US Unveils Plan to Triple Nuclear Power by 2050 as Demand Soars

[FBaggins]

* Biden White House aims to see capacity rise by 200 gigawatts
* President-elect Trump has offered support for new reactors

President Joe Biden’s administration is setting out plans for the US to triple nuclear power capacity by 2050, with demand climbing for the technology as a round-the-clock source of carbon-free power.

Under a road map being unveiled Tuesday, the US would deploy an additional 200 gigawatts of nuclear energy capacity by mid-century through the construction of new reactors, plant restarts and upgrades to existing facilities. In the short term, the White House aims to have 35 gigawatts of new capacity operating in just over a decade.

...snip...

The strategy is one that could win continued support under President-elect Donald Trump, who called for new nuclear reactors on the campaign trail as a way to help supply electricity to energy-hungry data centers and factories.

The nuclear industry — and its potential resurgence — also enjoys bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, culminating in the July enactment of a law giving the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission new tools to regulate advanced reactors, license new fuels and evaluate breakthroughs in manufacturing that promise faster and cheaper buildouts.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-12/cop29-us-has-plan-to-triple-nuclear-power-as-energy-demand-soars

[Think. Again.]

1. Let's hope the fossil fuel industry runs out of money...

...to keep fighting against all of the non-CO2 emitting energy technologies.

Soon.

[FBaggins]

2. Not sure they're going to need to

It's far from ideal from an environmental perspective - but it works from an economic perspective.

The new administration wants them to "drill baby drill" and sell the stuff overseas. Less demand at home (shifted to nuclear) means more for export.

[Think. Again.]

3. The CO2 situation is global...

...so any reduction in emissions anywhere on the planet is good.

And yes, nuclear does have environmental drawbacks (at least until we figure out what to do with spent nuclear fuel), every ebergy production technology does have drawbacks, but those drawbacks are nowhere near as immediately and severely damaging as continued CO2 emissions.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. OK, I'm convinced

How fast can you build this nuclear-powered paradise? Because we need dramatic change now.

We’ve got all sorts of exciting new plants in the design stage (they’ve been in the design phase for decades.) We had a go at small modular reactors (like monolithic reactors, it went way over budget, and way behind schedule, although this time it was eventually cancelled.)

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuscale-power-uamps-agree-terminate-nuclear-project-2023-11-08/

[FBaggins]

17. France and China demonstrated that it can be very fast

But the plan laid out in the OP strikes me as being as optimistic as is plausible- and we will likely fall short

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. EDF seems to have lost their mojo

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/edfs-nuclear-project-britain-pushed-back-2029-may-cost-up-34-bln-2024-01-23/

EDF's UK Hinkley Point nuclear plant start date delayed again, costs mount
By Forrest Crellin, Benjamin Mallet and Nina Chestney
January 25, 202412:02 PM EST

PARIS/LONDON, Jan 23 (Reuters) - (This Jan. 23 story has been corrected to say 35% more steel was required, not 70%, in paragraph 13)

French utility EDF on Tuesday again pushed back the start date on its long-delayed 3.2-gigawatt (GW) Hinkley Point C reactor plant in Britain to at least 2029, with a new estimated cost of between 31 billion and 34 billion pounds ($43 billion) based on 2015 values.

The project in southwest England, Britain's first new nuclear plant in more than two decades, was at the last update expected to start operations in June 2027, with an estimated cost of 25-26 billion pounds, which also was a revision of a previous 2025 start date at a cost then estimated at 18 billion pounds. EDF had initially said it would be powering British homes in 2017.

EDF said that the new target date is based on current productivity goals as the company shifts to the ramp-up of electro-mechanical work, following the installment of the dome on unit one in December.

…

If the French cannot build a reactor on schedule, what makes you think the American nuclear industry can? Perhaps it was the stunning success of Vogtle?

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/southern-cos-long-delayed-vogtle-unit-4-nuclear-reactor-enters-commercial-2024-04-29/

Southern Co's long-delayed Vogtle unit 4 nuclear reactor enters commercial operations
By Reuters
April 29, 202411:55 AM EDT

April 29 (Reuters) - Southern Co's (SO.N), opens new tab Vogtle unit 4 nuclear reactor has entered commercial operation after years of running behind schedule, the utility firm's Georgia unit said on Monday.

