“Is nuclear competing against gas?”

On September 24, I participated in the Northeast Energy & Commerce Association ’s Annual Fuels Conference.??

Batt Odgerel and I engaged in a discussion during which he expanded on his analysis detailed in the 2023 Energy Policy Research Foundation, Inc. (EPRINC) ’s report “A Critical Assessment of the IEA’s Net Zero Scenario, ESG, and the Cessation of Investment in New Oil and Gas Fields”?which he co-authored. The report itself has valuable insights?that remain helpful today as we assess where we are as we continue trying to find a sensible solution?for our energy future. ?For example, the report’s Executive Summary provides a concise?list?identifying the critical?challenges associated with our current path towards achieving zero and net zero. ?

There was one question from the audience that over the years I have heard in some fashion but this time it stopped me, and it appeared many others in the audience, ?in my tracks.?

“Is nuclear competing against gas?” ?

A somewhat fair question as we grapple with the energy issues confronting us, but using the word “competing” is, frankly, setting up a mindset that pits nuclear against gas and other fuels.? To my knowledge neither the nuclear nor the natural gas industry have ever stated that they compete against nor compared themselves with the other. ?

If we truly care about reducing emissions, ensuring?reliability, and embracing a cleaner energy future, consumers and policy makers should not develop a mindset where “competition” among fuels is where we end-up at.? Because we all have different goals and needs that are not universally covered by a single fuel or grouping of fuels.? Granted, we are already seeing this but we need to stop ourselves from falling into the trap of making certain fuels all good or all bad. ?Each fuel has its own strengths and weaknesses, whether they relate to?cost, total lifecycle emissions, efficiency, reliability, or environmental impact. ?

When the question was asked of the speaker, I was reminded of?the 2023 effort of the Swedish Parliament to ease the way for nuclear energy.? According to the?Reuters article, quoting Finance?Minister Elisabeth Svantesson?“Changing the target to "100% fossil-free" electricity, from "100% renewable" is key to the government's plan to meet an expected doubling of electricity demand to around 300 TwH by 2040 and reach net zero emissions by 2045.”? The statement clarifies that the competition is between hydrocarbon-based and hydrocarbon-free energy.?

So, it is clear that, at least in Sweden, the mindset is that nuclear in itself is not competing against hydrocarbons.? Rather,?nuclear energy in Sweden?is viewed as the option to achieve the goals of a country that has a long history supporting renewables and environmental stewardship, and in which renewables cannot deliver.? In other words, nuclear power is competing against wind and solar.?

Which brings us to a more serious?point.? When we view our energy strategies from a fuel competition point-of-view, we are clearly not seeing fuels as an essential part of our lives, but as a “raison d'être.” ?Folks?dig their heels in the?sand and?get ready for battle?to the end, forgetting that the goal of any energy policy and strategy is to ensure the reliable and affordable delivery of?energy with a minimal impact on the environment.? Because energy does not only power industry, but also schools, hospitals and shelters?AND it has to be reliable and affordable.? Once we achieve reliability and affordability, we should make sure that we also protect the environment. ?

So, this question at the conference ripped off the band-aid for many … why is there this mindset that natural gas competes with?other forms of energy – especially renewable? ?Frankly, I worry about such a mindset.? As a whole, natural gas is reliable, abundant, and readily available in both gaseous and liquid form,?around the world.? Once the necessary facilities and contractual agreements are in place, barring a?Force Majeure,?or Act of God?event, a natural gas-fired facility will continue generating?energy for 40 years or longer, with possible down time for maintenance.? Also, a gas-fired?facility?only requires 1/400th?of the acreage a wind installation needs to generate the same output, making it the environmentally friendly option.?

Natural gas, however, comes with emissions.? Almost?half of those of coal, and significantly lower than oil.? But it still comes with emissions.?

On renewables, as in wind and solar, the lifecycle emissions are in some “black box” and rather hard to review and analyze.? The energy to create the materials (concrete, steel,?fiberglass,?and necessary lubricants), is not frequently detailed or calculated.? As for their associated impact on the environment, it all depends on who does the calculating.? From mining?battery?minerals to recycling, or lack thereof,?and disposal once the components’ significantly shorter life comes to an end, these are topics that are rarely discussed by the proponents.

However, they generate power with almost no emissions at the point of generation.??Unfortunately, they are not reliable enough as generators because unlike all other forms of energy they rely on an “Act?of?God” – proper wind speed and adequate sunshine.? Renewables also come with a myriad of additional expensive peripherals, such as batteries and grid upgrades that are not required for natural gas or nuclear-generated power.?

Enter, nuclear power.? Almost zero emissions at the point of generation.? Same footprint as a coal, gas or oil generating facility.? Adequate supplies of raw materials, and a life span of, at least, double that of any wind?or?solar installation.? The primary inputs are no longer stored?away at the end of their useful?life but, unlike wind and solar components, they?are recycled and reused.? Nuclear has been around for a long time and has demonstrated that, just like natural gas, it is another safe and reliable energy source.?

So, to me, the short answer to the question of whether nuclear competes with gas is NO. Which, because of the differences in reliability and environmental impact, is also the answer I would give if I had been asked whether renewable energy competes with gas.?

However, as things stand now, and if competition among fuel options is where we are, renewables on economic efficiency, reliability and emissions will find nuclear power a formidable adversary because nuclear energy can deliver a reliable, safe product (electrons) with minimal impact on the environment with close to zero emissions. ?

In closing, what concerns me when we talk about one option competing against another, is that it happens at the policymaker/government official level.? Not at the market level where consumers should be able to make their own decisions and choices.? Sweden serves as a brilliant example as it was the government and elected officials that made that decision to deprive their economy of hydrocarbons – not the consumers.? Anyone who is familiar with the history of energy is well aware that politicians do not always make sound choices.?

In regards to energy, just like our diet, we should never limit ourselves to one or two options.? All available energy options?should?complement?each other.? For instance, in addition to maintaining grid integrity, at a minimum, we need natural gas generation for when?a?nuclear?facility?shuts?down for maintenance, and vice versa.? As to wind and solar, I am sure they deserve a place?and role?in our global energy mix.? I am not?convinced, though, that it will be?a leading one. ?

#energy #renewables #nuclear #naturalgas

?