Old Faithful Geyser in Yellowstone is a famous tourist attraction, blasting hot water and steam more than 100 feet into the air on a sufficiently regular schedule to keep spectators happy. If you run the hot water through a turbine, you wouldn't get enough energy to supply the Old Faithful Lodge. But, that idea on a larger scale can provide valuable geothermal energy, which is being used in California, Iceland, New Zealand, Italy, and elsewhere. Most of our geothermal energy comes from anomalously "hot" places near volcanoes, and there aren't enough of those to power all of humanity. But, if we were to use "hot, dry rock", pumping waterway down, heating it, and bringing it out artificial geysers to drive turbines, an immense amount of energy is available.
Moving water carries power even if it isn't coming out of a geyser. We get reliable power from hydroelectric dams on rivers, and we can extract more energy from waves and currents. There isn't enough of either one to give us all of our energy, but in some places, they are greatly valuable, and we can develop new ways to make them more valuable—if you're building a breakwater to protect a city from the rising sea, why not install generators to convert the punishing power of storm waves into valuable electricity for the city?
The heat driving geothermal energy is mostly from radioactive decay in rocks. We have figured out how to generate more radioactive decay, where and when we want, in nuclear fission reactors, which are supplying much of our electricity in many countries. Nuclear energy could generate more electricity, too, although it also generates much debate among those who enjoy its reliable electricity, and those worried about contamination now or far into the future, and about the possible use of nuclear programs to generate material for bombs.
These three forms of energy — hydropower, geothermal, and nuclear — have been with us for quite a while (especially hydropower), so it is not surprising to see that they make up a significant portion of the global "renewable" energy portfolio. The quotes around renewable are because hydro, geothermal, and nuclear are not entirely renewable — it is probably better to call them low-carbon sources of energy — but in the literature, they are often labelled as "renewable". As with wind and solar, hydropower, geothermal, and nuclear have extremely low carbon emissions per unit of energy produced. The figure below, showing the history of (mostly) renewable energy production for the world, reveals some interesting trends.
We see here that hydropower was already contributing a significant amount of energy in 1965 and has seen more or less steady growth since then. Nuclear energy emerged on the scene about 1970 and grew rapidly at first, but has since leveled off, while geothermal has been growing at a relatively slow pace. These three are all in contrast to wind and solar, which are characterized by exponential growth starting in just the past two decades.
How about costs? Most energy economists like to compare the energy costs from different sources using the "levelized cost" or "life-cycle costs" that we discussed earlier with wind and solar power. The table below provides a comparison of a wide range of energy sources.
Energy Source | $/MWh | XXX |
---|---|---|
Natural Gas | 35 | XXX |
Coal | 60 | XXX |
Wind Utility Scale | 14 | XXX |
Solar PV Utility Scale | 25 | XXX |
Hydroelectric | 50 | XXX |
Geothermal | 42 | - |
Nuclear | 96 | - |
Biomass | 85 | - |
As you can see, hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear are all more expensive than solar PV and wind, but they do have the advantage of being able to supply energy on demand without any kind of battery storage systems.
Let's go look at these interesting power providers — hydro, geothermal, and nuclear. We'll save some of the economic and ethical issues for later.
By the end of this module, you should be able to:
To Read | Materials on the course website (Module 7) and: Global view of nuclear reactors (2009) [1] Is the solution to the U.S. nuclear waste problem in France? [2] Nuclear energy 101: Inside the "black box" of power plant [3] |
All on the Web. Click the title of the reading to link to the material. |
---|---|---|
To Do | Discussion Post [4] Discussion Comment [4] Quiz 7 |
Due Wednesday Due Sunday Due Sunday |
If you have any questions, please email your faculty member through the CMS. We will check daily to respond. If your question is one that is relevant to the entire class, we may respond to the entire class rather than individually.
If you have any questions, please post them to Help Discussion. We will check that discussion forum daily to respond. While you are there, feel free to post your own responses if you, too, are able to help out a classmate.
In Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, one of the most popular tourist attractions is a geyser known as Old Faithful." The neat thing about Old Faithful is that it spurts hot steaming water out of the ground at pretty predictable intervals – predictable enough that you can probably time your trip to Yellowstone to see Old Faithful erupt several times a day. If you don't happen to live nearby, you can always use the miracle of technology and check out the Old Faithful webcam [5].
When you watch Old Faithful erupt, what you are seeing is geothermal energy in action. If we could just place a nice shiny turbine on top of the geyser's cone, whenever Old Faithful erupts (about every hour and a half or so), the force of the steam would spin the turbine, generating a nice flood of low-carbon electricity.
No one seriously talks about generating power from Old Faithful, but the heat beneath the surface of the earth could provide a gigantic store of energy – if only we could get at it at some reasonable cost. There are a few places, like California, Alaska, and Iceland, where geothermal energy is used to generate a lot of electricity (in Iceland's case, basically enough for the whole country). There are a lot more places where engineers are hoping that we could generate even more electricity from geothermal energy, using techniques collectively known as "enhanced geothermal."