The Vogtle two-unit expansion project near Waynesboro, Georgia has been hailed as a major milestone for the U.S. nuclear power industry as they are the nation's first large-scale nuclear reactors in decades. Vogtle unit 3 had entered commercial operation in July 2023.

…

When Georgia approved the Vogtle expansion in 2009, the two reactors were expected to cost about $14 billion and enter service in 2016 and 2017. However, along with the delays, the costs have ballooned to $30 billion.

…

Maybe it was the NuScale triumph? Small Modular Reactors are supposed to be quick and easy to install making their power cheap in comparison to projects like Vogtle:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuscale-power-uamps-agree-terminate-nuclear-project-2023-11-08/

NuScale ends Utah project, in blow to US nuclear power ambitions
By Timothy Gardner and Manas Mishra
November 9, 2023 1:19 PM EST

…

NuScale Power said on Wednesday it has agreed with a power group in Utah to terminate the company's small modular reactor project, dealing a blow to U.S. ambitions for a wave of nuclear energy to fight climate change and sending NuScale's shares down 20%.

…

NuScale's Utah plant was expected to be the first SMR to win a license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for construction. But NuScale said it appeared unlikely the project will have enough subscription to continue toward deployment.

NuScale said in January the target price for power from the plant was $89 per megawatt hour, up 53% from the previous estimate of $58 per MWh, raising concerns about customers' willingness to pay.

An Energy Department spokesperson said it was unfortunate news, but added, "We believe the work accomplished to date on CFPP will be valuable for future nuclear energy projects.

…

As for China, they’re deploying wind and solar much faster than nuclear power:

[hunter]

4. Meeting the new electricity demands of Artificial Idiocy, spyware, cryptocurrencies, etc., isn't enough.

Replacing ALL fossil fuel power plants with nuclear power plants ought to be our immediate goal.

The most environmentally destructive and potentially dangerous hydroelectricity plants need to be taken down too.

[FBaggins]

5. True enough... but only so much can be done in 25 years

It isn't just the herculean task of constructing hundreds of reactors when our recent experience has been years of delay... it's ramping up the education and training necessary to have the competent workforce to operate them.

I wouldn't be opposed to a plan that said we would continue at the 10-15 GW/year pace for a decade or two after that as well... but I think it would be near miraculous to hit that stride in the next decade

[hunter]

6. It could be accomplished quickly if we took the threat of global warming seriously.

Threatened by Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany we were able to transform the U.S.A. economy rapidly at the beginning of World War II. The threat of global warming is as dire or more so.

I hate to imagine what the U.S.A.'s "Pearl Harbor" of global warming will be, especially if it occurs under the Trump administration.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. James Hansen et al: Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?

https://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874282300802010217

The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2008, 2, 217-231

…

Present policies, with continued construction of coal-fired power plants without CO₂ capture, suggest that decision-makers do not appreciate the gravity of the situation. We must begin to move now toward the era beyond fossil fuels. Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions, for just another decade, practically eliminates the possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects.

The most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture CO₂, is Herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II. The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable.

…

(Your analogy was made more than a decade and a half ago. At this point, the task is much more difficult.)

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. Let's see, "Pearl Harbor" some dramatic event to wake people up

Nope…

[GoreWon2000]

7. Nuclear power is not green

No one has figured out what to do with the toxic nuclear waste. My engineer father with bachelors and masters degrees in engineering and more than 40 years of aviation and automotive engineering work experience taught me this.

[FBaggins]

8. Your engineer father can be forgiven his error

Not much aviation/automotive engineering involved in the debate.

Nothing is entirely green. This is the greenest non-malthusian path forward.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. "greenest non-malthusian path"

If we could build nuclear plants that fast (I’m afraid we cannot) that will not release us from our “malthusian path.”

