Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCXXIII–
We’re Saved! A Nuclear Renaissance Is Upon Us, Part 4.
In Part 3 of this multipart Contemplation on the supposed ‘Nuclear Renaissance’ (see: Part 1 Website Medium, Substack; Part 2 Website Medium Substack); Part 3 Website Medium Substack), I present a critical examination of the waste ‘dilemma’ surrounding nuclear reactors and their latest iteration being pushed by government and the nuclear industry: Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). Reviewing the safety procedures surrounding the waste streams from all reactors raises concern about these protocols, particularly the promises of their long-term effectiveness that are being made by industry advocates–and especially so for the intermediate- and high-level radioactive solid waste products.
The on-site, above-ground storage for the close to 2 million–and growing–tonnes of intermediate- and high-level radioactive solid waste produced by traditional reactors is exceedingly vulnerable to accidents, societal disruptions (e.g., power grid loss, war), and/or environmental changes (e.g., extreme weather, climate change, geological events). SMRs introduce additional concerns to their larger, traditional reactor cousins: they produce waste higher in radioactivity and the approval process for these SMRs is being rushed, driven by industry and politics rather than technical readiness.
For decades, the proposed ‘solution’ to a nuclear reactor’s intermediate- and high-level radioactive waste ‘problem’ has been the creation and use of Deep Geological Repositories (DGRs)–what one could argue is a theoretical ‘magic bullet’ given: none are as yet operational; the few planned and being constructed are capable of only handling a small fraction of the waste that has been accumulating for close to 75 years (while planning to triple, or more, the nuclear reactor fleet); and, the long-term capability of DGRs is based upon ‘best guess’ models (yes, scientifically-informed but not actually tested, especially for long-term effectiveness).
One can’t help but conclude from this review that the current approach to nuclear waste is inadequate, in the extreme. I liken it to “placing a finger-sized bandage on a gaping, arterial wound”. The plans to increase massively the world’s nuclear reactor fleet while this waste problem exists, and expands, is irresponsible–and significantly so. Like, WTAF?
Energy Sources and Carriers…Don’t Conflate Them
Primary energy sources are natural resources that have not been subjected to human transformation for societal consumption. Examples would be coal, oil, natural gas, uranium, sunlight, and wind. Energy carriers, also known as secondary forms of energy, are the substance or system that transports energy from the primary source to human use. Electricity is such a carrier and is generated from a primary source (as is hydrogen for those believing that a hydrogen economy is also a ‘sustainable and clean’ energy saviour).
Keep this distinction at the top of your thinking with regard to energy generation and consumption. Electricity is a carrier, not a source; it must be generated from a primary source. Humans have created various complex and mass-produced industrial technologies to generate/convert primary energy sources into electricity as it is a relatively versatile and transportable form of power.
Electricity, however, only provides about 20% of our complex societies’ total energy consumption (and about 60% of this 20% is generated via hydrocarbons; mostly coal and natural gas). Hydrocarbons directly provide the other 80% of total societal energy consumption–meaning, hydrocarbons provide about 92% of our total energy consumption; even more if one considers all the embodied hydrocarbons in the ‘clean’ technologies helping to generate electricity.
No matter how you wish to slice it, and what language manipulation you use to help convince yourself and others about ‘clean/green renewable’ energy, human complex societies and virtually all their energy slaves are significantly dependent upon a one-time, finite, and diminishing cache of hydrocarbons. [Note: yes, hydrocarbons are still being naturally created but not at a timescale that has any significance to human use and modern complex societies given the rate at which we are extracting it (See: here, here, here, here, and/or here.]
So, when ‘electrify everything’ advocates make claims regarding a nation being powered completely (or close to it) by ‘renewables’, they are conveniently ignoring total energy consumption and referring exclusively to electricity consumption. While the 20/80 split is a global average, every nation continues to depend significantly upon hydrocarbons for much if not most of their energy use–directly (e.g., transportation and heating fuels) or indirectly (e.g., via goods that require significant hydrocarbon inputs for their production and distribution).