In this section, we'll talk about how geothermal energy works and where it is currently used. We'll also talk about the potential, and some possible pitfalls, from enhanced geothermal. One really intriguing idea that we won't talk about in this section is using heat in the very shallow surface (maybe as little as fifteen feet below ground) to heat and cool your home. This idea, called "ground-source heat pumps" or "ground source heat exchange" is growing in popularity for new home construction and has the potential to save a lot of energy in buildings. But we'll wait for that until we talk about energy conservation. Here we'll stick to producing electricity directly from the heat deep within the earth's surface.
Remember how your basic steam turbine works in a power plant that uses fossil fuels: Fuel is burned to heat water in a boiler, to create steam. The steam is used to drive a turbine, which generates electricity. What if you could get all that steam without burning a single ounce of coal, oil or natural gas? That is the appeal of geothermal electricity production. In certain locations (primarily near active or recently active volcanoes) there are very hot rocks deep under the earth’s surface. In these "geothermal" regions, the temperature may rise by 40-50°C every kilometer of depth, so just 3 km, the temperature could be 120 to 150°C, well above the boiling point for water. The rocks in these regions will typically have pore spaces filled with water, and the water may still be in the form of liquid water since the pressure is so high down there (in some very hot areas, the water is actually in the form of steam trapped in the rocks). If you drill a deep well into one of these "geothermal reservoirs", the water will rise up and as it approaches the surface, the pressure decreases and it turns to steam. This steam can then be used to drive a turbine that is attached to a generator to make electricity. In some regards, this is very much like a coal or natural gas electrical plant, except that with geothermal, no fossil fuels are burned, which means no carbon emissions.
There are three basic types of geothermal power plants, depending on the type of hydrothermal reservoir:
The oldest geothermal plant (1904) in the world is Lardarello, in Italy, which is a dry steam plant. The Geysers, in California, is the largest geothermal installation in the world and the only accessible dry-steam area in the United States (other than Old Faithful and the rest of Yellowstone, which is off-limits). Most modern geothermal plants are “closed-loop” systems, which means that the water (or steam) brought up from the surface is re-injected back into the earth, as shown in the figure below. If the water is not replaced, then eventually, the geothermal reservoir will dry up and cease function.
On a global scale, the potential for geothermal energy is quite large. The IPCC estimates that even though just a fraction of the total heat within the Earth can be used to generate geothermal power, we could nevertheless generate about 90 EJ of energy per year, and this is energy that is constantly renewed from within the Earth. Keep in mind that at present, we generate just over 2 EJ per year, so this energy source can definitely expand, but by itself it cannot meet the total global energy demand of 600 EJ.
To harness geothermal energy to generate electricity using any conventional technology (dry steam, flash steam or binary steam), you’ve got to be in the right place, where there is just the right amount of hot fluid or steam in an accessible reservoir. Unfortunately, those places are few and far between. The figure below shows a map of geothermal resources in the U.S., with identified conventional sites marked with dots on the map. All are located in just a handful of western states, plus Alaska.
The state of Alaska is known more for oil and gas than for renewable energy resources, but the remote nature of many Alaskan communities calls for different energy solutions that we might use in a more connected part of the world. This video shows how some remote areas of Alaska are using locally-sourced renewable energy to power their communities, rather than relying so much on crude oil that makes up much of the state's economic bounty.
Most places do not have that right combination of an accessible, large reservoir of underground heat. Instead, reservoirs are more dispersed, in geologic formations with less permeability (this naturally inhibits the flow of hot fluid towards the surface). Engineers have discovered how to alter the subsurface to create man-made reservoirs of hot water that could be tapped to produce electricity, in either a flash steam or (with higher potential) a binary steam technology configuration. The process of engineering a geothermal reservoir underground is known as “enhanced geothermal systems” or EGS. As the resource map in Figure 2 shows, EGS could be done in a lot more places than conventional geothermal. Hundreds of thousands of gigawatts of power, basically enough to run the United States several times over, could potentially be harnessed through EGS.
The US Department of Energy has a nice animation outlining how EGS works: How an Enhanced Geothermal System Works [12]. Also, check out the interactive image of the EGS on the same page to gain a deeper understanding. Note: This animation requires Flash. If you don't have Flash installed, click the link to the Text Version of the animation.
The basic idea behind EGS is to fracture hot rocks deep within the earth to create channels or networks through which water could flow. When water is injected into these networks, the heat from the rocks boils the water directly, or the now-hot water is transported to the surface where it is used to boil a working fluid, much like a binary steam plant. Fracturing of the rock occurs via “hydraulic fracturing,” under which water is injected into the rock formation at high pressures, causing the rock to fracture. This is actually very similar to the way that natural gas and oil is being extracted from shale. So we can “frack” for geothermal in much the same way that we frack for oil and gas.
