Houston expert: Why we need to talk about nuclear power

guest column

"The world has two complementary challenges: decarbonization to deal with climate change and ensuring that there is a steady, safe, and reliable supply of energy. Nuclear can help with both." Photo via Getty Images

A magnitude 9.0 earthquake and resulting tsunami devastated Japan’s Fukushima province in 2011 and flooded the nearby nuclear power plant. This damaged the reactor cores and released radiation. How many people died as a result of radiation exposure?

A. More than 10,000

B. More than 5,000

C. More than 1,000

D. More than 100

E. 1

The correct answer: E.

Yes, I was surprised, too.

No question: Fukushima was a tragedy. The earthquake and tsunami; about 18,000 people died. The evacuation of 150,000 people due to fears about possible radiation was traumatic and cost lives due to stress and interrupted medical care, particularly among the elderly. Fukushima a disaster — but it was a natural disaster, not a nuclear one.

In 2018, Japan confirmed the first death of a worker at the plant as a result of radiation exposure, and there has been none since. But surely, this is just a matter of time; there will be more cancers and premature deaths. Not so, according to the UN’s Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. In 2021, it found that “no adverse health effects among Fukushima residents have been documented that could be directly attributed to radiation exposure from the accident, nor are expected to be detectable in the future.” The World Health Organization came to a similar conclusion, as did the US Centers for Disease Control.

Fukushima is widely regarded as the second-worst nuclear-power accident in history (after Chernobyl which was much, much worse). As a result of it, Japan shut down or suspended all of its nuclear operations, which generated about 30 percent of its power at the time. Many have stayed shut. Germany pledged to phase out nuclear power by the end of 2022, and Spain, Belgium and Switzerland announced the same, but a bit more slowly.

And so, to my point: While I know there are difficulties, I think more countries, particularly in the West, need to get serious about nuclear. Even though people with impeccable green and/or progressive credentials like George Monbiot of The Guardian, James Hansen (sometimes known as the “father of global warming”), Stewart Brand (of Whole Earth Catalog fame), Steven Pinker, and yes, Sting believe that nuclear must play a bigger role in order to achieve deep and last decarbonization, I get the impression that the topic is often seen not fit for discussion in polite green society. It’s striking how few of the country submissions about meeting their climate goals under the Paris accords mention nuclear.

There are two major objections.

It’s dangerous. No, it’s not, and nuclear plants are not run by legions of Homer Simpsons. In fact, nuclear has proved incredibly safe over its 60-plus year history. Here is the OECD in 2010: “Even though nuclear power is perceived as a high risk, comparison with other energy sources shows far fewer fatalities.” Since releases of radioactivity were so rare — and none in OECD countries prior to Fukushima — the OECD noted that “reliance on statistics of events is not possible.” Instead, it had to do a theoretical exercise. An analysis of deaths per terawatt-hour (TWh) of electricity estimated nuclear’s toll at 0.03 per TWh. That figure includes Chernobyl as well as things like workplace accidents. That is less than wind (0.04), and a bit more than solar (0.02).

And of course, since we live in the real world, it’s important to remember that any particular source is part of a larger system. Nuclear power is markedly less dangerous than fossil fuels, which are deadlier in terms of production, and also carry risks in the form of respiratory disease and other problems related to air pollution. James Hansen estimated in 2013 that, by displacing fossil fuels, nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatons of GHG emissions.

It’s expensive. Upfront costs are high, and operating a plant isn’t cheap. By any measure, renewables, gas, and coal are all cheaper and that will probably be the case for the foreseeable future. In addition, renewables and gas can continue to innovate and their costs could continue to fall without the big capital expenditures that nuclear requires. It’s fair to say that under today’s conditions, the economics of nuclear are against it.

But, what if conditions change? For one thing, a big chunk of the expense comes in the form of time. In places where it takes a decade or more just to get through the regulations and litigation — and the United States is one — that drives up costs enormously. McKinsey has estimated that If nuclear costs could be lowered 20 to 40 percent, it would be competitive with other forms of generation. (It’s worth noting that in the years when renewables were very expensive, there were still many voices in support of them, for reasons of health, energy security, and diversity of supply. All these apply to nuclear.) To be clear: I am not against nuclear regulation: safety first and last. But it is possible to foster both safety and efficiency, and to drive down costs in the process.

Moreover, renewables are dependent on the weather; they cannot keep the lights on 24/7 without storage, which at the moment is both limited and expensive. The relative economics compared to nuclear change a lot if storage is added to the equation.