Electricity Production…Hydrocarbons Still Rule
Regardless of claims to the contrary (and as mentioned above), electricity production is still provided mostly by hydrocarbons across the planet. And, while ‘renewables’ have been increasing in their contribution to electricity production over the past 25+ years, the quantity of hydrocarbons (especially coal and natural gas) used to generate electricity continues to increase as well with each form hitting new highs in such inputs year after year.
Yes, for some nations electricity generated from ‘renewables’ has surpassed that provided by coal (something some are highlighting as a significant ‘win’ and doable by every nation), but this overlooks the electricity generated via natural gas and/or oil globally, and ignores that significant amounts of hydrocarbons are required to create, distribute, and eventually recycle/replace the ‘renewables’ technologies and their needed infrastructure.
Again, for advocates of the ‘electrify everything’ universe, the necessary scaling up of ‘non-/low-hydrocarbon’ electricity generation to ‘replace hydrocarbons’ (that ignores all the embodied hydrocarbons in the technologies required; typically overlooks the backups–hydrocarbon-based and/or battery–required for the intermittent systems of solar and wind; and avoids discussing the finiteness of hydrocarbons) is monumental. In fact, to put it frankly, modernity’s ever-expanding complexities cannot function, grow, or be sustained without hydrocarbons–no matter how much some wish this to be so.
Electricity Generation…No Matter How You Spin It, It Ain’t ‘Clean’
All of the technologies and infrastructure needed to carry out our electricity generation and transport it are complex, extremely materially/minerally-dependent and -intensive, and require ecologically-destructive industrial-scale processes (i.e., mining, refining, production, distribution, maintenance, and reclamation/disposal) up and down their supply chains and to perform as required.
These electricity-generating technologies and their needed infrastructure are perceived as existing along a continuum in terms of how ‘clean/green’ or carbon intensive they are. Given the industrial processes involved in creating the technologies required to generate electricity (all forms), and the infrastructure required to transport this electricity, none should be considered ‘clean/green’ or ‘low-/no-carbon’. None. Yet, many consider them so and argue endlessly about the environmental benefits of one over the other–a debate framed by an Overton Window that not only ignores the embodied hydrocarbons of ‘clean’ technologies but perhaps more importantly tends to avoid completely the existential concerns about limits to and the pursuit of growth (especially via mass-produced, industrial-based complex technologies) on a finite planet with a growing number of surpassed planetary boundaries.
The embodied and extremely high hydrocarbon inputs and ecologically-destructive processes required to produce these industrial technologies and their infrastructure are monumentally ‘dirty’ (in the sense of being ecologically destructive). That some are viewed and referred to as ‘clean’ is the result of mass marketing/propaganda and extremely restrictive carbon tunnel vision (See my Contemplation series on carbon tunnel vision and resource and ecological blindness: Part 1 Website Medium Substack; Part 2 Website Medium Substack; Part 3 Website Medium Substack).
Expansion of electricity consumption, no matter what technology is being used and how you spin it, will be massively destructive to the world’s biosphere–just as all growth that has gone before this desired increase has been. Believing otherwise requires one to engage in significant ignorance, denial/bargaining, and/or rationalisation/justification that helps to avoid biogeophysical realities and the negative consequences of our species’ growth.
Energy Consumption…To Infinity, and Beyond
Regardless of resource limits (especially that of hydrocarbons, but also of many critically-important minerals/materials) and the ecological destruction that would accompany continuation of growth trends (especially via the extraction, processing, and industrial processes required), various analysts project that energy consumption is going to continue to expand far into the future–and significantly so, especially via electricity; thus the clarion call for massive growth in electrical power generation, particularly via the ‘clean’ technologies of solar photovoltaic panels, wind turbines, and nuclear reactors.
