Kuwait scraps nuclear power in light of Fukushima crisis

[kristopher]

Kuwait scraps nuclear power in light of Fukushima crisis

KUWAIT (Kyodo) -- Kuwait is no longer pursuing nuclear power following the disaster in Japan, scrapping a plan last July to build four reactors by 2022, an official of a Kuwaiti government research body told Kyodo News and other media Tuesday.

While a number of countries, such as Germany, Switzerland and Italy, have decided to turn away from nuclear power due to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant crisis, it is rare for a country which has signed a civil nuclear power cooperation agreement with Japan to do so.

Nuclear energy was intended to be part of Kuwait's strategy to preserve its oil resources and it had set up a national nuclear energy committee in 2009.

But in July, four months after the radiation-leaking crisis broke out at the Fukushima plant following the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, Sabah al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah, emir of Kuwait, issued an order to dissolve the committee, according to the researcher.

The researcher ...

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20120222p2g00m0dm102000c.html

[Kolesar]

1. The sun is bright

Except at night
Deep in the heart of Koo-wait

http://www.kuwaitsolar.com/

[bananas]

2. yay! great news! nt

[bananas]

3. Curiously, Iraq was strongly opposed to Kuwait going nuclear

(edit: I thought it was Iran, not Iraq)

http://english.irib.ir/news/middle-east/item/77126-iraq-reacts-to-kuwait-nuclear-plans

Sunday, 17 July 2011 13:35

Iraq reacts to Kuwait nuclear plans

Iraq and Kuwait have locked horns over a new nuclear reactor that
Kuwait plans to build near Um Qasur port in the
southern Iraqi city of Basra.

According to Press TV, Kuwait says it is planning
to build four nuclear reactors near Iraqi coasts
by 2022 and it needs to go ahead with the
project to generate enough electricity to meet
its growing domestic demand.

However, the Iraqi officials have expressed
concerns about the sheikhdom's nuclear
projects, accusing Kuwaiti officials of acting as
US instruments to weaken Iraq's economic and
political status.

Iraqi lawmaker Jawad al-Bazuni said “What
Kuwait is doing is part of a US plan to weaken
Iraq. The move gives a justification for the US
occupation forces to extend their presence in
Iraq. We want them to stop this project.”

snip

[NickB79]

4. And in totally unrelated news, Kuwait is increasing natural gas imports for electrical generation

http://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2140273&language=en

""One of the new milestones for this summer is that the Ministry of Electricity and Water seeks increased LNG imports for domestic electricity-generating this season and the next three years," Al-Houti said in an interview with Kuwait News Agency (KUNA) in Tokyo. The official is currently on a three-nation Asia tour that has also taken him to South Korea and Taiwan."

"Clean" natural gas to the rescue!

[madokie]

5. If nuclear could be cleaned up in a relative time frame like other power plants can

a site where a nuke plants sits isn't going to be the first choice for a playground for the foreseeable future. Renewable, solar, wind, geo, hydro and, what ever else can be and will be thrown in there, can do the job and carry way less baggage than either nuclear or fossil so why don't we give up the charade about nuclear is best and get on with doing what we'll wind up doing in the end anyway. I just never in my life figured out how something so dangerous can have such die hard supporters. How many times does it take to finally see that hell maybe we shouldn't be doing this shit any afterall.
I just hope one of the plants in the northeastern part of the country doesn't have an incident, irregardless of why, that will matter not only thing will matter then is what are we going to do now. Against nuclear power, yes I am and have been since I was a little kid due to the fact a family/church friend worked on the manhattan project, he was a mathematician and had no idea of what he was working on. simply given problems that needed solved and I remember the conversations he and dad would have about using this new found source of energy and our friend was deathly scared of it and was just as sure as day is to follow night that we were going to start building nuclear power plants. Yup I've seen nothing from one yet that makes me any less worried about them, You want to buy that they're safe go for it, I won't.

ETA: Sorry but okie is my first language

[Dead_Parrot]

7. There's a time frame for sucking the CO2 back out of the atmosphere?

Do tell...

[kristopher]

8. Since building nuclear diverts money from more effective CO2 reduction efforts...

... that is a strange thing to say.

[Dead_Parrot]

9. Burning gas reduces CO2?

I learn something new every day.

