Editor’s note: this is part two of a two part series by the authors on nuclear energy. You can read part one here
In this article, the authors will continue to explore the advantages of nuclear energy production in the United States. The authors will also discuss the threats associated with nuclear energy and will weigh these two to find a final conclusion on the benefits of offshore wind farms compared to nuclear energy production.
Addressing the first major difference between wind turbine energy and nuclear energy production concerns the capacity factor. The capacity factor is “the ratio of the average load carried by a power station or system for a given period to the rated capacity of the station or system for the same period.” In other words, the capacity factor revolves around the ratio of average power generated over the maximum power rating over a specific duration of time. To get into this, we need to first define the units of energy used in the United States: kilowatt-hours (kWh), or the equivalent of using one kilowatt of power for one hour. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the capacity factor of nuclear power stations in the US in 2021 was 92.7%. Meanwhile, the wind energy capacity factor averaged 36% but varied all the way from 24-56%, according to the Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports a windmill’s lifespan is only 20-25 years, with 25 years constituting a rather optimistic estimate for the average windmill. While, in contrast, Energy.Gov states a nuclear reactor’s average lifespan ranges from 40 to, potentially, 80 years—assuming proper maintenance and oversight.
From these, we can perform a “back-of-a-napkin” calculation to find the difference in electrical power production from both wind turbines and nuclear plants. Equating the two forms of energy production at one gigawatt of power, a nuclear power plant at a 92.7% capacity factor over the expected average of a 40-year lifespan will generate approximately 325,000 GWh. Such an estimate remains relatively reasonable considering existing power stations, like the South Texas Project in Bay City, operate at 2.7 gigawatts. Conversely, a wind turbine farm (at one gigawatt of output) with a 36% capacity factor over an optimistic 25-year period will average around 80,000 GWh of electric energy–four times less than its nuclear counterpart.
It could be argued that this would not matter if turbines were cheap enough to justify the decrease in output, but an analysis of the cost per kWh shows the problem with this analysis. According to the Institute of Energy Research, wind turbines cost somewhere between 15.1 and 19.2 cents per kWh, depending on what power source is backing it up to help manage the problematic capacity factor as mentioned prior. In contrast, nuclear power was only 2.9 cents per kWh in 2021.
While capacity factor comparisons between a wind turbine and nuclear power energy production have a clear difference, they are not the only factor setting nuclear power production ahead of offshore wind energy. The difference in capacity factor could mean the difference between accommodating the high demand for electricity or rolling blackouts similar to the current situation in the state of California.
The second major difference between wind turbine energy and nuclear energy production concerns the variation of consistent energy delivery. According to the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation, nuclear generation is the only source of electricity that can produce a reliable and “constant” power supply without emitting greenhouse gasses. In a separate report from the Manhattan Institute, the LACE value for offshore wind is less than reliable resources, such as natural gas, because of offshore wind’s inherently intermittent nature (2020). A LACE value, or levelized avoided cost of electricity, represents the value of a power plant to the grid. The same Manhattan Institute report states the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates the economic costs of offshore wind resources will constitute three times more than the potential economic benefits, specifically relating to avoided costs. In other words, the more offshore wind turbine installations, the larger the economic burden on society will increase. In an article from Forbes, China’s demonstrated dominance over mining and processing critical rare earth metals emphasizes the reliance on China for offshore wind turbine production. Business dealings with China have a mixed history because of their human rights violations, but the question remains, are renewable energy sources worth the risk?
Nuclear energy has its own difficulties though, specifically regarding nuclear waste. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a major environmental concern regarding the use of nuclear power is the radioactive byproducts, or in this case, wastes. Examples of those nuclear wastes include uranium mill tailings, spent reactor rods and fuel, and other radioactive materials. In the United States, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission provides oversight for existing nuclear waste materials across the country. However, while nuclear waste signifies a major issue for the nuclear power initiative, various facts about nuclear waste and its disposal deserve attention. One counterbalance to the issue of nuclear waste concerns the practices French officials practice to safeguard their populations. Électricité de France (EDF), France’s multinational electric utility company (owned largely by the State), has solutions for minimizing the nuclear waste situation. According to an EDF report, “Low and intermediate-level waste is kept in dedicated facilities within the power plants and ultimately compacted, incinerated, or recycled. High-level waste is currently vitrified and placed in intermediate storage at the Sellafield reprocessing plant.” Vitrification, according to the Hanford Vitrification Plant, “is a proven and reliable technology used at U.S. and foreign defense waste processing facilities. The process converts liquid radioactive and chemical waste into a solid, stable glass, eliminating environmental risks.” The use of vitrification can curb the extent of nuclear waste issues plaguing the widespread implementation of the technology. All forms of energy produce a byproduct or a waste. Gasoline was originally discarded during the process of producing kerosene, but now the byproduct has a larger presence than its principal chemical. The Nuclear Energy Institute has a specific location on its website breaking down the current nuclear waste storage medium and how it works. Currently, the United States takes the spent fuel rods needing replacement and places them in steel and concrete casks where the steel cask is filled with hydrogen to contain the corrosion. All nuclear waste materials are tracked and traced in the United States where the specific power plants contain their waste in on-site dry storage locations. The Department of Energy has a proposal of adopting the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada as the central location for nuclear waste disposal, yet, it faces significant political tension in finalizing the proposal since its inception in 1987. Consider this comparison by Generation Atomic:
“All 88,000 tons or so of waste produced by reactors in the U.S. could fit onto a single football field, stacked just 24 feet high, it says, with the waste produced by an individual’s lifetime energy consumption fitting in one soda can. Compare that to the 100 million tons of solid waste–about a 5-mile-high pile on a football field–that U.S. coal-fired power plants kick out each year.”