ExxonMobil believes that the share of total energy provided by oil and gas will drop over time, perhaps to 50% from the 80% that has been the level for some decades. It expects oil to remain the largest energy source but drop significantly over the coming decades, while predicting that natural gas consumption will more than double. DNV also projects hydrocarbon’s share of primary energy use to drop to about 50%, with its production plateauing prior to 2030. Finally, McKinsey and Company do not see the same drop in use as ExxonMobil and DNV, believing that hydrocarbons will continue to provide the lion’s share of primary energy beyond 2050, with natural gas growth providing significantly increasing market share. More recently, the IEA put out a scenario where hydrocarbon production actually increases 13% between now and 2050 (see: here, here, and/or here). [Note: there has been a growing narrative competition between ‘renewables’ and hydrocarbons with respect to their importance and where our societies should focus their attention and investments (including geopolitically), and this seems particularly so in the United States at this moment–which is not surprising given the US Empire is the largest consumer of hydrocarbons on the planet.]
The ‘Electrify Everything’ Universe Is Upon Us…They Said So!
According to some, the combination of economic and population growth alongside hydrocarbon’s decreasing role in electricity generation will lead to a significant growth in demand for electricity generation, and will supposedly be met by a continuing and significant expansion of ‘renewable’ energy sources (i.e., solar photovoltaic panels, wind turbines) and low-carbon sources (i.e., nuclear power). Both of these alternatives to hydrocarbon generation are expected to at least double their role in electricity generation between now and 2050. Nuclear power is highlighted as being necessary to provide a steady baseload power source given the intermittency of ‘renewables’. (See: here, here, here, and/or here.)
Road to Net Zero (manchester.ac.uk)
Electricity provided by hydro plants and other ‘renewables’ (e.g., biofuels, biomass) can still grow, but they have little room to contribute much more than they already do. The lion’s share of growth (if it is to occur at all) must fall to solar photovoltaic panels, wind turbines, and nuclear reactors. (See: here, here, here, here, and/or here.)
The percentage of electricity consumption provided by nuclear power reactors has varied since first introduced. It reached a high of providing over 17% of demand during the 1990s. This has fallen to close to half as much with the curtailment of new reactor construction in the shadow of several major accidents that have occurred, massive cost increases, and a significant surge in investments towards mass-produced ‘renewables’ (e.g., solar photovoltaic panels, wind turbines), and currently sits at about 9%. (See: here and/or here.)
Despite all of the above, one of the arguments (amongst a growing number of marketing spins) made by nuclear power-generation advocates is that nuclear reactors are indeed a ‘sustainable, green/clean/low-carbon’ alternative to ‘unsustainable, dirty/high-carbon’ fossil fuels and must be part of the ‘electrify everything’ universe. (See: here, here, here, here, and/or here.)
There are a variety of reasons why this universe should not (e.g., exacerbation of our ecological overshoot predicament and its numerous symptom predicaments) and cannot, to the extent being proposed (e.g., problems of scale, geological limits of resources, Laws of Thermodynamics), be pursued; but it is nonetheless [I would argue that perhaps the most salient reasons why massive electrification is being pursued are because it helps to: generate significant revenue streams/profits for a number of individuals/families/businesses; and, keep the various monetary/financial/economic Ponzi schemes maintained/expanding for a few more quarters–more on this below].
Ramping Up Nuclear Power-Generated Electricity…another thought experiment
Let’s ignore for a moment the significant ecological destruction that would result from this proposal of expanding the globe’s nuclear reactor fleet (immediate, in terms of the material and mineral extraction and industrial processes required–virtually all hydrocarbon-based; and future, in terms of the massive amounts of radioactive nuclear waste produced) and think about what would be required to meet the increase of nuclear reactor-generated electricity its advocates have proposed.