[kristopher]

10. Renewable energy sources do.

This is a single paragraph abstract that I’ve broken apart for ease of reading. The original formatting is included at the end.
You can download the full article at Jacobson's webpage here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

Or use this direct download link: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf

You can view the html abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Download slide presentation here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/0902UIllinois.pdf



Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.



As originally published:
Abstract

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73 000–144 000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300 000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15 000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[Dead_Parrot]

11. Great Scott, you should have posted this earlier!

This changes everything!

[kristopher]

12. It changes nothing, it just accurately describes what "is". nt

[madokie]

13. For starters

All of the air pollution and the co2 content in our atmosphere didn't come from making electricity as you'd seem to like to imply. Lot of sources of co2, making electricity is but one of them. When taken into account the massive amounts of concrete, (which is very dirty to make btw) and steel with a lot of that steel being special alloys which in some cases is also very co2 intensive to produce you will find that nuclear isn't as clean as you'd like me to believe. Put dismantling and burying the materials that won't be safe to leave laying around and it sure isn't very clean co2 wise.

Do tell...

I guess you could always shoot the stuff out into space, huh

[Dead_Parrot]

14. "No, there isn't" would have covered it. nt

[madokie]

15. No there isn't what?

I'm not following this cryptic message

[Dead_Parrot]

17. Post 7 -

"There's a time frame for sucking the CO2 back out of the atmosphere? Do tell"

You replied to it, so I assumed you'd read it and were answering.

[madokie]

18. my bad

[kristopher]

6. Since it would probably take 20+ years to build the nuclear plants...

I don't see your point.

[Dead_Parrot]

16. Odd

I've just noticed here you claim "It will take decades but we are in the process of building a distributed grid based on the operational characteristics of renewables."

Are these some special renewable decades that are much shorter or something ?

[kristopher]

19. Not odd at all

Nick posted the information that Kuwait is going to increase fossil fuel consumption in the next 3 years, the implication of putting that in this thread is that canceling the nuclear plants somehow caused this to happen. But the nuclear reactors in Kuwait would have taken about 20 years to bring online if all went well. The nuclear reactors couldn't possibly replace the scheduled fossil fuel purchases, but renewable generation can be installed so much faster than nuclear that they would be able to replace at least a significant amount during the second and third years.

The timing for rebuilding the US grid is a completely different discussion since it is largely determined by the end-life point of existing infrastructure.


I've asked other past and present nuclear supporters this question so I'll pose it to you also, how does a transtion to a carbon free energy system happen by building more nuclear power? Can you describe the economics of how nuclear gets built in places where it will shut-down or accelerate the shut down of coal plants? What are the economics of how to they shut down natural gas plants and how long would it take?

[Dead_Parrot]

20. OK then. In order:

-Do you have a cite for the nuclear plants taking 20 years?
-Installing renewable generation isn't really relevant if you don't have a grid. Which is why your 'decades' comment jumped out at me: that's no better.
To counter your other questions:
-How does a transtion to a carbon free energy system not happen by building carbon free energy sources?
-The economics are the same as they are for any other non-carbon energy. Frankly, I think we should be getting on with carbon taxes.

[kristopher]

21. Installing renewables works best to build a distributed grid from ground up.

Last edited Thu Feb 23, 2012, 10:23 PM - Edit history (1)

History gives us a timeline for the nuclear plants.

It would be nice if you "answered" the questions instead of "countering" them with non-answers.

You ask, "How does a transtion to a carbon free energy system not happen by building carbon free energy sources?"
Answer: Nuclear power entrenches the carbon system by more firmly anchoring the economics to the generating profile of coal plants.

You write, "The economics are the same as they are for any other non-carbon energy."

No, they are not even close. Since you cited this post, I know you already know that. Therefore it is clear you can't answer the question in a way that reflects positively on nuclear.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11277019#post31

There is more good information in that thread, but here is the text for reference here:

31. What does the term "operational characteristics" mean to you?

In this case it refers to the way the limitations and advantages of a power source cause it to be operated. It is a combination of technical and economic factors that define when a grid operator decides to put energy from the resource onto the grid.

