Setting the facts straight
A recent article in the Waterloo Region Record from Paul Nopper (When going green damages the environment – November 10, 2016) described renewable energy in a negative light. CED Co-op President Brian Unrau wants to set the record straight.
Mr. Nopper,
I appreciate your passion for the environment, but there are corrections that need to be made in a number of your statements to give fair consideration to the generating technologies you mentioned.
Efficiency vs. Capacity Factor
I think what you meant when describing efficiency is really capacity factor. Efficiency refers to the ability to convert fuel energy into electrical energy. Capacity factor refers to the actual output of a system, compared to producing 100% output 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.
Capacity Factor
Wind power generally has a capacity factor of 30%-35% of its rated installation. This means the total amount of energy produced over the course of the year is about the equivalent of producing at 100% output for 30%-35% of the year, even though instantaneous output will range from 0% to 100% depending on how windy it is. Solar power has a capacity factor of 13%-22%, depending on whether it is a fixed installation or one that tracks the sun throughout the day. This means that the electricity produced by a solar installation over the course of a year is equivalent to producing power at 100% for 13%-22% of the year, though its instantaneous output will range from 0% to 100% depending on how sunny it is.
Efficiency
If you are truly talking about efficiency, then the solar panels we use now are able to convert about 20% of the energy in sunlight to useable electricity. The rest remains as heat on the surface of the solar panel. Wind turbines capture up to 40% of the energy in moving air masses. The rest of the energy remains in the wind as it continues to move across the country-side. A CANDU nuclear reactor is able to use about 0.7% of the energy in the Uranium-235 to create electricity. The other 99.3% is given off as heat and radiation by waste which must safely be contained and stored with a half-life of 100,000 years (Stonehenge is 4,000 years old).
Who needs natural gas?
The assertion that we need to burn natural gas to supplement these technologies is not correct. There are many ways of integrating renewables in a supply mix. Therefore, the inclusion of the carbon footprint of a gas power plant in the carbon footprint of solar or wind power is entirely subjective and misleading.
Matching power generation to demand
While you might hold the intermittent (although predictable) generation profiles of solar and wind against the technologies, you must acknowledge the issue of inflexibility of nuclear generation. In Ontario, we have daily changes in electrical demand of up to 10,000 Megawatts (MW). Nuclear cores cannot be cycled up and down by 10,000 MW within every 24-hour period in order to match the times we want our power to be available to us. Even if they could, our current nuclear contracts force us to pay for the power, whether generators produce it or not. Further, our nighttime consumption in Ontario typically falls to total demand of about 12,000 MW. This means that our existing nuclear fleet of about 13,000 MW of generating capacity already exceeds our baseload need, never mind the 8,000 MW of mostly baseload waterpower generation Ontario has on tap. (Visit the IESO website for details on current electricity supply and demand)
In order for us to be able to take on any more nuclear generation in Ontario, we need to be able to implement storage, smart-grid, and demand shifting technologies to align electricity demand with production, otherwise even more of our nuclear generation (and other – we don’t get to pick which electrons go where) will need to be exported. If we are able to implement these storage, smart-grid, and demand shifting technologies to solve this problem, then those technologies, at the same time, overcome any limitations associated with intermittent generation from renewable sources.
Carbon Footprint
Though there is a carbon impact in the manufacturing of solar panels and wind turbines, there is a carbon footprint associated with all forms of manufacturing and energy production. The IPCC summarized all of the available studies of the life cycle carbon emissions of various forms of electricity generation. The results are as follows, sorted by the median grams of CO2 and CO2 equivalents per kWh of electricity over the lifespan of the installation:
| Technology | Min | Median | Max |
| Wind onshore | 7 | 11 | 56 |
| Wind offshore | 8 | 12 | 35 |
| Nuclear | 3.7 | 12 | 110 |
| Hydropower | 1 | 24 | 2200 |
| Solar PV – rooftop | 26 | 41 | 60 |
| Solar PV – utility scale | 18 | 48 | 180 |
| Biomass – dedicated | 130 | 230 | 420 |
| Gas – combined cycle | 410 | 490 | 650 |
| Coal – PC | 740 | 820 | 910 |
While Nuclear performs well on a carbon measurement, wind power still outperforms nuclear, and solar isn’t far behind compared to natural gas and coal. and there isn’t that nagging issue of needing to store radioactive waste for the next 4,000 generations (sorry, kids).
Costs and Subsidies
Increasing nuclear rates
Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is seeking to renew its operating licenses for a number of nuclear cores that are expiring in 2018. In order to facilitate this extension and fund the refurbishment, it has applied for an 11% annual increase in what it is paid for nuclear power. This will see the cost of nuclear generation go from $0.059/kWh to $0.168/kWh over the next 10 years, higher than the cost at which we are able to add utility scale solar power (the costs of which are continuing to decrease), and higher than the cost of wind power (both existing and newly constructed).
Within this application for 11% annual increases, OPG notes that this doesn’t actually cover their full cost increases in power generation. They would need to increase by 15% per year to fully cover the costs. Over the next 5 years, OPG will need to issue $4 billion of debt in order to fund the shortfall – stop me if you have heard the story of nuclear operations building up billions of dollars of debt before.
Supply and Demand for Uranium
Right now, the spot price for uranium is about $18 USD / lbs. It has been as high as about $140 USD / lbs. As a finite resource, it follows the economic laws of supply and demand. Currently, global uranium consumption is greater than production, meaning we are already depleting stockpiles in order to meet demand. Should demand for Uranium-235 increase substantially, the costs of nuclear generation will increase as the costs of building out more uranium mining facilities are incurred, especially since the mining will necessitate going after lower purity uranium resources. The timelines for increasing uranium production is years at best. Comparing this to renewables, as much sun or wind as you capture and convert to electricity, the “fuel” costs will never increase.
Insurance – the unaccounted subsidy
Regarding subsidies, nuclear facilities operate without any liability insurance coverage. No company in the world will insure them. The risk of fallout is borne by the governments and citizens that live nearby. Estimates by insurance companies predict that insurance costs to cover the risks of nuclear facilities would potentially exceed $1.00/kWh. This is the greatest subsidy of any of the forms of energy production that I am aware of, and is being left out of the cost and subsidy analysis.
Solar panels last for decades
When it comes to operating lifespans, solar panels last much longer than 20 years. Visit the Universe of Energy Pavilion in the Epcot Center at Walt Disney World. You will see rooftop solar panels installed in 1982. Those panels turn 35 years old next year, and continue to produce power. While low levels of degradation in power output do occur, manufacturers warranties guarantee 90% output for panels after 25 years, with expected lifetimes to reach 40 years and beyond.
There is a place for nuclear power…
Please don’t misunderstand me. I think that nuclear fusion is a great source of energy, I just think it should be kept 150 million kilometres from Earth.
Brian Unrau
President, Community Energy Development Co-operative
