Taylor R. Huston

Cullen College of Engineering

University of Houston

Dear Chairman of the Board:

I am submitting the enclosed recommendation report, “Nuclear vs. Wind: The First Step toward the Future of Texas Energy,” in compliance of the board’s request for the evaluation of proposed energy options.

If you have any questions regarding this submission, please contact me at trhuston@uh.edu.

Sincerely,

Taylor R. Huston

Undergraduate Student

i

Nuclear vs. Wind:

The First Step toward the Future of Texas Energy

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

Cullen College of Engineering

University of Houston

ii

Abstract

Texas has begun research on a plan to implement 100% sustainable energy production by 2050. Research is to begin on the first of a team of energy sources to accomplish this goal. This report compares two energy sources to be the first for further research and development, nuclear energy (N) and wind energy (W). Three criteria are used to evaluate and compare the proposed sources: environmental impact, economics, and production for largescale implementation. CO2 emissions, geographical footprint, and water consumption data were collected and it was discussed that wind power production emitted 87% less CO2, took up 48% less land, and consumed 99% less water than nuclear power production, winning the recommendation of this report with respect to the environmental impact criteria [3]. Construction and production cost, development timeline and completion record, and investment and development trend analysis data were collected and it was discussed that wind power production facilities cost 20% less to build and run, took 79% less time to develop and construct, and won 19 times the nuclear portion of world energy investment, winning the recommendation of this report with respect to the economics criteria [1] [6]. China is building both energy sources as fast as it can, with plenty of resources, making it the perfect experiment from which to gather our production data for largescale implementation. Power capacity, production efficiency, and realized power production data were collected and it was discussed that, while nuclear power production reaches more than double the efficiency rates of wind power production, the realized power production of wind energy was approximately six times that of realized power production of nuclear energy [2] [6]. With respect to environmental impact, economics, and production for largescale implementation, wind energy is recommended over nuclear energy as the superior source for immediate research and implementation.

iii

Table of ContentsIntroduction......................................................................................................................................1

Purpose.........................................................................................................................................1

Problem........................................................................................................................................1

Scope............................................................................................................................................1

Discussion........................................................................................................................................1

Environmental Impact..................................................................................................................1

Economics....................................................................................................................................4

Production for Large Scale Implementation................................................................................7

Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................8

Summary......................................................................................................................................8

Conclusions..................................................................................................................................8

Recommendation.........................................................................................................................8

Contact.............................................................................................................................................8

Annotated Bibliography...................................................................................................................9

List of FiguresFigure1: Future estimates of US premature deaths per year based on a scenarios where combinations of power production methods and vehicle types account for 100% of their respective US sectors. Low estimates are represented by solid shading and high estimates by solid shading plus vertical lines. In the case of the nuclear data, the horizontal lines represent the upper estimate with consideration for the potential of a nuclear weapons exchange [3]

3

Figure 2: Geographical footprint ratio for power generation adequate to supply the entire US vehicle population in 2007 by combination of different energy sources and vehicle types to that of the wind energy and battery electric vehicle combination [3].

3

Figure 3: Estimates of water consumption for different energy source and vehicle type combinations to account for 100% of their respective US sectors. Values refer to a net loss of gigagallons per year from the US water supply. Helpful to note: US water consumption was 148,900 Ggal/year [3].

3

Figure 4: Graphical analysis and comparison of the variation in global electricity production from nuclear, wind, and solar energy sources.

5

Figure 5: Global Investments: Renewables vs. Nuclear. 6

Figure 6: Newly installed wind power capacity for investing nations. 7

iv

v

IntroductionPurposeIt is the purpose of this report to make a recommendation to the state of Texas for immediate investment, research, and development of a sustainable energy source to head an array of such sources by which the state’s entire power supply may be converted to a 100% sustainable production by 2050.

ProblemAs nations grapple with the parameters set forth in the Paris Agreement, Texas wishes to remain a leader in the energy industry even if it means evolving without as large a stake in oil as it has had for so many years. The agreement, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions for those involved UN nations, will be a catalyst for the implementation of sustainable energy throughout the world. In order for Texas to stand above the rest once more, the state must respond to growing public demand for sustainable energy implementation, identify an economically viable means of satisfying this demand, and implement a plan capable of meeting the state’s growing power requirements. Texas is prepared to invest in a particular energy source to be the first subject for further research and large scale implementation. The master plan is to consist of a team of sustainable energy sources by which Texas wishes to implement 100% sustainable power production by 2050 to meet the state’s demands.

