The nuclear industry tells us that nuclear power is a reliable
energy source, that it offers "energy security".
Tell that to Belgium and the UK who are seeing significant parts of their
nuclear fleet shutdown. Let’s talk reliability. From January 2011 to October 2013 (most
recent data available), nuclear power’s capacity factor led all sources of
energy. The most reliable renewables, waste and geothermal, clocked in at about
70%, just shy of nuclear’s minimum during refueling outage seasons. Wind and
solar PEAK at 40%, just over half of nuclear’s minimum. (http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=14611).
So yes, Belgium and Britain, nuclear is a reliable energy source.
It's been confirmed that the major damage that shut down Belgium's Doel 4
reactor was caused by sabotage. It’s green because it was a
link in the original article. You can head over to the original and click the
link or you can be lazy and believe what I’m about to say. The sabotage’s only
impact was financial to the company and in no way risked the public’s safety.
Oil was drained from the turbine likely by a disgruntled employee. This
prevents the plant from putting power on the grid but in no way compromises any
of the nuclear systems. Such sabotage could happen at any plant that uses
turbines (coal, gas, geothermal) and is no more serious than a disgruntled
employee damaging company property at any company on Earth. Meanwhile, cracks found in
two other reactors – Tihange 2 and Doel 3 - means they may never reopen.
From the link: “…may need to remain closed until spring or
may even remain shut permanently, VRT reported citing sources.” A few months to
forever is kind of a big range. By the way, saying “citing sources” doesn’t
mean they actually cited any sources. No sources could be found anywhere in the
article. The true answer is that the cracks are almost certainly repairable,
but the company may choose not to repair them depending on the cost and other
factors such as how long the plant is licensed to run. News flash: old plants
eventually shut down and some shut down sooner than others if they weren’t as
well taken care of. This happens with every structure ever constructed. The three reactors
make up over half of the country's nuclear power output.
(Worryingly, there are 22 other reactors around the world that
share the same design as Tihange 2 and Doel 3.) Old plants had minor cracks
that were found by regular inspections. When initial repairs didn’t completely
work, they took conservative action and shut down to better understand the
problem. Other companies have the same design and likely have similar
inspection programs. This is terrifying. I might not be able to sleep tonight.
In the UK, four nuclear reactors – at Heysham and Hartlepool – are out of action
while defects are investigated. A small crack was found in
the boiler of a single unit. The company took conservative action and shut down
all four units with the same design to make sure the rest weren’t also
affected. In other news, 100% of the United States’ solar capacity was out of
action last night while the disappearance of the Sun was investigated. (http://xkcd.com/1391/)
There have previously been issues with nuclear power plants being closed in EU and USA at times of drought because of
water shortages. This is true, but hardly relevant. See paragraph one relating to
capacity factors and the breaking news story above about the sun disappearing.
I hear it’s not even the first time that’s happened.
What
fills the energy gap while these "reliable" nuclear reactors are shut
down? Usually coal and gas.
Belgium
is having to rely on electricity from its neighbours. So much for nuclear power
giving the country energy security. He’s right about this one.
France, Holland, and Germany are known for their lack of security. (See: WWII).
In the
UK, things are much more optimistic. That’s not true. It always
rains and Manchester United can’t buy a win. Renewable energy has come
to the rescue. "Demand is low at this time of year, and a lot of wind
power is being generated right now," said the UK's National Grid.
Electricity supplies have been unaffected. I repeat: “Demand is low at
this time of year, and a lot of wind power is being generated right now.” So
what happens when demand rises and/or the wind isn’t blowing?
What
lessons can we learn here? I haven’t learned anything other than that this
fucknugget is really good using logical fallacies.
Firstly,
the idea that nuclear power is a reliable energy source that offers energy
security is a myth (nope), particularly in a world where aging nuclear reactors are coming
to the end of their lives. Apparently we are now advocating not replacing any
old infrastructure when it comes to the end of its life. That sounds
sustainable.
Secondly,
we see a reversal of the view that renewables need to be supported by nuclear
power. Although nuclear and wind power do not have the same generation
characteristics, nuclear reactors now needing to lean on renewables means the
nuclear industry has a big problem. Only if we cherry pick one
example during from a windy day with low electricity demand.
More and
more nuclear reactors will be closing in the coming years as they reach
retirement age. The nuclear industry simply can't build replacement reactors
quickly or cheaply enough to fill the gap. Actually they can. Most
current reactors have 15-20 years left on their licenses and many will be
applying for 20 year license extensions that will bring the total life of the
plants to 80 years. That’s more than enough time to build replacements. And
since he doesn’t have a source yet again, I’ll show you mine…yet again. A study
by the UK government (the homeland of the sad fellow that wrote this article)
found nuclear to have the lowest lifetime cost of any power source and even
lower capital costs per megawatt than any source of renewable power with the
exception of biomass. (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65713/6883-electricity-generation-costs.pdf)
That's a gap that renewables and energy efficiency can exploit
safely and reliably. We’ve already disproved reliability. As for safety: (http://www.offshorewind.biz/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/UK-Swedish-Academics-Study-Wind-Turbine-Fire-Incidents.jpg) As the recently
released 2014 World Nuclear Industry Status Report says…
[B]ig thermal plants running whenever they're available are
replaced by cheaper-to-run portfolios of renewables (unsubstantiated), mostly
variable renewables, that add up to "virtual baseload"
supply—collectively providing reliable electricity from a shifting mix of
resources. This way of operating the grid is analogous to a symphony orchestra (as
Rocky Mountain Institute's Clay Stranger puts it): no instrument plays all the
time, but with a good score and conductor, beautiful music is continuously
produced. This approach is unfamiliar to traditional utilities, but it works. So the
solution here is to build twice (or more) of the megawatt capacity and only run
half of it at a time. I’ll let you decide if that makes sense.
The wind
across the UK is playing some beautiful music right now. I
personally find wind chimes to be more of a nuisance, but to each his own.
Here we
have yet more reasons to abandon nuclear power. It's not reliable and does not
guarantee energy security. It's not your friend (Other than my best friend
and pet rock, Jerry I don’t know of any other inanimate objects capable of
being your friend) and is going to let you down sooner or later. I think he’s
confusing nuclear power with the Milwaukee Brewers.
No comments:
Post a Comment