As of this moment, our world uses around 30,000 Terawatt Hours (TWh) of electricity. This electricity consumption is expected to double by 2050, rising by about 3% or so per year. Given such a demand growth projection and government ‘commitments’, the global nuclear reactor fleet is being asked to triple its generating capacity over the next 25 years. (See: here, here, here, and/or here.)
A tripling of the current electricity generation provided by the world’s 438 commercial, electricity-generating reactors over 25 years is a daunting task (impossible?) to say the least. Building almost 900 large reactors over the next two and a half decades requires, on average, 36 new reactors to be constructed and up and running every year–about 1 every 10 days.
There are currently 71 new plants under construction with most, but not all, hoping to be operable and connected to their nation’s grid within the next 5 years. However, such projects invariably fail to meet projected timelines (as well as going well over their original budgets) and a few of these have already encountered difficulties and seen their construction suspended for a variety of reasons. (See: here.)
Being generous, let’s assume all 71 of these plants are online and operational within 7 years. This puts the goal of tripling the world’s reactor fleet that governments and the industry have been highlighting already well behind schedule. 252 reactors would have been needed to be ready and operating by 2032 to stay on track for a tripling of generation by 2050. Oops.
Enter SMRs, the answer to speeding up the process with factory fabrication of components. Combined with what is looking like a much sped up approval process, these reactors can meet the challenge of tripling the generation of the nuclear fleet!
Well, not so fast.
Today’s ‘traditional’ large reactors, on average, generate just above 6 TWh or about 1000 Megawatts (MWe) of electricity. Current SMR designs are capable of generating between 80 and 300 MWe of electricity.
Let’s assume that SMRs with the highest generating capacity (300 MWe) will be constructed in place of the larger reactors to meet this tripling commitment going forward. We still have the equivalent of over 800 traditional reactors or about 2000 SMRs required to be built. Even if these get started in their construction by 2030, a tripling of generation would require 200 new builds per year for 20 years; or one every 1.8 days.
Such a goal must completely ignore/overlook the material and mineral requirements–and constraints–for this entire endeavour (see this on Peak Copper, perhaps the most fundamental and indispensable mineral to the electrify everything universe). And then there are the perils of Jevon’s Paradox, Entropy, and the Maximum Power Principle…can you say “Delusional in the extreme!”
Well, maybe not so delusional….if enough credit money is thrown at the ‘problem’.
And who better to ensure such ‘investment’ is carried out ‘for the people’ than ‘representative’ governments and their never-ending access to capital via the public purse–which brings me back to my series on how governments will save us (See: Part 1 Website Medium Substack; Part 2 Website Medium Substack; Part 3 Website Medium Substack).
A Tripling Of Nuclear Reactor Energy-Generation Really About ‘Saving’ Society?
In my series on government, I argue that pre/history shows us that governing institutions are not benevolent systems in service of their citizens but are “structures of power that arose from exploitation and coercion to serve the interests of a ruling ‘elite’ — an undertaking that they continue to perform to this day.” I further show that “the elite depend upon a variety of manipulations to maintain such systems, including controlled redistribution of ‘benefits’ and pervasive narrative management.”
One of the stories they currently use to help legitimise their existence and maintain status quo structures is “the idea that governments shower their citizens with prosperity via perpetual economic growth, while the real intention of this pursuit is to enrich a small number of well-connected people and maintain status quo wealth and power structures. The economic policies implemented by governments are boundlessly marketed as benefitting the masses but their overriding goal is to grow the revenue streams of a powerful and influential minority of the population. While society’s members do receive some ‘benefits’ from growing economic activity, a majority of such benefits are bestowed upon a ‘ruling class’. I explain how this story about good government is part of a historical pattern of justifying myths (e.g., divine right of kings, chain of being, civilising missions) to maintain power and wealth.”
