Coal to Nuclear (C2N)

I’ve been reading about this idea for 20 years, but not much has ever been done. The source of this article and study were somewhat surprising, though. The government is apparently now taking the idea seriously.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/could-nations-coal-plant-…

A new U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) study finds that hundreds of coal power plant sites across the country could be converted to nuclear power plant sites. This would dramatically increase the supply of firm and dispatchable clean electricity to the grid and deliver huge gains to the nation’s goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

According to the report, this coal-to-nuclear (C2N) transition could help increase nuclear capacity in the U.S. to more than 350 gigawatts (GW). The existing fleet currently has a combined capacity of 95 GW and supplies half of the nation’s emissions-free electricity.

Coal-fired power plants produced 908 million metric tons of CO2 in the US in 2021. Over the last 15 years or so, coal plants have already been phased out to a certain extent in the US, but those plants were mostly replaced with natural gas power plants, which is another fossil fuel. This C2N idea would have a larger effect to decarbonize the electric power industry.

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec11_9.pdf…

A coal plant facility in Wyoming is planned to receive a demonstration nuclear power plant. I doubt the nuclear reactor will be incorporated much into the coal plant itself. They will probably just utilize the existing electrical switchyard, and perhaps some of the cooling water supply and support offices and other buildings.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/17/bill-gates-terrapower-builds…

* Bill Gates’ TerraPower has chosen Kemmerer, Wyoming, a frontier-era coal town, as the site where the company will build its first demonstration nuclear power plant.
* The plant will cost about $4 billion, half coming from TerraPower and half coming from the United States government, the company said.
* Rocky Mountain Power — a division of PacifiCorp, which is owned by Berkshire Hathaway Energy — will operate the plant, which will play a role in the power company’s decarbonization strategy.

  • Pete
4 Likes

This would also reduce the amount of radiation released to the public, since the radioactivity in coal exceeds what nuclear reactors emit.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-…

Coal emits 100x as much as nuclear
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/…

Mike

3 Likes

I’ve been reading about this idea for 20 years, but not much has ever been done

The recently passed IRA provides a tax incentive for building a zero-emission power source on the site of a coal facility.

5 Likes

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/16/opinion/nuclear-power-sti….

Responding to a climate emergency with nuclear power is like calling on a sloth to put out a house fire. The 63 nuclear reactors that went into service around the world between 2011 and 2020 took an average of around 10 years to build. By comparison, solar and wind farms can be built in months; in 2020 and 2021 alone, the world added 464 gigawatts of wind and solar power-generation capacity, which is more power than can be generated by all the nuclear plants operating in the world today.

But the much-vaunted small reactors are still novel, mainly untested technology. In another era, it may have been worth taking a gamble on these systems in order to avert climate disaster.

Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford and a longtime proponent of renewable energy, told me that such a bet makes less sense today, when wind and solar power keep getting better — because any new money put in nuclear is money you aren’t spending on renewable projects that could lower emissions immediately.

There’s an opportunity cost “of waiting around for a nuclear reactor to be built when you could have spent that money on wind or solar and got rid of emissions much faster,” Jacobson said. This cost may be particularly onerous when you consider the rapid advancement in battery technology, which can help address the main shortcoming of renewable power: its intermittency.

The price of lithium-ion batteries has dropped by about 97 percent since they were introduced in 1991, and prices are projected to keep falling.

Jacobson is one of several researchers who have argued that such advances will render nuclear power essentially obsolete. As we build more renewable energy systems — onshore and offshore wind, solar power everywhere — and improve technologies to store energy (through batteries and other ideas), wind and solar can meet most of our energy needs, says Jacobson. In a 2015 paper, he argued that the world can be powered through renewable energy alone. His findings have been hotly disputed, but other researchers have come to similar conclusions.

Jaak

This would also reduce the amount of radiation released to the public, since the radioactivity in coal exceeds what nuclear reactors emit.

========================================

We could also put wind and solar at old coal power sites to have clean electricity. The main issue for the environment is clean electricity.

Jaak

We could also put wind and solar at old coal power sites to have clean electricity. The main issue for the environment is clean electricity.

Doubtful that the site of a coal plant is ideal for wind.

Mike

1 Like

Doubtful that the site of a coal plant is ideal for wind.

Mike

====================================

Doubtful that the site of a coal plant is ideal for nuclear.

Jaak

P.S. - But the sun shines plenty in the coal states where many coal plants are going to be shutdown. :grinning:

Doubtful that the site of a coal plant is ideal for wind.

Doubtful that the site of a coal plant is ideal for nuclear.

A lot of coal plants are located on rivers – cooling water – and they are already hooked into the grid.

DB2

2 Likes

A lot of coal plants are located on rivers – cooling water – and they are already hooked into the grid.

DB2

===================================

But those coal fired power plant sites may not have the proper geology to carry the weight of a nuclear plant, or the proper hydrology to prevent flooding from upstream dams or torrential rains, or too close to population centers/airports/military facilities/.

Jaak

A lot of coal plants are located on rivers – cooling water – and they are already hooked into the grid.

But those coal fired power plant sites may not have the proper geology to carry the weight of a nuclear plant, or the proper hydrology to prevent flooding from upstream dams or torrential rains, or too close to population centers/airports/military facilities.

Of course each site would need to be evaluated. There’s this one in Wyoming:

Natrium Reactor Demonstration Project, Wyoming
www.power-technology.com/projects/natrium-reactor-demonstrat….
The Natrium Reactor Demonstration project is a nuclear power generation facility proposed to be built in Wyoming, US. The pilot project was announced by US-based nuclear reactor design firm TerraPower and electric power company PacifiCorp in June 2021. The demonstration plant will build a 345MW nuclear plant based on Natrium technology, a sodium fast reactor with integrated energy storage and flexible power generation. It is expected to be built at a retired coal plant in Wyoming.

Coal plant sites could host 265 GW of advanced nuclear, costing 35% less than Greenfield projects
www.utilitydive.com/news/coal-plant-nuclear-c2n-doe-report/6….
About 80% of operating and recently retired coal-fired power plant sites could host an advanced nuclear power reactor, with nearly 265 GW in total potential nuclear capacity, according to a Department of Energy report…

DB2

1 Like