Only a few countries use geothermal resources as a major source of electricity production –Iceland, El Salvador, and the Philippines all use geothermal for more than 25% of total electricity generation within those countries. New Zealand is the next (but distant) largest at 10%. Where hydrothermal resources are easy to access, they have often been utilized. The trouble is, there just aren’t that many Old Faithfuls in the world.
EGS represents the most significant potential for geothermal electricity production, but other than a few small military or pilot projects, the systems have not really caught on commercially. One of the big reasons is cost – like many low-carbon electricity technologies, EGS is inexpensive to run but very costly to build. Drilling geothermal wells is much more expensive than drilling conventional oil or gas wells, so electricity prices would probably need to increase by 25% or more (relative to current averages) to make EGS a financially viable technology.
Perhaps a more serious challenge for EGS is “induced seismicity,” which is a fancy term for causing earthquakes. EGS wells that were drilled below Basel, Switzerland caused over 10,000 small tremors (less than 3.5 on the Richter scale) within just a few days following the start of the hydraulic fracturing process. In Oregon, a test EGS well is being monitored for induced seismic activity – you can see some neat real-time earthquake data at Induced Seismicity [13] (U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Induced seismicity occurs whenever hydraulic fracturing (related to EGS or developing a natural gas well) takes place, but in most cases, the earthquakes are so small they are not felt. However, if the hydraulic fracturing occurs near pre-existing faults (which are often not visible at the surface), then larger earthquakes can and do occur, and some of these are strong enough to cause minor damage to buildings nearby.
Fossil fuels dominate the electricity generation mix of the US as a whole and the global energy mix more generally. But in some areas of the US (like the Pacific Northwest) and in some countries, including several in South America and Europe, the 800-pound gorilla of electric power generation isn’t coal, oil or even natural gas – it’s hydropower, generated from immense dams placed along the world’s major rivers. In both the US and globally, hydropower is the largest renewable resource in the energy mix, and certainly the largest source of renewably generated electricity. While growth in the use of hydroelectricity (at least the traditional type – generated by very large dams) has slowed to near zero in the U.S., many other countries in both the developed and developing world are pushing ahead with major projects to dam rivers and generate immense amounts of electricity.
This is a good thing, right? After all, the more power that is generated from hydroelectricity, the less that we might have to generate using fossil fuels, and the fewer greenhouse gases that the global energy sector will release. While it is certainly true that there are no direct greenhouse-gas emissions from hydroelectricity, broadening the use of hydropower, particularly in heavily forested areas of the world, introduces other complex environmental and social impacts. In fact, the reservoirs behind dams are major sources of methane (a potent greenhouse gas), so hydro is not exactly a carbon-free source of energy.
In this section, we’ll take a look at the processes for harnessing water for electric power generation – and these processes are not limited to damming rivers (though dams are certainly the predominant method for harnessing water energy). Like wind energy, humans have been using water for “energy” purposes (i.e., to do useful work) for thousands of years, making river systems one of the world’s oldest energy resources. For the first couple of thousand years of hydro-energy’s existence, the energy in flowing water was used to turn water wheels not for power generation, but for grinding or milling things like wheat, to make flour. It was not until the 1880s that hydroelectricity was born, with small hydropower dams in Michigan and Niagara Falls providing electricity to those places.
There are three basic technologies for using flowing water to generate electricity:
There are three main types of conventional hydropower technologies: impoundment (dam), diversion, and pumped storage.
Impoundment is the most common type of hydroelectric power plant. An impoundment facility, typically a large hydropower system, uses a dam to store river water in a reservoir. Water released from the reservoir flows through a turbine, spinning it, which in turn activates a generator to produce electricity. Generation may be used fairly flexibly to meet baseload as well as peak load demands. The water may also be released either to meet changing electricity needs or to maintain a constant reservoir level. The layout of a typical impoundment hydropower facility is shown below in the first figure. One of the world’s most famous impoundment dams, the Hoover Dam, is shown in the second figure (although it’s worth noting that on a global scale, the Hoover Dam is more famous than it is large).
A diversion, sometimes called run-of-river, facility channels a portion of a river through a canal or penstock. It may not require the use of a dam but also has limited flexibility to follow peak variation in power demand. Thus, it will mainly be useful for baseload capacity. This scenario results in limited flooding and changes to river flow. In the United States, many of the dams in the Pacific Northwest (on the Columbia and Snake Rivers) are diversion or run-of-river dams, with limited or no storage reservoir behind the dam. The figure below shows a picture of a diversion hydropower facility. Compare what that facility looks like with the picture of Hoover Dam, the impoundment facility shown above.
