Response to Robert Llewellyn - Fully Charged

Busting a couple of falsehoods in a video from the Fully Charged Channel called : Wind, Nukes, and Oil.

This video is meant as an educational commentary and all borrowed videos, images, and sounds are part of fair-use.

[fullychargedshow]

I like this video, it's great to start a debate like this.
Here's the bit which as always isn't really addressed. Who pays for storing, re-processing and safely managing nuclear waste. Is that included in the capacity factor and cost per kWh? In the UK? Is that paid for by the energy companies who build the power plants? I dont know, I'm asking. Up to know it's always been 'the taxpayer.'
As I have said repeatedly on Fully Charged and elsewhere, I am not against nuclear power generation. Historically it has proven to be a very safe and reliable source of bulk electricity generation with of course one or two glaring exceptions. The waste storage has been another story entirely with truly moronic activities carried out in the past. Dumping thousands of steel barrels of high grade nuclear waste into the sea. What is emerging now, and it's emerging rapidly is a totally different attitude to electricity generation and ownership. Widely distributed, widely owned power generation and storage which, when aggregated, is far safer, cheaper and indeed more democratic that the old model of multi billion dollar single power plants with hugely expensive and wasteful grid connections covering 1, 000's of miles,

[MonMalthias]

It's actually easier to demolish Llewellyn's assertions using his own examples. Why bother with abstract concepts like material intensity when you have real life metrics?

"Sweden will replace its nuclear reactors by 2040 with hydro and wind. Why? Because it's cheaper."
Section 1.8.3:
"Wind energy has a negative effect on prices as there is no fuel cost connected to production. Wind energy may in some cases cause negative prices in hours with low demand. On the other hand, when wind production fall short of expected values, it may be a contributing factor to high prices, both in the Day-Ahead and Intra-day markets"

Section 1.8.4:
"Like wind, nuclear power has negligible fuel cost, but the more stable production profile of the power plants make them suitable for base load production. The prices will be lower the higher the availability of nuclear power and vice versa. Since the nuclear power plants stands for such a high share of the total power balance, unexpected failures may have large price effects. The average nuclear availability rose from 77 percent in 2012 to 80 percent in 2013. The increase in availability had a dampening effect on prices."

Section 1.12: Retail prices
"Retail prices for each NordREG conuntry is shown in figure 30. The retail price level in Denmark turned out to be the highest price level in the Nordic area in 2013. Apart from the autumn season in Sweden, retail prices in Norway and Sweden were the lowest prices during 2013"
(Ergo, the grid with the highest penetration of wind was also the most expensive - Denmark)

Section 1.16.12: Reserves
"In Denmark there are no loads generally classified as special peak load reserves and operational. Reserves are used to cope with disturbances."
This has ramifications for system security. Denmark with the highest reliance on VRE also has little to no system reserve. It is entirely dependent upon Nordpool for balancing and black start.

"Swedish power reserve is formed by Svenska Kraftnät. The reduction part of the power reserve is available for trading on the electricity spot market. The power reserve should gradually transition into a market solution. The power reserve was 1, 726 MW in winter 2012/2013 and 1, 719 MW in winter 2013/2014."
Sweden, in contrast, has ample reserve. More than enough, for example, to cover for nuclear fuel reloading, interconnector damage, seasonal hydroelectric variation, and vagaries of fossil fuel pricing.

"During the late 1990s a unique capacity tax on nuclear power (effektskatten) was introduced. It was initially set at 5514 SEK per MWth per month, and only applied to nuclear power plants, thus penalising them relative to other energy sources. In January 2006 it was almost doubled (at 10, 200 SEK per MWth per month).[9] An agreement struck in June 2016 among other things meant the capacity tax would be phased out by 2019. By then the tax constituted about one third of the cost of operating a nuclear reactor"

And yet! The Swedish grid is cleaner (less g CO2/kWh), more robust (1.7GW capacity reserve), and cheaper than neighbouring Denmark. Llewellyn's contention that Sweden should abandon nuclear would unequivocally result in higher emissions, due to an increased reliance upon natural gas. This is what a study found in 2013: That contrary to Llewellyn's baseless assertion, increased wind penetration would NOT in fact, play well with hydro; and that gas backup would be required instead:
"As the individual turbines of hydroelectricity can be regulated in a fast rate for a single unit, from 0 to 100% in about 10 min 4, it is clear that the back-up system can only comprise of a gas turbine system, the next fastest technology. If nuclear power is replaced by wind the necessary back-up system —burning gas— would lead to an increase of the specific CO2 production of Sweden from 0.023 to 0.034 kg/kWh"

50% increase in carbon intensity for:
Higher prices
Lower reliability (exposes Sweden to seasonal variability)
Reliance on THE most price-volatile fuel - natural gas - which must be imported.

[lordsamich]

1:57 "correct calculations"
The problem with saying the 'correct calculation' lay in what the objective is determined to be. Most calculations that set the goal to replace all of our current electricity demand from wind and solar, are correct. The rub is when we realize that to tackle climate change, we need to electrify everything, space heating, hot water, transport etc. That means multiplying out current electricity demand by at least 3 to 5 times.

