to be dedicated to bases in the short term, a successful test would potentially give the U.S. the capability to have a “plug-and-play” nuclear reactor available for energy crises. – J.V.)

[Crafty_Dog]

(1) BIDEN ADMINISTRATION PLANNING NUCLEAR PIVOT: White House climate advisor Ali Zaidi said the Biden administration is planning to reactivate and rebuild decommissioned nuclear power plants to meet growing electricity demand.

According to Zaidi, in addition to Constellation’s plans to restart Three Mile Island Unit 1, planning is underway to restart the Holtec Palisades Nuclear Plant in Michigan.

Why It Matters: The timeline to restart old and build new nuclear power plants is likely too long to avoid shortages beginning in 2025. Bank of America Global Research estimates as much as 300 gigawatts of new power generation could be needed across the U.S. by 2035. And the production capacity of each of these re-started nuclear plants is less than 1GW. The Palisades Plant is estimated to take at least two years to restart, and Three Mile Island Unit 1 is expected to restart in 2028, if there are no delays. – R.C.

[Crafty_Dog]

(3) BIDEN NUCLEAR PIVOT DEPENDENT ON RUSSIAN URANIUM: According to a person familiar with the matter, Constellation Energy received a waiver from the Department of Energy (DOE) to import Russian made high-assay low-enriched-uranium (HALEU).

The DOE awarded contracts to six U.S. companies, including Centrus Energy and Westinghouse this week to develop domestic production for HALEU nuclear fuel.

Why It Matters: The Biden administration’s nuclear pivot will likely be hindered by restrictions on Russian HALEU imports, which began in September and account for about 25% of nuclear fuel used in U.S. reactors. Expanding nuclear power by restarting retired reactors and building new ones will require the Biden administration to waive those restrictions for more projects, or face possible shortages in nuclear fuel. – R.C.

[ccp]

I have been thinking about uranium stocks lately

[DougMacG]

I have been thinking about uranium stocks lately

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameco

[Crafty_Dog]

Some months back I went to look up the Uranium One deal (in which Canadian uranium was very much involved) on which Hillary as Sec State signed off and the huge bucks that Bill brought in from deals with Kazakhstan uranium-- most of it has been vaporized-- the only reference I could find was in a Peggy Noonan piece that apparently was missed by the forces of the Memory Hole.

Also note somewhere in the Africa thread a GPF piece about the role of uranium in the activities of the Russians, French, (and Ukes?) and the interface with central Asia.

[DougMacG]

Some months back I went to look up the Uranium One deal (in which Canadian uranium was very much involved) on which Hillary as Sec State signed off and the huge bucks that Bill brought in from deals with Kazakhstan uranium-- most of it has been vaporized-- the only reference I could find was in a Peggy Noonan piece that apparently was missed by the forces of the Memory Hole.

Also note somewhere in the Africa thread a GPF piece about the role of uranium in the activities of the Russians, French, (and Ukes?) and the interface with central Asia.

Also put the Clinton fiasco blame on Obama, which means the current gang governing.  A Secretary of State should have no power over that.  In some bizarre way, Clintons and Obamas and others traded personal power for personal power at the expense of our national interests.

And as a Left friend just said, Obama really had no scandals!!  And Trump supporters should read more.   What should we read living in Orwell's 1984 with the biggest stories of the day covered - with a pillow - until they stop breathing.

A bigger scandal (perhaps) is these climatistas building no new nuclear power plants 10-15 years ago that would be putting out clean, carbon-free gigawatts right now if they had.

Instead their strategy, right up to the current administration, was/is to starve us out of energy, out of energy use and out of prosperity, instead of building what we will need.

[Crafty_Dog]

Citadel founder Ken Griffin and Amazon are partnering on a $500 million small modular nuclear reactor project with X-Energy in Washington and Virginia. X-Energy said the financing from Griffin and Amazon will pay for 5 gigawatts of power projects expected to come online by 2039. Google said it is investing in 500 megawatts of small modular nuclear reactors from Kairos Power, which will come online between 2030 and 2035.