A “pumped storage” hydro dam combines a small storage reservoir with a system for cycling water back into the reservoir after it has been released through the turbine, thus “re-using” the same water to generate electricity at a later time. When the demand for electricity is low (typically at night), a pumped storage facility stores energy by pumping water from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir. During periods of high electrical demand (typically during the day), the water is released back to the lower reservoir to generate electricity. The figure below shows a schematic of a pumped storage hydro facility. Pumped storage facilities are typically smaller in terms of generation capacity than their impoundment or diversion counterparts, but are sometimes combined with impoundment or diversion facilities to increase peak power output or flexibility.
Water in the oceans is constantly in motion due to waves and tides, and energy can be harvested from these kinds of motions. Waves, driven by the winds, make the water oscillate in roughly circular orbits extending to a depth of one half of the wavelength of the wave (distance between peaks). Tides, related to the gravitational pull of the Moon and Sun on the oceans, are like very long-wavelength waves that can produce very strong currents in some coastal areas due to the geometry of the shoreline. In terms of power generation technologies, wave and tidal power have both similarities and differences. Both refer to the extraction of kinetic energy from the ocean to generate electricity (again, by spinning a turbine just as hydroelectric dams or wind farms do), but the locations of each and the mechanisms that they use for generating power are slightly different.
Wave energy projects extract energy from waves on the surface of the water, or from wave motion a bit deeper (a few 10s of meters) in the ocean. Surface wave energy technologies capture the kinetic energy in breaking waves – these provide periodic impulses that spin a turbine. The US Department of Energy [20] has a nice description of different types of surface wave projects as follows:
Offshore wave energy systems are typically placed deeper in the ocean, though not too deep – perhaps a few hundred feet below the ocean’s surface. The periodic wave activity at this depth is typically used to power a pump that feeds into a turbine, generating electricity.
Tidal energy projects typically work by forcing water through a turbine or a “tidal fence” that looks like a set of subway turnstiles. The systems depend on regular tidal activity to generate power. Because this tidal activity is predictable (each coast sees at least one tidal cycle per day – high tide and low tide – and some areas actually see two tidal cycles on a daily basis), tidal energy projects have the advantage of being able to provide a fairly predictable source of electricity. The use of tidal power, globally, has been quite limited because there are only a few sites in the world that see sufficiently large variations in tides to produce enough power, as shown in the table below.
Country | Site | Tidal Range (m) |
---|---|---|
Canada | Bay of Fundy | 16.2 |
England | Severn Estuary | 14.5 |
France | Port of Granville | 14.7 |
France | La Rance | 13.5 |
Argentina | Puerto Rio Gallegos | 13.3 |
Russia | Bay of Mezen | 10.0 |
Russia | Penzhinskaya Guba | 13.4 |
U.S. (Alaska) | Turnagain Arm | 9.2 |
U.S. (Alaska) | Cook Inlet | 7.6 |
When rivers are utilized to produce electricity, that is usually accomplished by building some sort of hydroelectric dam, like the three we discussed earlier. It doesn’t have to be that way, however. Many of the technologies used to extract energy from the tides (or similar technologies) could be deployed in freshwater river systems rather than the saltwater ocean, effectively acting as very small run-of-river facilities. These “hydrokinetic” power generation systems are typically individually small (each generating about 100 kilowatts or less of power) and could be situated in two ways. First, a propeller-like or turnstile-like turbine could be deployed directly into the riverway, operating much like a small-scale tidal power system. Second, a “micro-hydro” type of system could be employed, where river water is channeled to a turbine housing via a channel or pipeline, as shown in the figure below.
Globally, hydroelectricity is a major electricity resource, accounting for more than 16% of all electricity produced on the planet. More electricity is produced globally using hydropower than from plants fueled by nuclear fission or petroleum (natural gas and coal do produce more electricity globally than hydropower does). More than 150 countries produce some hydroelectricity, although around 50% of all hydropower is produced by just four countries: China, Brazil, Canada, and the United States. China is by far the largest hydropower producer on the planet, as shown in the figure below. Hydroelectricity production in China has tripled over the past decade, with the completion of some of the world’s largest dam projects, in particular, the Three Gorges Dam (the world’s largest), which could produce nearly enough electricity to power all of New England during a typical summer and left an area roughly the size of San Francisco flooded underwater.
Once hydroelectric dams are built, they run very cheaply and generally provide reliable supplies of electricity except during times of extreme drought. Developed countries that have substantial hydro resources have, by and large, already utilized those resources to produce electricity. In these countries, hydropower dominates the electricity supply system as shown in the chart below. Norway leads the pack here – the amount of hydropower that it produces is not large in an absolute sense (it is the world’s seventh-largest producer) but nearly all electricity generated in Norway comes from hydro-power. Brazil and Canada are also highly dependent on hydropower. Other large hydro producers, such as China and the United States, produce much less hydroelectricity relative to the size of their overall power sectors.
