Nuclear Energy Series - Part III
Photo Credit: deankeller

Nuclear Energy Series - Part III

I took this photo in Cleveland . . . images like this have us all focused on the energy transition. 

The key points of this third post on #nuclear energy are

(i) new fission technologies need to be guided in every way by economics,

(ii) government funding is insufficient to solve our carbon challenges, and

(iii) the energy transition must include cost-effective molten salt fission technology designed with the elements below.  

Government doesn’t have enough money. It is unrealistic to rely on government to solve our massive decarbonization needs. The approximate $1.5 trillion provided by government has resulted in less than 10% of U.S. electricity from renewable sources.  Accordingly, we estimate that it would require up to $20 trillion from government to achieve the 100% renewable standard (and this excludes the multiples of this amount required from private capital).  Globally, the U.S. accounts for approx. 15% of all electricity use. It would require more than $100 trillion from governments to get to 100%. That is greater than global GDP in 2022. Functioning economies can support this kind of capital spending if there are adequate economic returns.  Governments cannot.  

Economically viable baseload fission alternatives are necessary to solve this. 

Key elements of a properly designed molten salt plant that create cost savings, value and safety are: 

·       Produce heat and not just electrons.  Fission reactors should be used not just to produce electricity, but also heat for industrial purposes. The molten salt reactor will be able to provide high temperatures . . . heat more than 580° Celsius that can be used for important industrial purposes to replace coal-fired generation . . . for the petrochemical industry, manufacturing, green fuel production (ammonia / hydrogen), etc.  By way of reference, this technology delivers electricity generation 50% more efficiently than conventional nuclear.  More efficient and more uses means greater economic value. 

·       Low pressure.  Another benefit of a molten salt system is that it operates at a low pressure.  Conventional light water reactors operate at very high pressure.  This is a huge basis for reducing not only the cost of the facility but also almost every safety aspect of a nuclear facility.  

·       Use existing fuel technology.   At least one molten salt technology uses available SALEU fuel instead of HALEU. HALEU currently has no path to readily available and scalable production, and efforts to scale rely on the U.S. government support given its higher concentrations.  Available fuel, and not the billions that need to be spent on HALEU domestic production, means less cost.

·       Separate fission activities from generation activities.  The ability to separate fission reaction activities completely from the generation of electrons is critical to reducing costs. What I mean by this is something as simple as having the generation and non-nuclear steam systems located approx. 200 yards away from the fission activities.  We all know what happens when the NRC and other regulators are involved in nuclear plant operation.  This separation reduces costs and increases design flexibility.   

·       Economies of scale.  Big global problems require large solutions.  In the United States, we consume more than 4.0 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity.  We can’t economically affect change 25 megawatts at a time, or solely with intermittent renewable resources.  Molten salt reactors can provide more than 400 megawatts of capacity at each 15-acre site.  With scale comes economies of scale and more compelling economics. 

·       Quickly dispatchable power.  Molten salt fission technology can also ramp quickly both up and down.  This is becoming increasingly important for the growing instability in our electricity grids (think intermittent renewables), but also due to carbon pressure being exerted on coal-fired and natural gas-fired generation.  More flexible and immediately dispatchable generation creates additional economic value.  

Thanks to Kilty Nolan Mahoney, Malida Tadesse and our team at Independence Point Advisors for their partnership with me on these posts.  

#energy #renewableenergy #sustainability #nuclear

Samantha Katz

Champion of Inspiring Leaders

1y

"we estimate that it would require up to $20 trillion from government to achieve the 100% renewable standard (and this excludes the multiples of this amount required from private capital).  Globally, the U.S. accounts for approx. 15% of all electricity use. It would require more than $100 trillion from governments to get to 100%, greater than global GDP in 2022." - this is a really thought provoking piece Dean Keller Kilty Nolan Mahoney Malida T. We are certainly going to need a diversified portfolio of energy and climatechange solutions to thoughtfully navigate this energy transition & ensure the economic and energy security of this nation. To do so thoughtfully - we should be #crosssectional in our thinking - utilizing the combination of #investing forces in #government #business #philanthropy. cc: Independence Point Advisors Anne Clarke Wolff Made Me Think of You: Frank Harris Thomas Chiomento Matthew Cordaro Tagwongo Obomsawin Andrew Ertel Alexandra Penny Paski Katherine Ryzhaya Marco Terruzzin Timothy O'Connor Teresa Ho Kim karen choi (Re: WIP) Nicole Shaughnessy Toby Tiktinsky Bob Perciasepe Curtis D. Ravenel Antha N. Williams

To view or add a comment, sign in

Insights from the community

Others also viewed

Explore topics