The magical thinking that is required to have the tripling of nuclear reactor energy generation make sense and be doable is massive. Not only must the ecological impacts, Laws of Thermodynamics, and physical limits be ignored, but the ability of a world constrained by politics and economics must be viewed as supernatural–thus my growing sense that all of this is not about serving the best interests of the masses or environment, but about maintaining/expanding revenue streams to the businesses/corporations involved (via government subsidies and private/retail investment)–at least for a few more quarters,.
The narratives about this being possible and necessarily pursued are also about keeping the masses distracted by optimistic promises of ‘tomorrow will be better’ while the profit-takers pillage national treasuries and Nature. It is yet another in a growing list of ‘solutions’ being offered up to the public but is in reality another in an expanding catalog of ventures/enterprises/rackets that siphon wealth up the status quo power structures that exist in our complex societies in the here and now, with little to no regard for the longer-term future…
And has anybody mentioned the exponentially building waste ‘dilemma’ associated with nuclear power generation recently?
When one considers the longstanding role of governing institutions, it solidifies my growing suspicion that almost everything our ‘leaders’ push/advocate/support aligns with the motivations of the ruling elite: maintenance/expansion of wealth-extraction/-generation systems to provide revenue streams. Or, as I have argued before: Everything is a racket (See my Contemplation on this: Website Medium Substack).
The nuclear energy industry is perfect for this. It can be leveraged/marketed as beneficent for the masses, support (at least for the short term) the economic growth agenda, and allow the elite to siphon wealth from national treasuries (including resource ‘wealth’). Like much (everything?) we are exposed to by the ruling elite, it is overhyped and under-delivers, while increasing wealth inequality and environmental destruction.
The snake oil salesmen of the world win again with our pursuit of this ‘solution’ to our energy ‘problem’.
Recent and relevant articles:
UK Greenlights First Rolls-Royce SMR Project Despite U.S. Pushback | OilPrice.com
Moving From Carry to Anti-Carry
The Nuclear Waste Disposal Dilemma | Earth.Org
The Nuclear Golden Calf | Art Berman
The Coming AI Bust: Why Trump-O-Nomics Is Riding a Time Bomb
AI Wants Your Job — And Now It Wants Your Electricity Too | ZeroHedge
Electricity Price Squeeze: Something’s Going to Give — resilience
Oil, AI, Electrification and the Next Big Crash — resilience
No more PJM data centers unless they can be reliably served: market monitor | Utility Dive
DOE’s Hyperspeed Reactors | ZeroHedge
U.S. data center power demand could reach 106 GW by 2035: BloombergNEF | Utility Dive
America’s great build-a-thon comes with a price tag — Bond Vigilantes
Jensen To Rogan: “Next 6–7 Years You Will See A Bunch Of Small Nuclear Reactors” | ZeroHedge
When the Apocalypse Strikes, What Will Save Us?
The Sunset of the Renewable Dream | Art Berman
How Private Interests and the Banking Dynasties Control Washington — Global Research
What is going to be my standard WARNING/ADVICE going forward and that I have reiterated in various ways before this:
“Only time will tell how this all unfolds but there’s nothing wrong with preparing for the worst by ‘collapsing now to avoid the rush’ and pursuing self-sufficiency. By this I mean removing as many dependencies on the Matrix as is possible and making do, locally. And if one can do this without negative impacts upon our fragile ecosystems or do so while creating more resilient ecosystems, all the better. Building community (maybe even just household) resilience to as high a level as possible seems prudent given the uncertainties of an unpredictable future. There’s no guarantee it will ensure ‘recovery’ after a significant societal stressor/shock but it should increase the probability of it and that, perhaps, is all we can ‘hope’ for from its pursuit.”
If you have arrived here and get something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website or the link below — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).
Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).
If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.
Costs (Canadian dollars): Book 1: $2.99; Book 2: $3.89; Book 3: $3.89
Trilogy: $9.99
Feel free to throw in a ‘tip’ on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps… https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US
If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.
You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially William Catton’s Overshoot and Joseph Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies: see here.