Those factors for coal and nuclear are very similar. Addressing your question specifically, economically coal and nuclear both have large, up front capital costs and both require fuel, therefore both have fuel costs.
In comparison geothermal has a much smaller up front capital cost and no fuel cost at all.

The technological characteristics of these sources are shaped by economics. Coal and nuclear are most profitably built by making individual generators very large. The size of a geothermal generator is limited by the less concentrated nature of underground heat. A geothermal facility is made larger by building multiple smaller units (it is similar to hydro in this respect). What happens as a consequence is that the shafts of the generating turbines for coal and nuclear plants are very large while the shafts for geothermal and hydro plant generators are much smaller.

These "characteristics", in turn, affect how each of the energy sources are best used from the grid operators point of view. Coal and nuclear are designed to run 24/7 at a constant speed. Their large individual size has the consequence of making them poorly suited to ramping up and down quickly, or shutting down and restarting quickly.

That is why natural gas has been exploited for electrical generation. Its smaller size makes it more nimble and able to respond to the variability in demand. Since the variability we see with wind and solar presents itself operationally as the same problem we see with variable demand, the natural gas that is already in place now is sufficient to handle a much higher level of renewable penetration.

The smaller size of natural gas turbines also means that the up front capital costs are far, far lower than that of nuclear and coal, but it has traditionally had far higher fuel costs than coal and nuclear, a fact that limited its economic viability. Fracking has changed that and made NG competitive with coal and nuclear; but even with fracking, there is still a significant fuel cost relative to renewables. If fracking is severely curtailed it will, at this point in time, probably benefit renewables more than it would nuclear or coal.

Due to past high per unit manufacturing costs determined by limited deployment, the zero fuel cost advantage of renewables is only now beginning to be felt. The amount of new generation capacity installed last year is most significant in that it is a leading indicator of future price declines brought about by a growing manufacturing base.

Each resource in the renewable portfolio has its own set of characteristics. As renewable penetration increases, the needs that grid operators are meeting when they select the power source required at the moment is going to be increasingly determined by the zero-fuel cost of renewables instead of the merely low fuel costs of nuclear and coal.

That also applies to natural gas. While there is currently a glut, no one expects that to continue. As the backbone renewable manufacturing continues to ramp up, their zero fuel costs will to some degree displace all sources that have fuel costs. The degree that each specific fuel will be a loser will vary by region.

I hope this helps make the situation more clear. It will take decades but we are in the process of building a distributed grid based on the operational characteristics of renewables. This is why I reject spending money to build or extend the life of nuclear plants. The larger the percentage of renewables on the grid, the more the decision-making of grid operators is guided by the needs of renewables and the more zero-fuel cost renewables are deployed to meet those needs.


A report documenting the way nuclear (or coal if it were supported like nuclear) crowds out renewables can be downloaded here:
http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Documents/IEE/20100909_cooperStudy.pdf

Now, can you explain how nuclear will shut down coal plants?

[Dead_Parrot]

22. lol

"Do you have a cite for the nuclear plants taking 20 years?"

"History gives us a timeline for the nuclear plants. It would be nice if you "answered" the questions isn't of "countering" them with non-answers. "

And they say Americans don't do irony.

As it happens. if you head over to PRIS and look at the last 10 completed reactors, you'll find the average is 10 years: And that's with Busher as a long-delayed outlier (Hey, history gives us a timeline for the nuclear plants!) So I'll ask you again, do you have a cite for your 20-years?


Waffling about "operational characteristics" isn't making your point as well as you think it is. As I asked in another thread, are you declaring technologies like geothermal energy useless because they have the wrong "operational characteristics"? 'Cause they seem to be working well enough for us in NZ.

[kristopher]

23. They weren't talking of one reactor, they were talking about 4 reactors.

Also, the timelines for reactors under construction show it taking far more than 10 years for project planning and construction.

The answer to your "question" about geothermal is in the excerpted portion of my post above,.

[Dead_Parrot]

24. You can build more than one at once, you know

Look at Shin Kori in Korea: 1 site, four reactors, 8 years. I'm giving up asking you to back this up, as you are clearly ass-pulling. BTW, if you want to include planning time, remember to subtract it if the plans are already made.

And the answer to my question is indeed in your post. I just wanted wanted to check you'd considered it fully.