Not only does the nuclear waste issue receive an overtly negative reputation, but the energy produced by the minimal existence of nuclear power in the U.S. does not receive the attention it needs. According to the Institute for Energy Research (IER), the termination of private spent fuel reprocessing facilities in the 1970s has continued to stymie efforts to tackle nuclear waste operations – we now focus on geological isolation. The issue with nuclear energy waste revolves primarily around the public perception and the acts of continuous renewable energy subsidies from Washington, D.C. and state legislatures. Even in remote Texas counties, the public and private entities in the region hold enough sway over Capitol politics to halt talks around creating a state repository. The state of Texas holds a unique opportunity in energy. Renewable power sources (i.e., wind and solar power) constitute a decent portion of energy resources, and the different grid interconnects separating Texas from the rest of the United States create a contained laboratory for a large switch to nuclear power. Amarillo, Texas already boasts a significant contribution to the nuclear status of the United States with the Pantext Plant–the only nuclear weapon assembly and disassembly factory in the U.S. Using responsible and reliable energy production methods like nuclear power can increase environmental sustainability, decrease the demand on the environment, and decrease the taxpayer burden relating to renewable energies. The taxpayer sends their money to the government, which then allows the Texas Legislature to subsidize renewable energy production. The taxpayer has to pay back the energy lost as it travels from the source, across transmission lines where the energy degradation occurs, and to the processing hub. The degradation of renewable energy is subsidized by the taxpayer; whereas the fossil fuel groups pay back the degradation of their energy production from their own pockets. Paying fewer taxes for more energy-dense power through nuclear energy is a common-sense policy. The communities and neighborhoods in the urban and underserved sections of the major cities could also potentially benefit from the increased energy supply based on nuclear power generation. However, the issue of whether the Texas power infrastructure could handle the nuclear energy load is another question–one not answered in this article.
While nuclear energy has its own issues regarding waste disposal, renewable energies do not provide a significant amount of relief. Wind turbine proponents claim that the materials necessary to build a turbine can go back into the supply chain through recycling processes; however, this does not entirely work. In Casper, Wyoming, the municipal landfill is home to 870 blades from retired renewable energy turbines. The blades that wind turbines use have a combination of materials made of fiberglass, but if we continue at the current rate of wind energy production, by 2025, the United States will dispose of over two million tons of blades in U.S. landfills annually. A third-party contractor, Veolia, has taken steps to reuse the fiberglass blades and repurpose them as an additive for a Portland cement company. However, reusing the fiberglass to create concrete furthers the climate change issue since cement accounts for a massive source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere—seven percent of all global carbon emissions. As the global population will continue to increase at its current trajectory, cement production could increase by nearly 23 percent by 2050. According to Forbes, concrete has the ability to absorb heat from direct sunlight, store the heat within, and slowly release it over a longer period of time (i.e., extremely high thermal mass). The urban centers that rely primarily on concrete for construction contribute as a significant factor to climate change. Even at night, the urban centers have a higher temperature because the concrete will continue to release the heat from the day after the sun sets below the horizon. For the purposes of this article, it emphasizes the twofold impact of wind turbine blade waste on the environment through the recycling process. The company Carbon Rivers continues their attempt to recycle the fiberglass materials into components for vehicles and sports materials. Unfortunately, the Carbon Rivers attempt still falls short of responsible recycling processes to benefit the environment. The recycling attempts of these blades could further the microplastics situation resulting from the fiberglass exposure and decomposition over the centuries.