As for the positive case for nuclear, there are several elements. One has to do with innovation. A new generation of advanced water-cooled and small modular reactors (SMRs) are even safer than existing ones and generate less waste. (The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission certified NuScale’s SMR design in July.) These new designs might also change the economics. The capital and construction costs of SMRs are much less, although still big, an estimated $3 billion for NuScale, for example. The idea is that they could be mass-manufactured, generating economies of scale, then shipped to markets that could never afford the kind of massive plants that are the norm now. But that can only happen if it is allowed to happen, which is a kind of Catch-22. As an MIT study noted: “Policies that foreclose a role for nuclear energy discourage investment in nuclear technology.” And that guarantees that costs will stay high.

An important advantage of nuclear is that, acre for acre, it produces more power than solar or wind. Indeed, it’s not even close. The late British physicist and climate scientist David Mackay estimated that wind has a power density — power per unit of land area—of two watts per square meter (2W/m2); for solar farms, the figure is 10W/m2 — and for nuclear 1,000W/m2. To visualize what that means, to deliver the same amount of power, wind would require 500 acres, or almost three-fifths of New York’s Central Park, or all of Disneyland; nuclear would need less than a football field. And Earth is not growing massive amounts of new land.

Finally, it is hard to see how the world gets to deep decarbonization without it. Right now, nuclear provides more than half of all carbon-free US emissions and 30 percent globally. That cannot be replaced quickly or cost-effectively, particularly given that demand will continue to rise. It’s interesting, too, that to some extent, nuclear is assumed to be part of the climate solution. Indeed, in all three of the pathways it describes that limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (see page 28) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sees substantial increases in nuclear power.

There are itty-bitty signs that the mood may be changing, even in democratic places with active anti-nuclear campaigns. With Europe’s energy system struggling, Germany is slowing down its nuclear phase-out, by extending the life of two of its reactors. Japan, which has to import almost all its energy, is considering investing in a new generation of nuclear power plants. Britain is building its first new plant in decades — although the process has been troubled with delays and cost overruns. France is accelerating deployment and President Macron has said the country could build as many as 14 more — a reversal of the country’s previous plan to reduce its reliance on nuclear, which generates more than two-thirds of its power.

Closer to home, in September, California decided to extend the life of its Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which is the state’s largest single source of electricity (see image). The Biden Administration has allocated $2.5 billion for research into new nuclear technologies, and supported existing ones to stay open.

But the fact remains that the United States has just two plants under construction, both in Georgia, and costs are ballooning. Only one nuclear plant has started up since 1996, while almost a dozen have been retired. And it’s not just the US: there are only two under construction in the EU. Most new plants are rising in Asia, particularly China, India, and Korea.

Here’s the thing: I have been what passes for a nuclear optimist for decades — and been wrong for that long. I am tempted, yet again, to say that nuclear is having its moment. I won’t go that far, because in the West, I don’t think it is.

But I think that, just maybe, that moment is edging closer, out of necessity. The world has two complementary challenges: decarbonization to deal with climate change and ensuring that there is a steady, safe, and reliable supply of energy. Nuclear can help with both.

------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally ran on LinkedIn.

Energy sources are often categorized as renewable or not, but perhaps a more accurate classification focuses on the type of reaction that converts energy into useful matter. Photo by simpson33/Getty Images

How is energy produced?

ENERGY 101

Many think of the Energy Industry as a dichotomy–old vs. new, renewable vs. nonrenewable, good vs. bad. But like most things, energy comes from an array of sources, and each kind has its own unique benefits and challenges. Understanding the multi-faceted identity of currently available energy sources creates an environment in which new ideas for cleaner and more sustainable energy sourcing can proliferate.

At a high level, energy can be broadly categorized by the process of extracting and converting it into a useful form.

Energy Produced from Chemical Reaction

Energy derived from coal, crude oil, natural gas, and biomass is primarily produced as a result of bonds breaking during a chemical reaction. When heated, burned, or fermented, organic matter releases energy, which is converted into mechanical or electrical energy.

These sources can be stored, distributed, and shared relatively easily and do not have to be converted immediately for power consumption. However, the resulting chemical reaction produces environmentally harmful waste products.

Though the processes to extract these organic sources of energy have been refined for many years to achieve reliable and cheap energy, they can be risky and are perceived as invasive to mother nature.

According to the 2022 bp Statistical Review of World Energy, approximately 50% of the world’s energy consumption comes from petroleum and natural gas; another 25% from coal. Though there was a small decline in demand for oil from 2019 to 2021, the overall demand for fossil fuels remained unchanged during the same time frame, mostly due to the increase in natural gas and coal consumption.