If we could eliminate all carbon emissions today, there is already far too much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (“warming in the pipeline” to borrow a phrase.)

https://www.climate.gov/media/14599

This graph shows the heating influence caused by the major human-produced greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (gray), methane (dark purple), nitrous oxide (medium purple), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs, lavender), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs, blue), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs, light blue). Relative to conditions in 1750, today's atmosphere absorbs more than 3 extra watts of energy per square meter of Earth's surface. Graph by NOAA Climate.gov based on data from NOAA Global Monitoring Lab. For the complete list of chemicals in the CFC, HFC, and HCFC groups, see Figure 3 in the Full AGGI Report.Graph by NOAA Climate.gov based on data from NOAA ESRL.

[GoreWon2000]

13. Your schooling and work credentials on this issue are?

It's the aviation and automotive engineers who will build the cars and airplanes that will run on hydrogen. It was part of my engineer father's job to know how every aviation and automotive fuel is formulated and refined from crude oil. My engineer father well understood that the world had to stop burning fossil fuels. My engineer father's original inspiration for realizing that green hydrogen is the solution was the space shuttle which ran on liquid hydrogen and oxygen?

[FBaggins]

14. Physics - and standing a watch or two on an LA class sub

Not saying your father wasn’t in a useful career - just not one that adds to a nuclear power debate.

Oh… and the space shuttle’s hydrogen came from fossil fuels and was “grey” at best. But you can get “green” hydrogen and oxygen from nuclear power if that’s what you want.

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. A minor quibble

Hydrogen produced by nuclear power is typically not considered “green hydrogen" since nuclear power is not renewable. That being said, nuclear power has long been considered a good way to produce hydrogen.

Here in NY, hydrogen is already being produced at a nuclear power plant at a demonstration scale.

Constellation Starts Production at Nation’s First One Megawatt Demonstration Scale Nuclear-Powered Clean Hydrogen Facility

State-of-the-art facility will demonstrate the value of producing hydrogen with carbon-free nuclear energy to help address the climate crisis

OSWEGO, NY (Mar. 7, 2023) — Hydrogen production has commenced at the nation’s first 1 MW demonstration scale, nuclear-powered clean hydrogen production facility at Constellation’s Nine Mile Point Nuclear Plant in Oswego, New York, an advancement that will help demonstrate the potential for hydrogen to power a clean economy.

When produced at scale, clean hydrogen can be used to make next-generation energy for otherwise hard-to-decarbonize industries like aviation, long haul transportation, steelmaking and agriculture. Last year, the US Department of Energy (DOE) approved moving forward with construction and installation of an electrolyzer system at Nine Mile Point with an award of $5.8 million.

“Hydrogen will be an indispensable tool in solving the climate crisis, and Nine Mile Point is going to show the world that nuclear power is the most efficient and cost-effective way to make it from a carbon-free resource,” said Joe Dominguez, president and CEO of Constellation. “In partnership with DOE and others, we see this technology creating a pathway to decarbonizing industries that remain heavily reliant on fossil fuels, while creating clean-energy jobs and strengthening domestic energy security.”

The clean Hydrogen Generation System operating at Nine Mile Point uses 1.25 megawatt of zero-carbon energy per hour to produce 560 kilograms of clean hydrogen per day, more than enough to meet the plant’s operational hydrogen use. It will also help set the stage for possible large-scale deployments at other clean energy centers in Constellation’s fleet that would couple clean hydrogen production with storage and other on-site uses.

.…

[FBaggins]

16. True enough - I was using it the other way and was too cute

“Pink/purple” hydrogen is every bit as green as “green” hydrogen to me (and seemingly a rapidly growing majority). But I suppose that begs the question

[GoreWon2000]

19. Physics not comparable to aviation/automotive engineering

No where in physics do you learn about the composition of fuels and their relationship to transportation. My engineer father because of his decades of engineering work experience well understood these realities. You still don't understand that you don't need fossil fuel to generate green hydrogen. Why do you think NASA is looking for water on the Moon and Mars? It's to be able to extract the hydrogen to make fuel to use for long distance interplanetary space travel. So sorry but you don't have the engineering work experience to know what fuel formulations are best for transportation. BTW, in addition to being dangerous as in 3 mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear power isn't green because no one has figured out how to dispose of the toxic nuclear waste.