ScopeTwo energy sources were proposed, researched, evaluated, and compared: nuclear energy and wind energy. The three criteria for evaluation include environmental impact, economics, and production for large scale implementation. Each energy source is evaluated individually and compared to the other with respect to each criteria. This recommendation report then concludes with a recommendation for an energy source in which to invest first and a summary of persuasive evidence for said recommendation.

DiscussionEnvironmental ImpactExplanation

Greenhouse gas emissions continue to climb around the world due primarily to the energy sector. From 1997 to 2012, global emissions have increased from 32 billion tons per year to 34.5 billion tons per year, a 7.8% increase [1]. Global warming and air pollution threaten the health and safety of all life on this planet. In Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson’s article Review of Solutions to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security, the Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford University explains:

Indoor plus outdoor air pollution is the sixth-leading cause of death, causing over 2.4 million premature deaths worldwide. Air pollution also increases asthma, respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalizations, emergency-room visits, work-days lost, and school-days lost, all of which decrease economic output, divert resources, and weaken the security of nations. Global warming enhances heat stress, disease, severity of tropical storms, ocean acidity, sea levels, and the melting of glaciers, snow pack, and sea ice. Further, it shifts the

1

location of viable agriculture, harms ecosystems and animal habitats, and changes the timing and magnitude of water supply. [3]

The above potential effects are additionally dependent on development timelines. In other words, the longer it takes to build a facility, the more environmental impacts are incurred. Further, data for the geographical footprint of power production facilities and water consumption is considered. Evaluation of the proposed energy sources with respect to environmental impact is the first and foremost criteria for evaluation in this report, just as reducing the above mentioned symptoms of the energy sector is the first and foremost objective in the future of Texas energy. Environmental impact data for nuclear power production and wind power production will be discussed and interpreted and the two energy sources will be compared based on their relative levels of effect.

Data

Lifecycle emissions estimations for new nuclear power plants are in the range of 9 – 70 g CO2e per kWh. This range is quite large due to the discrepancy between figures obtained from industry sourced estimates (low end of the range) and a large compilation of nuclear energy studies (upper end of the range). Nuclear power plant emissions are due to uranium mining, enrichment, transport, and waste disposal and construction, operation, and decommissioning of the reactors and facilities. Current estimates of new nuclear power plant construction times are in the range of 4 – 9 years, while estimates for total time from planning to operation fall between 10 and 19 years [3]. Buffer zones around nuclear facilities, land needed for uranium mining, and land needed for nuclear waste disposal are all included in the footprint estimates for nuclear power generation. Estimates put required land for the average facility, mining, and disposal at approximately 20.5 km2. This figure minus the buffer zone (generally open land) is in the range of 4.9 – 7.9 km2 [3], which may be a more accurate footprint figure. Nuclear power generation water consumption estimates land between 0.4 – 0.72 gal per kWh [3].

Lifecycle emissions estimations for wind turbines for a 30 year lifetime are in the range of 2.8 – 7.4 g CO2 per kWh. Wind turbine emissions are due to the manufacturing, installation, operation and scrapping of an average sized asset. Current estimates of new, large wind turbine farm construction times are in the range of 1 – 2 years, while estimates for total time from planning to operation fall between 2 and 5 years. One 5 MW wind turbine has an estimated 13 – 20 m2 footprint. The combined footprint of the number of turbines to match the average United States nuclear facility power capacity of roughly 1000 MW is in the range of 2.6 – 4 km2. Wind turbine power generation water consumption estimates approximate a 0.001 gal per kWh rate [3]. Figures 1 and 2 below compare relative amounts of emissions and geographical footprint based on scenarios in which the entire US vehicle population is replaced with certain energy source and vehicle type combinations. Figure 3 makes use of the same concept with respect to water consumption. These scenarios make easy a visualized comparison of the effects of different energy sources after large scale implementation in the US.