Energy Produced from Mechanical Reaction

Energy captured from the earth’s heat or the movement of wind and water results from the mechanical processes enabled by the turning of turbines in source-rich environments. These turbines spin to produce electricity inside a generator.

Solar energy does not require the use of a generator but produces electricity due to the release of electrons from the semiconducting materials found on a solar panel. The electricity produced by geothermal, wind, solar, and hydropower is then converted from direct current to alternating current electricity.

Electricity is most useful for immediate consumption, as storage requires the use of batteries–a process that turns electrical energy into chemical energy that can then be accessed in much the same way that coal, crude oil, natural gas, and biomass produce energy.

Energy Produced from a Combination of Reactions

Hydrogen energy comes from a unique blend of both electrical and chemical energy processes. Despite hydrogen being the most abundant element on earth, it is rarely found on its own, requiring a two-step process to extract and convert energy into a usable form. Hydrogen is primarily produced as a by-product of fossil fuels, with its own set of emissions challenges related to separating the hydrogen from the hydrocarbons.

Many use electrolysis to separate hydrogen from other elements before performing a chemical reaction to create electrical energy inside of a contained fuel cell. The electrolysis process is certainly a more environmentally-friendly solution, but there are still great risks with hydrogen energy–it is highly flammable, and its general energy output is less than that of other electricity-generating methods.

Energy Produced from Nuclear Reaction

Finally, energy originating from the splitting of an atom’s nucleus, mostly through nuclear fission, is yet another way to produce energy. A large volume of heat is released when an atom is bombarded by neutrons in a nuclear power plant, which is then converted to electrical energy.

This process also produces a particularly sensitive by-product known as radiation, and with it, radioactive waste. The proper handling of radiation and radioactive waste is of utmost concern, as its effects can be incredibly damaging to the environment surrounding a nuclear power plant.

Nuclear fission produces minimal carbon, so nuclear energy is oft considered environmentally safe–as long as strict protocols are followed to ensure proper storage and disposal of radiation and radioactive waste.

Nuclear to Mechanical to Chemical?

Interestingly enough, the Earth’s heat comes from the decay of radioactive materials in the Earth’s core, loosely linking nuclear power production back to geothermal energy production.

It’s also clear the conversion of energy into electricity is the cleanest option for the environment, yet adequate infrastructure remains limited in supply and accessibility. If not consumed immediately as electricity, energy is thus converted into a chemical form for the convenience of storage and distribution it provides.

Perhaps the expertise and talent of Houstonians serving the flourishing academic and industrial sectors of energy development will soon resolve many of our current energy challenges by exploring further the circular dynamic of the energy environment. Be sure to check out our Events Page to find the networking event that best serves your interest in the Energy Transition.

------

Lindsey Ferrell is a contributing writer to EnergyCapitalHTX and founder of Guerrella & Co.

Ad Placement 300x100

Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Houston researchers develop compact carbon capture tech for data centers

AI emissions

Two scientists from the University of Houston have been experimenting with new carbon capture systems that fit inside a standard shipping container, which have the potential to make eliminating carbon output from industrial sites much easier.

The capture of industrial carbon is an important complement to the fight against climate change, as well as winning tax credits for businesses that use carbon capture technology.

The problem is that such systems are often measured in acres, making them expensive to build and extremely power-hungry to actually use. UH Engineering Professor Mim Rahimi and former UH Ph.D. student Ahmad Hassan (now a postdoctoral associate at Harvard) have managed to fit their new system, the Small Modular Electrochemical Container (SMECs), inside a standard 40-foot shipping crate, making them compact and modular enough to be installed almost anywhere for operations of all sizes. Their research was recently published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

“With a conventional system, you’re building a 130-foot-tall structure designed for a specific power plant. With our technology, we can adjust the capacity by simply turning containers on or off,” Rahimi said in a news release. “That flexibility is particularly important for data centers, where electricity can come from a combination of natural gas and renewable sources.”

Rahimi and Hassan used simulated gas models to show that under optimal conditions, the SMEC used electrochemically mediated amine regeneration (EMAR) cells developed in Rahimi’s lab to capture 90 percent of carbon under optimal conditions through 300 cycles over 50 hours.

Encouraged, the team then modeled a 360-megawatt natural gas power plant associated with OpenAI’s Stargate AI data center project in Abilene, Texas. In addition to the savings on infrastructure costs, 20 of the researchers’ shipping container systems were able to capture 98 percent of carbon from Stargate’s 875-acre campus based on the model.