It is often said that developed countries like the United States have little potential for growth in hydroelectric power generation – the US, in particular, has dammed so many rivers, that what could possibly be left? In some areas of the Pacific Northwest, the US is removing some dams that produce electricity due to environmental concerns. It is certainly the case that there is relatively little potential for new hydro mega-projects in the US. This does not mean, however, that there is nowhere left to build new hydroelectric projects. There are, in fact, several hundred megawatts of planned hydroelectric generation in the Mid-Atlantic US alone (see the map at PJM [22]) [23], though most of the projects would be small pumped storage facilities) We’ll walk briefly through a few examples of the hydro resource potential in the United States before taking a more global look.
First, not all dams in the US are equipped with turbines to generate electricity. There are, actually, quite a few that aren’t (see the interactive map at Energy.gov [24] – potentially enough power generation to supply more than ten million homes. Many of these are located along major shipping routes, like the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. Others are located in areas where development might not make economic sense because the power would need to be shipped across large and expensive transmission lines. Another unconventional technology – hydro-kinetics – could potentially supply enough electricity to power the state of Virginia, although these resources are highly concentrated in the Lower Mississippi River and in more remote areas such as Alaska.
Globally, the picture is very different. Developing nations with abundant hydro resources, like China, Brazil, and other South American countries, are rushing headlong into planning and building new dams. So globally, hydroelectricity is alive and well, and growing rapidly (no pun intended) – although this growth comes in fits and starts since new dams each represent a big chunk of capacity and take a long time from project start to finish. Nearly half of the world’s fifteen largest dams were built since the year 2000, with only one of those in a country other than China or Brazil (the Sayano Shuskenskaya dam in Russia was recently upgraded, although the original went into place in the 1980s).
Energy from hydropower has been growing at a steady annual rate of 0.3 EJ per year since the year 2000, faster than the previous decades, but overall, hydro still accounts for just 16 EJ of the total 580 EJ we used in 2018. Some estimates suggest that if we really developed all of the economically viable hydroelectric sites, we might be able to generate as much as 50 EJ of hydroelectric energy — still a far cry from the +600 we will need in the near future. But even though hydro cannot solve all of our energy problems, it is nevertheless very important in that it supplies a relatively low-emissions, dispatchable (on-demand) energy source that can help smooth out the variability in wind and solar energy production.
While hydro development is still growing in several regions of the world, many countries, including the United States, will not likely pursue larger hydro projects due to two main factors — first, we have already built hydroelectric dams in most of the best places, and secondly, there are concerns over the environmental and societal impacts of building more dams. These environmental impacts have even been used to justify dam removal in some cases, though weighing those environmental impacts against the societal benefits (such as irrigation, flood control, recreation, and so forth…not just electricity) has always been controversial. Some of these specific environmental and societal impacts include:
For those who care a lot about climate change and reducing the carbon intensity of our energy systems, nuclear seems like a bit of a Faustian bargain. On the one hand, nuclear power plants have all of the advantages of fossil fuel plants – they offer controllable and (in the hands of skilled operators) highly reliable electricity supplies; can be built at very large scales (and increasingly smaller scales), and cost very little to operate once they are built – but have basically none of the greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand, there are serious challenges that come with having an electrical system that depends a lot on nuclear. Plants are very expensive to build, which is why the cost of nuclear energy is so high (more than 6 times as much as wind power). Managing waste products has been difficult, particularly in the United States, where most of our waste is stored at the power plants in a "temporary" mode. Finland is about to begin storing their waste in a safe, long-term facility deep within the Earth, but a similar solution in the US, at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, has stalled due to politics. And when nuclear power plants fail – as happened at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania; Chernobyl in what is now Ukraine; and most recently Fukushima Daichi in Japan – the results can range from striking terror into the hearts of thousands of people (as was the case with Three Mile Island, which as far as we can tell did not actually kill anyone outside of the plant) to utterly catastrophic (Chernobyl and Fukushima). As bad as these accidents are, it is important to understand that nuclear power plants cannot explode like a nuclear weapon — a fact that not everyone is aware of.
Part of the reason that nuclear energy can become an emotional topic is that nuclear power plants are extremely complex, despite their basic similarity to any other power plant that uses a steam turbine design. While it’s easy to understand how burning coal or natural gas can produce steam (and greenhouse gas emissions) to run a power plant, how nuclear reactions manage to create steam is a bit more complex. When you add in the thorny problem of how to manage a waste product that could potentially pose environmental and human health risks for thousands of years, it’s easy to see why a number of countries are deciding that the potential social costs are not worth the benefits. On the other hand, the global nuclear power industry actually has one of the best safety records of any energy source. Because nuclear power plants can be operated relatively safely in the right hands and because producing electricity from nuclear plants releases virtually no air pollution, some countries are actually seeking to rapidly increase their nuclear energy production. But, as we saw in the introduction to this module, on a global scale, nuclear energy production has not been growing over the past 20 years.