2

Figure1: Future estimates of US premature deaths per year based on a scenarios where combinations of power production methods and vehicle types account for 100% of their respective US sectors. Low estimates are represented by solid shading and high estimates by solid shading plus vertical lines. In the case of the nuclear data, the horizontal lines represent the upper

estimate with consideration for the potential of a nuclear weapons exchange [3].

Figure 2: Geographical footprint ratio for power generation adequate to supply the entire US vehicle population in 2007 by combination of different energy sources and vehicle types to that of the wind energy and battery electric vehicle combination [3].

Figure 3: Estimates of water consumption for different energy source and vehicle type combinations to account for 100% of their respective US sectors. Values refer to a net loss of gigagallons per year from the US water supply. Helpful to note: US water consumption was

148,900 Ggal/year [3].

3

Interpretation

The data above shows, as best current estimates can, the state of emissions, development timelines, geographical footprint, and water consumption for the two proposed energy sources. Wind power production clearly has less of a negative environmental impact than nuclear energy production according to these figures. Nuclear power facilities produce more CO2 emissions during longer developmental stages and throughout the production lifetime than do wind power facilities. Smaller geographical footprints and less water consumption are also benefits enjoyed by wind power production in comparison to nuclear. Evaluation with respect to the environmental impact criteria illuminates wind power production as superior to nuclear power production. Further, it isn’t hard to imagine the enormous costs incurred in nuclear power production in efforts to maintain tight security and minimize factors that would contribute to a catastrophic failure. The temptation to cut corners and avoid some of this additional financial burden is great. The nuclear industry is slave to a balance between enormous overhead security, maintenance, and safety expenses and the consequences of a catastrophic failure. Money, in this world, becomes quite the dangerous topic and the basis for this report’s second criteria.

EconomicsExplanation

To discuss the full breath of economics specific to nuclear and wind power production would involve also a discussion of law, politics, and international relations, not to mention a much longer report. For our purpose in evaluating the proposed power production methods, the economics criteria will examine construction and production costs, development timelines and completion data, and investment and development trend analysis. This compilation of data will serve to paint a picture of the true cost of each proposed power production methods, while also extrapolating that data to the future with considerations in mind for advances in technology and fluctuations in law, politics, and international relations.

Data

This millennium’s nuclear power production has seen a decline of 19 GW generation capacity. 2013 saw only an additional 114 TWh of nuclear power production per year since 1997. In 2014, an estimated 67 nuclear reactors were listed as under construction with an average construction time of 7 years and 49 of them have accrued substantial delays ranging from months to years [1]. Further, timelines for nuclear facility planning include unmatched, lengthy licensing protocols and complicated financing transactions [4]. Nuclear investment costs have increased steadily in the new millennium, many projects seeing their costs triple and even in some cases reaching 12 times original projections [5] [1]. France and Germany have joined the United States in experiencing average operating costs above wholesale power prices, the United States recently retiring years early at least 5 nuclear reactors producing these ‘in the red’ results and looking at 38 more reactors for the same fate [1]. Since just 2008, 9 states in the U.S. have trashed or suspended plans for nuclear reactor construction do to financial realities [5]. Investments in nuclear development have steadily decreased in the new millennium and the industry is losing stability. Areva, the largest nuclear developer in the world, has been given a severe credit

4

downgrade to BB+ or “junk” as so many in the industry would put it [5] [1]. Nuclear energy is now being seen as a “higher-risk investment” by much of the financial sector in comparison to renewables and even conventional energy sources [4]. This otherwise mature power production method has recently received even more never before seen subsidies in the United States, even though cradle to grave subsidies have held the industry since its birth [5]. All said, the average levelized cost of nuclear power plants entering service in 2018 in the U.S. is approximately 108.4 $/MWh [6].

From the beginning of the millennium, wind power production has enjoyed a 25% average annual growth rate, translating to an addition of 32 GW of wind energy globally. 2013 enjoyed an additional 616 TWh of wind power production per year compared to 1997. This growth in the wind energy industry can be seen compared to that of the nuclear energy industry in Figure 4 below. The renewable energy sector as a whole is looking quite loved, with worldwide investments in 2013 amounting to $214 billion. 57% of this millennium’s global power investment went to renewables, while only 3% saw its way to the nuclear industry. Figure 5 illustrates the global investment trends of renewables and nuclear energy. These figures are evident of widespread support and promise in renewables, especially as these fairly new technologies become rapidly more efficient and require less and less upfront and lifetime financial investment as the years go by [1]. All said, the same factors of construction costs, development timelines (planning to operation times of 2 – 5 years as mentioned under in Environmental Impact Data), and completion data have yielded the average levelized cost of wind power facilities entering service in 2018 in the U.S. at approximately 86.6 $/MWh [6].