The looming energy costs and subsequent carbon emissions from data centers are a real concern. Estimates from the U.S. Department of Energy hypothesize that 12 percent of America’s energy needs could be gobbled up by the centers as soon as 2028. That is a massive new source of carbon. The flexibility of the SMEC means they can be deployed wherever the centers spring up.

“We’re taking a technology that traditionally requires enormous infrastructure and finding a way to fit it inside a shipping container,” Rahimi added in the release. “That opens up entirely new possibilities for how and where carbon capture systems can be used.”

In the future, the researchers say they plan to look at ways to adapt the technology to capture carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere.

Hertha Metals breaks ground on $100M high-purity iron factory in Conroe

coming soon

Shortly after announcing a $133.65 Series A funding round, Conroe-based Hertha Metals broke ground Oct. 8 on a $100 million factory that will produce steel-grade and magnet-grade high-purity iron.

Hertha’s Chalyx plant, located in Conroe, will manufacture a total of about 10,000 metric tons per year of magnet-grade and steel-grade high-purity iron. The factory will use Hertha’s single-step process to generate high-purity iron for rare-earth-magnet and steel manufacturers in the U.S.

Hertha says Chalyx will be the first U.S. commercial plant for production of magnet-grade high-purity iron.

Chalyx is being built next to Hertha’s headquarters and its Pi100 pilot plant, which will remain in operation. Chalyx and Pi100 will form the first modern-day iron and steel “innovation complex” in the U.S., the company says.

“I founded Hertha Metals because I believed we could significantly improve how the world makes iron and steel from ore, and that an industry so fundamental to our future still had enormous room for invention,” Laureen Meroueh, founder and CEO of Hertha, said in a press release.

The 4-year-old startup says the Chalyx complex will lay the foundation for its first 500,000-ton-per-year steel mill.

Chalyx’s first priority is making high-purity iron for U.S. manufacturers of rare-earth magnets, Hertha says. These magnets are critical components for electric vehicles, data centers, wind turbines and defense systems.

China produces an estimated 94 percent of high-purity iron for rare-earth magnets, according to Hertha.

Aside from iron for rare-earth magnets, Chalyx will make iron and steel for pilot projects in the steel industry.

The plant is expected to come online in late 2027, with production of magnet-grade high-purity iron starting in early 2028.

Today, Hertha employs 32 people, the company says. Once it’s fully operating, the Chalyx plant will employ about 50 people.

Just ahead of the groundbreaking, Hertha announced the $133.65 million Series A round, co-led by Khosla Ventures and Doerr Capital. The round included a $65 million equity investment from the Pentagon.

“Iron and steel have shaped human progress for thousands of years. And I believe there is still an enormous amount left to invent,” Meroueh said at the groundbreaking ceremony.

Canada-founded energy tech company moves global HQ to Energy Corridor

houston hq

Pulsed-power technology company BlueSpark Energy will open its new global headquarters in Houston’s Energy Corridor to house its engineering, research and development, manufacturing, commercial and digital teams.

“Houston isn’t simply our new headquarters; it’s where a new BlueSpark begins,” Kahina Abdeli-Galinier, president and CEO of BlueSpark, said in a news release. ”We’re building the well health technology the industry needs to get more from existing wells, reduce intervention costs and keep wells producing for longer. Our new home brings us closer to our customers and places us at the heart of one of the most exciting markets in the industry, with the talent pool to match.”

The company, which began in Calgary, plans to grow its Houston workforce to 100 employees by the end of 2028, while the manufacturing element is expected to be operational in February 2027.

According to BlueSpark, the new facility will feature double the manufacturing floorspace of its current site, and the extra space will allow it to scale its tool manufacturing.

The headquarters is on West Sam Houston Parkway. BlueSpark's Chief Technology Officer Matt Mohajer and Chief Commercial Officer Zach Wilbur are already leading teams at the new space, according to the release.

BlueSpark develops pulsed-power technology that uses electrical energy to clean oil and gas well components, remove scale buildup and restore production without damaging equipment. Its technology helps operators reduce downtime, improve well performance and extend the productive life of existing wells.

Late last year, the company named Kahina Abdeli-Galinier as its CEO. It has since rebranded and focused on expanding its technology into new applications, including plugging and abandonment, cement removal and water services.

“We’re investing heavily in our technology, both the physics and the intelligence and delivery layer around it,” Abdeli-Galinier added in the release. “Having our engineering, manufacturing, digital, R&D and commercial teams in one place allows us to move much faster, giving our customers the tools they need to keep wells healthy and producing more for longer.”

View All Listings

ENERGYCAPITALHTX EMAILS ARE AWESOME