Is nuclear power truly renewable? The supplies of uranium ore that we know about today, given our current rate of consumption, will last for more than 150 years; increased exploration could increase that by a bit, but the fact remains that it is a finite resource. So, nuclear energy, as it is mainly produced today, using the isotope U-235, is not truly renewable. But, there are other types of nuclear reactors called "breeder" reactors, which use the far more abundant stable isotope of uranium, U-238, as the primary fuel. Because there is so much U-238, nuclear energy generated with these breeder reactors is virtually limitless.
Maggie Koerth-Baker has a really great article on how nuclear power plants work, with a focus on the nuclear fission reaction and what mechanisms in a nuclear power plant keep the reaction from spinning out of control. It was written right after the incident at Fukushima Daichi. Before continuing on, please have a look at the article, and pay some attention not only to how plants work, but how the nuclear reactions inside the plants are controlled. The article also has a really nice description of how reactions at nuclear power plants can keep cascading even after the plant has been “shut down,” which is basically what causes meltdowns like those that happened in the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl power plants.
Nuclear Energy 101: Inside the "black box" of Power Plants [3]
As described in the article linked above, when a reactor core shuts down, it doesn't go all the way to zero immediately. It takes several days for the reactor to stop producing heat, which is typically what leads to meltdowns when they happen. Why isn't shutting down a reactor core like flipping a switch?
Click for the answer.
The basics of a nuclear power plant aren’t actually all that complicated. In fact, there is a remarkable similarity to fossil fuel plants, in that what ultimately happens in a nuclear power plant is that steam is produced, to drive a turbine inside a generator, which produces electricity. But unlike fossil fuel plants, which heat water by burning fuel, the water in nuclear power plants is heated through an atomic reaction.
There are two basic types of atomic reactions. The first is nuclear fusion, with which we are all intimately familiar, whether we know it or not. It is nuclear fusion that keeps the sun hot. In nuclear fusion, atoms are joined together. The word “joined” here is a bit of scientific jargon. In reality, the energy is released when atoms collide together at really high speeds. If you have ever seen two cars collide at high speed, you have some idea of how energy could be released when things hit each other. Despite years of research into nuclear fusion, scientists have never been able to engineer a controllable reaction in a laboratory environment. If they could, most of the world’s energy problems would basically be solved overnight, since the amount of energy released through a fusion reaction would be massive. But for now, fusion goes in the “maybe someday” pile.
The second type of nuclear reaction is fission, which is the opposite of fusion – atoms are broken apart, which also releases energy. U-235 is naturally radioactive, meaning that the nucleus is unstable, and it will eventually give off some energy and parts of its nucleus to get to a stable atom, but this takes a long time — the half-life is 700 million years. The figure below illustrates roughly how this works. An atom (in the case of a nuclear power plant, a uranium-235 atom) is bombarded with neutrons, some of which are absorbed by the nucleus, so the U-235 becomes U-236 — this makes it even more unstable, so the atom splits apart into two lighter atoms called the daughter products. U-236 splits into krypton (Kr-92) and barium (Ba-141), and it also releases energy in the form of heat, gamma radiation (bad for us) and 3 neutrons. (Note that if you add up the weight of the daughter products and the neutrons, 92+141+3, you get 236, the weight of the U-236 that split apart). These neutrons come hurtling out of the original atom and smash into other uranium-235 atoms, triggering 3 more U-235 fission reactions, each of which generates 3 more neutrons. As you can see, before long, there are a lot of neutrons and thus a lot of reactions and thus a lot of heat, which heat the water surrounding the fuel rods, creating steam, spinning the turbine — just like many of the other systems for making electricity.
The nuclear fission reaction described above is an example of a positive feedback mechanism that will naturally tend to speed up until all of the fuel (the U-235) is used up. This means that it has a tendency to create more and more heat, and if left unchecked, this would cause the water in the reactor vessel to get too hot and build up too much pressure for the reactor to contain — then you would have a big steam explosion, such as happened at Chernobyl. To control this reaction, the reactor core has a series of control rods, made of materials that absorb the neutrons emitted during a fission reaction. So the control rods allow the operators to adjust the rate of the reaction and thus the rate of heat production.
There are two basic types of nuclear power plants that are in operation today. The first, and most common, is the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), which is illustrated in the animation below. In a PWR, hot water passes through the reactor core (where it absorbs the heat from the nuclear fission reactions) and is then pumped through a heat exchanger, where it heats another fluid that produces steam, powering the turbine. The primary advantage to this type of design is that the water in the primary loop (which passes through the core) does not actually come into contact with the fluid in the steam generator, so unless pipes or valves break there is no risk of contamination or radioactive water leaking from the plant. The Boiling Water Reactor (BWR), illustrated in the next figure, utilizes a somewhat simpler design, where the water that runs through the core is allowed to vaporize to steam, thus powering the turbine to generate electricity. While the design is simpler, it does mean that the steam entering the turbine can be radioactive.