Figure 4: Graphical analysis and comparison of the variation in global electricity production from nuclear, wind, and solar energy sources [1].

5

Figure 5: Global Investments: Renewables vs. Nuclear [4].

Interpretation

The above current estimates and extrapolated data show the economic state of the two proposed energy sources. Wind power production again clearly comes out ahead, accruing less of a financial burden over considerably smaller development timelines and winning a much healthier portion of the world’s financial investments. Construction costs for wind energy facilities are smaller than those for nuclear facilities of the same power production capacity and these costs are dramatically and consistently decreasing for the wind energy industry while they only climb higher for nuclear. Development timelines for wind facilities are a mere fraction of those for nuclear facilities of the same power production capacity and the wind energy timelines are far more steady and predictable compared to the notoriously disappointing extensions and delays seen in the nuclear industry. Investments quite simply jump ship from nuclear energy to wind energy in nearly comical proportions. Evaluation with respect to the economics criteria spotlights once more wind power production as superior to nuclear power production. Thus far, it seems wind energy is the source of choice, outperforming nuclear energy in environmental responsibility and economics, but whether it can handle implantation on such a large scale as to be considered a main player in the conversion of an entire state’s power supply is a matter requiring a bit more investigation.

6

Production for Large Scale ImplementationExplanation

At last we evaluate the ability of the two proposed energy sources to produce power adequate for large scale implementation and long term reliability. This analysis will indeed be more accurate for the nuclear industry as we have decades of data to support such an investigation while we find ourselves relying much on predictions and extended extrapolations of data from a much smaller time frame for the wind energy industry investigation. While this is the case, the production criteria must be present in this evaluation, the same as flight capability must be present in the evaluation of aircraft. As it turns out, China has become a veritable experiment in current large scale implementation of nuclear and wind power production facilities. This is due to the enormous discrepancy between power demanded and power produced. China is simply building both energy sources as fast as it can, with plenty of resources available to do so [2]. Figure 6 illustrates how China’s recent installed wind power capacity compares to the rest of the world.

Data

From 2010 to 2013, China managed to switch on 4.7 GW of nuclear power capacity. The US sees between 90 and 90.9% capacity efficiency from its nuclear reactors. These two figures combined tells us that approximately 1.08 GW of real nuclear capacity is being turned on in a year. It is important to realize that these figures are from China, the most nuclear fertile part of the world with a relaxed regulator regime and plenty of motive to build as much as possible [2] [6].

Still, in 2013 alone, in the same country, over 16 GW of wind power capacity was switched on. Modern US wind turbines see a median capacity efficiency of 40.35%. Combine these two figures and you get 6.5 GW of real wind power capacity in just 1 year [2] [6]. It is important to realize that these figures are based on a technology that has yet to see the investment, research, and maturity that nuclear energy has enjoyed. These figures are more likely to improve with time than not.

Interpretation

The above data is a snapshot of the most current production capabilities for the two proposed energy sources. While nuclear power remains a considerably dependable source of base-load power production, supplying power whether or not the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, it is clear that overall production of an energy source is not only figured from theoretical capabilities, but also from realized potential, slave to the worlds of financing, materials and construction

7

Figure 6: Newly installed wind power capacity for investing nations [2].

markets, politics, and law. With respect to the current state of global energy production, wind energy is again pulling ahead of its competitors with nuclear falling to the rear of world progression. A great lead in the efficiency rates of installed capacity is still enjoyed by the nuclear industry, but it hasn’t stopped even the most nuclear-friendly, power desperate nation from producing more than 6 times its nuclear power generation in the form of wind power. Evaluation with respect to overall production shines again on wind power production as superior to nuclear power production. It would seem that makes 3 out of 3 for wind energy.