In the European Union, during 2000, electricity from wind turbine power was around one percent; in 2021, sixteen percent of electricity came from wind power. As a result of the increase in reliance on wind power, the first wave of windmills will approach the end of their lives and an estimated tens of thousands of blades will enter the landfill sites. The European Union faces a dangerous situation this upcoming winter because of unreliable energy sources and their dependence on Russia for natural gas supply. The crisis can increase the divisions within the Union and create national security issues for both the European members and the United States in lieu of Russian aggression. Last summer, the European Parliament endorsed the re-labeling of natural gas and nuclear energy projects under the “green” category so these energy projects could access investment subsidies to further the transition to “renewable” energy. The heavy dependence on Russian natural gas increases the urgency of this issue. However, it does present an opportunity for the United States Congress to follow suit and re-label nuclear energy into a renewable source category, which will allow federal subsidies for renewable energy to make progress.
The specific type of nuclear reactors the United States can implement concerns the use of small modular reactors (SMRs). According to the Department of Energy, the SMR can offer a lower initial capital investment, greater scalability, and siting flexibility for locations normally unrealistic for traditionally larger reactors–including enhanced safety and security. The benefits of SMRs continue to further the green initiative in energy production and can accomplish most of the necessary demands on the electrical grid with less overall costs. The smaller size of these reactors can allow unconventional placement to serve isolated or underserved communities. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports that SMRs are prefabricated units that can be manufactured en masse with or without tailored requirements and keep the cost of construction low. SMRs have the ability to install on an existing grid or remotely off-grid providing low-carbon power for any community or industry. A variant of the SMRs, microreactors, have even smaller footprints and will better serve regions without access to clean, reliable, and affordable energy or serve as backup power in emergencies. The disparity between rural and urban communities becomes a factor for investing in the construction and operation of SMRs. One of the main challenges with the current energy sources in operation remains squarely on the limited grid coverage in rural areas. The infrastructure issues and disconnect between the urban and rural communities will impact the ability to generate energy for isolated individuals with traditional nuclear plants. However, SMRs, specifically microreactors, will bridge the gap and allow rural communities and remote businesses to access reliable and energy dense electricity. The IAEA also reports that SMRs have reduced fuel and refueling requirements, some estimates even state that some SMRs have the design structure to operate for about 30 years without refueling. In terms of national security, the United States should increase use of SMRs to lead the other countries also using the technology including Argentina, Canada, China, Russia, and South Korea. Specifically in Russia, the Akademik Lomonosov, the world’s first floating nuclear power plant, began commercial operations in 2020 and creates power by two 35 MW(e) SMRs. NuScale demonstrates itself as the company best positioned to meet the demand of the SMR project. NuScale’s mission:
“to provide scalable advanced nuclear technology for the production of electricity, heat, and clean water to improve the quality of life for people around the world. We are changing the power that changes the world by creating an energy source that is smarter, cleaner, safer, and cost competitive”.
The NuScale design is currently passing through the licensing process with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and will start construction on a full-operational plant in Idaho around 2023. NuScale has critics in their field. Professor Allison Macfarlane from George Washington University, and former NRC Chair, believes the nuclear industry (including NuScale) will not build enough plants to combat climate change. However, with bureaucratic restructuring, NuScale could take the reins on the nuclear situation in the United States–allowing the nation to take the global lead. To create a nuclear plant for the present standards in the United States, NuScale will have to place twelve of their SMRs in a group to form a power plant. The total cost for such a project totals around $3billion USD. The “twelve-pack of power” consists of submerging twelve small modular reactors in the same pool of water (use this link to view the NuScale power plant image).
From a juxtapositional standpoint, the benefits of nuclear energy far outweigh the temporary benefits of “renewable” energies (i.e., wind and solar). The cost, sustainability, security, and reliability rule in favor of nuclear power production. Nuclear energy has the potential to unlock resources and opportunities for all communities. The Democrat and Republican political block in the United States needs to grasp the opportunity for exploring real solutions to several energy issues. Offshore wind power will not have the longevity, nor the capacity to match nuclear power production. The oceanic ecosystems do not feel the direct brunt of the production of energy with nuclear energy plants. Adopting the SMR model can also decrease the footprint on the environment and give people the resources we need without the direction of international discretion. The United States military standpoint will further solidify American dominance in energy production and allow the military to have access to reliable energy sources. The offshore wind projects only exist because of the investors consuming taxpayer dollars from federal contracts that have little cause for energy progress. Lobbyists in Congress will need to reconsider their view on renewable and fossil fuel subsidies and direct their efforts to nuclear energy. For these reasons, we must support the adoption of large scale nuclear power construction and move away from questionable offshore wind energy production.