Whether one design is inherently more advantageous than another is difficult to say. Both types have been involved in major nuclear power plant incidents. The reactor at Three Mile Island was a PWR while the reactor at Fukushima was a BWR, so the potential exists for problems at either type of plant. It is perhaps worth mentioning that the Three Mile Island incident was likely due as much to human error and poor design of the reactor’s control system at least as much as to the reactor design itself. The reactor at Chernobyl was an unusual Soviet design called a “light water graphite reactor” that was not really designed for use as a commercial nuclear power plant but was adapted for that use anyway. The World Nuclear Association [28] has a nice description of the Chernobyl plant technology with a description of what went wrong (here too, human error played a central role).
Advanced PWRs have been developed that use more passive designs to keep the reactor from overheating, without any pumps or offsite power required. Westinghouse has developed one such design, the AP1000, which is currently being deployed in China. For those who are interested, more information on passive PWR designs can be found at Westinghouse Nuclear [29].
Nuclear fuel rods typically last for 3-5 years, and when a rod is "spent" it still contains some fissionable 235-U along with a host of other radioactive elements. So, what do we do with these spent rods? Many people would argue that recycling is a good thing. In the nuclear energy industry, recycling of spent nuclear fuel is a somewhat contentious topic. Many countries, including those European countries that still use nuclear energy, recycle spent fuel into new fuel for re-use. The United States does not do this, preferring a "once-through" fuel cycle for reasons of security as well as economics. Understanding the pros and cons of recycling nuclear fuel requires some understanding of how fuel for nuclear power plants is mined and fabricated.
The figure above outlines the many steps necessary to get uranium out of the ground and into a nuclear power plant. After extraction and processing (“milling”), uranium ore is transported to conversion facilities to remove impurities. The next step in the nuclear fuel cycle is enrichment. Owing to security concerns, all enrichment for the US commercial nuclear industry takes place at one government-owned gas diffusion facility in Paducah, Kentucky. Enriched uranium is then transported to one of several commercial fuel fabrication facilities where the fuel rods are manufactured. In the U.S., fuel fabrication is a competitive industry; private firms compete to provide finished fuel to nuclear power plants. Nuclear fuel rods are generally not purchased directly from the government. Nuclear fission and disposal of spent fuel rods constitute the final steps of the nuclear fuel cycle in the US
The US is heavily dependent on the global market for uranium and nuclear fuel. n 2017, 90% of uranium oxide supplies used to develop nuclear fuel in the US come from outside of the country. The main suppliers for the US are Canada (24%), Kazahkstan (20%), Australia (18%), and Russia (13%). Proposals to open new uranium mines in both the western and eastern United States have been met with resistance, primarily on environmental grounds.
Current US policy prohibits the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, for two primary reasons. First is economics – the fuel costs for nuclear power plants are already among the lowest of any non-renewable power generation resource. Once nuclear power plants are built, if they are well-run they cost very little to operate. While the recycling of spent nuclear fuel would eliminate the need for virgin uranium ore to be mined or for additional fuel to be purchased on the world market, it is not at all clear whether the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs of reprocessing. The other reason is nuclear security. The process of recycling nuclear fuel involves the separation of uranium and plutonium from the spent fuel rods. There have been concerns regarding plutonium falling into the wrong hands and contributing to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
One very serious concern with nuclear power has to do with the highly radioactive waste from the process. Much of the waste needs to be isolated for at least 10,000 years. All civilian nuclear waste was intended to be stored permanently at a repository in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Yucca Mountain was chosen as a waste repository site back in 1987 and we have spent over $15 billion investigating the site and developing 65 km of tunnels deep underground to store the waste. Currently, it could hold 65,000 tons of waste, but we have 94,000 tons of radioactive waste in temporary storage at nuclear plants. The Yucca Mountain facility is not currently operational and significant uncertainties exist as to whether it will ever be used. In the interim, spent nuclear waste will continue to be stored on-site at the power plants.
Climatewire and the New York Times [2] recently published a nice piece that looks at both sides of the reprocessing debate.
There are currently several hundred operating nuclear power plants in the world, spread over a few dozen countries, with over a hundred more “proposed” nuclear power plants (these may or may not get built, depending on economic and political factors in the relevant countries). The US still has the largest number of plants, with about 100 currently operating. France’s economy is the most dependent on nuclear energy, with more than 75% of electricity in that country coming from nuclear power plants. Countries with fleets of nuclear power are primarily wealthier nations, such as the US and European countries, but developing nations are really the biggest growth area, particularly China. Prior to the Fukushima incident, other Asian nations besides China had plans to grow their nuclear fleets, but whether that growth will materialize is highly uncertain. In response to concerns regarding the safety of nuclear power plants and waste disposal/management issues, some European countries have enacted various policies mandating the phase-out of nuclear energy, including Austria, Sweden, Germany, Italy, and Belgium. Other countries, including Spain and Switzerland, have imposed a moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants. Of the countries that have decided to phase out nuclear energy, Germany has been among the most aggressive following the Fukushima incident. Because of concerns over electricity supply and costs, however, some countries have delayed or back-stepped on plans to phase out nuclear energy.