ConclusionSummaryEvaluation of each of the two proposed energy sources with respect to environmental impact, economics, and production for large scale implementation yielded data easily interpreted as evidence for the advantage of future implementation of wind energy production. Nuclear, an energy source once hailed as the cleanest and the cheapest, shows no signs of matching the potential of wind energy in these respects. The last criteria, production for large scale implementation, is largely subject to changes in technology that may occur over the next few decades as well as prone to some degree of inaccuracy from lack of long term statistics for wind power production.

ConclusionsThe state of Texas would see marked reduction in CO2 emissions, geographical footprint, and water consumption while using wind energy production to power the state. According to extrapolation of the data discussed and included in this report, these reductions would be greater in magnitude than those seen while using nuclear energy production to power the state. Texas will also acquire a considerably smaller financial burden during the planning and construction of wind turbine farms than would be acquired during the development of nuclear facilities amounting to the same power capacity. The costs associated with these figures are current values and may change as materials, labor, politics, and law change over time. With respect to overall adequate energy production for large scale implementation, the conclusion is the same. As best estimates can illustrate, nuclear energy production has been a more reliable base load energy option in the past. No longer is this the case. It has become clear that nuclear energy’s theoretical capabilities can carry it only so far. Realized nuclear potential, slave to the worlds of financing, materials and construction markets, politics, and law, is falling far behind that of realized wind potential. Further, current production estimates are tied to the current state of technology and resulting energy production efficiency figures and are expected to change considerably with the progression of time and technological advancement.

RecommendationThe immediate investment, research, and development of wind turbine energy production facilities is recommended as the superior option for the first step toward the future of Texan energy.

ContactFor more information, contact Taylor Huston at trhuston@uh.edu.

8

Annotated Bibliography[1] M. Schneider. (2015, April). Nuclear Power versus Renewable Energy- A Trend Analysis

[Online PDF]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=7110436

This source was found using Google Advanced Search.

This academic journal article discusses the trends of nuclear and renewable energy production, investment, cost, growth, and favor. These aspects of the energy sector are analyzed with respect to various timelines, making this information easy to illustrate and very effective for a recommendation report. Information regarding energy production, investment, cost, growth, and public favor for both nuclear and wind facilities is used in this recommendation report.

[2] M. Barnard. (2014, August 22). Which Is More Scalable, Nuclear Energy or Wind Energy? [Online Article]. Available: http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/08/22/which-is-more-scalable-nuclear-energy-or-wind-energy/#81be7af607d3

This source was found using Google Advanced Search.

This article published in Forbes discusses the ability of wind energy production to scale up to meet the energy demands of large developed nations. The article uses China as its case study, pointing to the fact that the country has been employing as much wind and nuclear energy as it can build. The conclusion is that wind energy is more scalable than nuclear, and the comparisons that support this conclusion are included in this recommendation report.

[3] M. Z. Jacobson. (2008, June 12). Review of Solutions to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security [Online PDF]. Available: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf

This source was found using Google Advanced Search.

This Stanford academic journal article compares 11 energy sources, including nuclear and wind, with respect to issues of global warming, air pollution mortality, energy security, water supply, land use, nuclear proliferation, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, and undernutrition. It is information regarding issues of global warming, air pollution, water supply, wildlife, and land use for the nuclear and wind production sectors that is used in this recommendation report.

[4] Schneider, Mycle, and Antony Froggatt. (2012). "2011–2012 world nuclear industry status report." Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists 68, no. 5: 8-22. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed April 21, 2016).

This source was found using EBSCOhost Online Academic Search Complete Databases.

As the title implies, this article delivers the statistics on the global nuclear industry for the 2011-2012 time period. Certain information regarding the number of operating reactors, capacity, and real and relative power generation is included in this recommendation report.

[5] M. Grunwald. (2011, March 25). The Real Cost of Nuclear Power [Online Article]. Available: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2059603,00.html

This source was found using Google Advanced Search.

9

This article published in Time discusses the obstacles to nuclear revival and investment. Rising costs and fleeing investors are discussed and information regarding these obstacles is used in this recommendation report.

[6] Institute for Energy Research. (2011, February 1). Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies [Online Article]. Available: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/?s=levelized%20cost&sort=date

10