[riggald]

@8:30 The UK nuclear fleet has a design life of 30 years, extended on a case-by-case basis to about 40 years. The fleet's lifetime capacity factor is about 60%-70% (lots of them spent the first few years with 25% capacity factors. The best ones have annual capacity factors of ~80% after the start-up period). Torness (one of the stations with the highest capacity factors) is generating at £10/MWh (but it's unclear to what extent that is simply annual running costs, and to what extent it includes the design and build costs (and it's almost certain not to include any of the de-commissioning costs. It's unclear how much of the waste-processing bill is included).

[bobjackson]

Very interesting information. Robert is likeable but not very technical. Nuclear would be even cheaper if they didn't have to deal with so much government red tape.

[notsyort]

In Robert Llewellyn's (partial) defence, your own case is dependent on spurious linear projections. Surely you don't really expect economic fluctuations to occur that way? All those straight lines in the first 5 mins are what i'd expect of a schoolkid-minded journalist. It doesn't matter what organisation came up with them - linear projections are always a red flag to pseudoscience.


Conversely, increases can accelerate hugely, as prices fall and consumers realise competitors to be outclassed. DVDs were introduced in 1997, and had surpassed VHS by 2009. And where are those old VHS cassettes now? DVDs were once new and niche; VHSs are now archaic and antique.

Billions of dollars, pounds, euros, that are currently spent on subsidising fossil fuels, would likely be plunged into renewables and nuclear, if governments realised they'd reached the 50/50 mark, and were now the 'safer' and cheaper option. Also, that shift could happen sooner, or later, depending on prevailing politics. If they started caring about nuclear having the lowest mortality rate, for example.

[pavlinivanov]

This is not the best you can say .
Don’t live in the past !

[StrazdasLT]

I like how your accent makes it sound like its wind turbans instead of turbines.

[thomascheney]

I believe some IEA scenarios have higher renewables in terms of primary energy (e.g 450 ppm scenarios)

[MonMalthias]

"80-90% of its annual budget on nuclear decommissioning" - false.
- Is it the single biggest outlay? Yes. Is it 80-90%? No.



Given experiences around the world with former weapons production facilities - Hanford, Tricastin, Mayak/Kyshtym - weapons waste and reprocessing is more dangerous and more liable to accidents than civilian facilities doing similar work (water is a moderator, and working with WgPu and WgU in aqueous solvents is dangerous work), and the decommissioning (i.e. Sellafield) more complex and expensive. To blend the two together is a deliberate dog whistle to associate the military use of nuclear weapons along with civilian use of nuclear energy.

[FPVREVIEWS]

assuming the same rates for renewables in the future is not realistic.

[joshuasmith]

I live in south Texas, where the solar panels on the house produce 200 kilowatts an hour. I use less than 2000 kilowatts a month. I actually receive a check from the electric company after already building up a $2000 dollar credit.

[claymccormick]

and this is not taking into account burning spent fuel.

[claymccormick]

unless you store it in very large quantities like yacca flats.

[williamarmstrong]

I think the point here is that for some time it will be required to use some fossil type power or fissile system to produce power we need.
Thorium might well be the answer but standard nuclier is not cost effective and has a very high risk when it comes to safety. Then we have to consider the waste it produces.. 47, 000 years + I believe I have read.
Also if you take into account the massive carbon cost of producing the fuel in the 1st place..
Any equivalent investment in renewable systems would give a far better payback and be sustainable as well. A key aspect of renewables is we are not loading our children and grandchildren for many 1000's of generations with a dangerous legacy. .

[rickmorenojr]

Awesome response.  Geothermal can a part too.

[claymccormick]

not true the chinese pile the thorium up in tailing piles near the mines it is heavy and it will not go far even in heavy wind.

[OtisAdonisChad]

There is a need for conducting biopsies and putting it under microsopes for videos like that of Robert Lewellyn's. However, there needn't be a hue and cry over it as if him saying will stop nuclear energy production or propagation. Clearly it won't work not unless the whole humanity changes the way we use energy or how much we waste energy by building infrastructure that generates more heat or needs more heating than is normally really needed for sustainable enjoyable life and needs.
It is not hurting if he can motivate people towards cleaner means of transport or energy generation and it will only help to improve the nuclear industry to look into advancements of technology and bolder implementation and risk taking than may have significant impact on the way nuclear energy is seen worldwide. So if he makes mistakes how does it really affect or matter? The larger picture is to have more and better renewables and perhaps better and efficient and way more consciousness of what or how we humans utilise our resources. Perhaps by the minimalist Gandhian way of living we can understand the true mess up is in our disability to understand needs vs wants and prioritise that in a more profound way. Abstinence and self denial will solve or else we'll face the worst or some generation in future will.

[claymccormick]

most of the high expense is the spent fuel that has only be used to 2 or 4% and can only be reprocessed to use another 2 or 4 % so in the very best scenario is unusable with 92% of the fuel unburnt.

[edwyncorteen]

The whole Nuclear argument hinges on re-using old spent fuels, de-commissioning costs and long term storage of waste are YOU going to pay for this for the next 10, 000 years?? I think not!!

It is already way cheaper to build Solar and Wind generation backed up by storage to cover low generation times, it is the storage option that dramatically increases the efficiency of renewable energy.

Nuclear energy is yesterdays solution!