Analyze the Not In My Back Yard ("NIMBY") mentality by finding an recent example (something from the last 3 years) online and sharing it with the class. Why is it easier for many people to accept an abstract idea of resource extraction or power generation somewhere in the world than it is to see it happening in their own communities? Is it reasonable to imagine that all of our power needs can be met without venturing into anyone's backyard?
Many of us understand that our own progress, prosperity, security, and comfort are all built upon access to energy. We also know that no means of producing energy is entirely without side effects. Burning fossil fuels dumps CO2 into the atmosphere, fracking produces toxic brine, wind turbines disrupt bird migration patterns and ruin the view, nuclear generates radioactive waste and is vulnerable to meltdowns. How do we rationalize our reliance on energy with our desire to live in clean, scenic, non-toxic communities? It isn't easy, and for some of us, this results in what is sometimes referred to as NIMBY syndrome - the idea that ugly things like resource exploitation and waste management have to happen somewhere in the world, but we would prefer for that somewhere to be far away from us.
Find a recent example of the NIMBY mentality in an article online. If possible, try to find something that is happening near you - a proposed nuclear power plant, natural gas fracking, offshore oil drilling, wind farms. If you can't find something near you, find a NIMBY controversy you are interested in or have heard something about.
Once you find an article (remember — it should be a recent one) you would like to share, write 3-4 sentences summarizing the content. Why are people opposed? What are the alternatives? Then write an additional 2-3 sentences expressing your thoughts on the NIMBY mentality. Explain in your own words why you think it is or is not possible to maintain our current standard of living without venturing into someone's backyard.
Your discussion post should include a link to the article you have chosen, a summary 100-150 words in length, and a personal commentary 75-100 words in length. Your original post must be submitted by Wednesday. In addition, you are required to comment on one of your peers' posts by Sunday. You can comment on as many posts as you like, but please try to make your first comment to a post that does not have any other comments yet. Once you have an idea of what you want your post to be, go to the course discussion for your campus and create a new post.
The discussion post is worth a total of 20 points. The comment is worth an additional 5 points.
Description | Possible Points |
---|---|
link to appropriate article posted | 5 |
summary provides a clear description of the article content (100-150 words) | 10 |
well-reasoned comment on the NIMBY mentality (75-100 words) | 5 |
well-reasoned comment on someone else's article and post (75-100 words) | 5 |
Hydropower, geothermal and nuclear energy are not growing as fast as wind and solar (and don’t get as much good press) but all three are technically and economically viable options for producing carbon-free electricity at a large scale. Moreover, unlike wind and solar, electricity output from these sources is more easily controlled and is less subject to the vagaries of wind speed or cloud cover. Still, each of these resources has its own set of issues. Many countries have basically tapped their rivers for hydroelectricity already, and building large dams is environmentally destructive in its own way. Geothermal resources are great where you’ve got them…but not very many places have them. Nuclear energy represents a serious social dilemma: the promise of producing massive amounts of low-carbon energy alongside a host of economic, environmental and safety risks.
You have reached the end of Module 7! Double-check the Module Roadmap to make sure you have completed all of the activities listed there before you begin Module 8.
Links
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/aug/14/nuclear-power-world
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/05/18/18climatewire-is-the-solution-to-the-us-nuclear-waste-prob-12208.html?pagewanted=all
[3] http://boingboing.net/2011/03/12/nuclear-energy-insid.html
[4] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth104/node/689
[5] http://www.nps.gov/features/yell/webcam/oldFaithfulStreaming.html
[6] https://www.youtube.com/@redrocktrail
[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyyH_15PabA&t=67s
[8] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/geothermal/geothermal-power-plants.php
[9] https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/geothermal-data-systems
[10] https://www.youtube.com/@Etheoperatorsmanual
[11] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jFjGeMsC9c
[12] https://energy.gov/eere/geothermal/how-enhanced-geothermal-system-works
[13] https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/earthquakes
[14] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hydroelectric_dam.png
[15] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hydroelectric_dam.png#Licensing
[16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hoover_dam_from_air.jpg
[17] https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/habitat-conservation/tazimina#related-information
[18] https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/about-us/website-policies-and-disclaimers#copyright-policy
[19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pumpstor_racoon_mtn.jpg
[20] https://www.energy.gov/
[21] https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/microhydropower-systems
[22] https://www.pjm.com/planning.aspx
[23] https://www.pjm.com/
[24] https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/hydropower-resource-assessment-and-characterization
[25] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor
[26] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
[27] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:GFDL
[28] https://www.world-nuclear.org/ukraine-information/chernobyl-accident.aspx
[29] http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/
[30] http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
[31] http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx