Protection against the “storm” Entry 14

It is 620 exajoules (EJ) in 2023 (according to this link). By the way, the exajoule is a unit of measurement for large amounts of energy, and if anyone is interested, there is a good tool for converting energy units here.

The conclusions at the beginning (somewhat surprising).

For those who don’t want to read the following explanations (a bit technical and boring, but necessary as justification), here is a general summary that will catch the attention of more than one (then you can continue reading the section on nuclear energy):

The first is not a conclusion, but an explanation: when talking about energy, it is important to differentiate between the concept of potential energy at the primary source and the energy actually consumed by users. Between these two concepts lie energy losses, which depend on the primary sources and the processes of production, transport, and storage, which are quite significant.

Oil, coal, and natural gas (known as fossil fuels) account for 78.1% of the world’s total primary energy. In other words, this is no small matter. No matter how much progress is made in electric cars and renewable energies, the idea of abandoning fossil fuels in the short term is an unattainable pipe dream.

Of course, the distribution of percentages varies from country to country, but that is the global average. And… the impact on the famous climate change depends on the global average, not on what happens in a small country, no matter how good (or misguided) that country’s intentions may be.

Nuclear energy accounts for less than 5% of the total.

The energy consumed in the form of electricity is 108 exajoules, or almost 40% of the world’s total primary energy (because there are many losses in the production of electricity from primary fossil sources, as explained below, and not so many from other sources). Needless to say, the consequence is that much of the energy is not consumed in the form of “electricity.”

76% of the world’s electricity is produced using fossil fuels (oil, gas, and coal). In other words, consuming electricity means consuming fossil fuels (are electric cars really that good for the famous CO2?).

Electricity suffers losses of 66% (that’s not a typo) between the primary energy source and consumption. In other words, to consume one KWH of electricity, three KWH of primary energy must be “spent” (if it is produced from fossil fuel sources). Therefore, if we start consuming more electricity, we will have to find many more primary energy sources, and we do not have many new sources to spare.

The Global South (the BRICS countries) consumes 56% of the world’s energy. Without an agreement with them, the global energy pattern will not change.

The summary of these conclusions is that: i) It is not at all easy to “electrify everything”; ii) Nor is it easy to abandon fossil fuels; iii) We need huge investments in new primary energy sources; and iv) Without an agreement with the BRICS, we will achieve almost nothing.

After these conclusions, let’s take a look at the explanations, although before doing so I would like to make a disclaimer that I will be using “round” numbers, with some inaccuracies, because this is not a doctoral thesis going into all the details, but rather a focus on the magnitudes.

Electricity.

The following graph shows global electricity generation by primary energy source.

Source: Fynsa

That is approximately 108 exajoules.

In other words, of the 620 exajoules of primary energy produced annually by all sources, as we have seen above, 108 exajoules are consumed in electricity. This means that almost 40% of the world’s primary energy is consumed in the form of electricity. This is because electricity production has losses of 66% (if it is based on fossil fuels, which are much lower if it is based on nuclear energy or renewables).

There is an interesting graph at this link. It is as follows (it is a graph for the USA, but it is quite descriptive):

In this graph, energy is measured in Quads (which is another unit of measurement for large quantities of energy). It is a unit called “quadrillion BTU” (British Thermal Unit), which is equivalent to 10^15 BTU. One Quad is equivalent to approximately 1.055 exajoules (EJ).

There are three important conclusions from this graph:

For every 101.3 Quads of primary energy source, 75.9 reach the user. In other words, approximately 25% is lost in total.

If the primary energy source is oil, and the user consumes gasoline in their car, there are practically no losses between the primary source and consumption.

Fossil primary energy that is converted into electricity has losses of 66% from source to consumption (this is explained well in the link provided above).

This means that for each additional unit of electrical energy produced, the units of primary energy consumed must be more than doubled (I say doubled rather than tripled because some of the electrical energy is produced from non-fossil primary sources, with much lower losses).

Therefore, in order to achieve the goal of “electrifying vehicles,” we need to greatly increase primary energy sources, which means either more fossil fuel mining, much more investment in renewables (which also require mining to produce solar panels and wind turbines), or more nuclear energy. This does not quite match what politicians and the media tell us about the “ecological” nature of the transition.

Energy in transportation.

According to AI (Copilot):

Transportation is the largest consumer of oil worldwide, accounting for approximately 45% of total oil consumption. Of this percentage, a significant portion is used for gasoline and diesel for vehicles. In 2022, approximately 100 million barrels of oil were consumed daily worldwide, and a considerable portion was used for transportation.

If oil accounts for 29.5% of global energy (as we have seen above), 45% of that is 13.3% of the primary sources of global energy consumed in transportation originated from oil.

If that 13.3% of primary energy sources has to be converted into electricity for electric cars, and given that we have seen that the losses in that conversion to the user are 66%, that 13.3% of primary energy sources will have to be “spent” on producing electricity, as well as creating new primary sources for electricity production for an additional 26.6% (which is a huge amount).

And if electricity production is doubled, the infrastructure for its transport, storage, and security against blackouts will also have to be doubled. That is neither cheap nor quick to do. In Spain, we have seen the consequences of not doing this properly after the recent total blackout of the country. I note that I said “double” instead of “triple” because there is electricity produced by non-fossil primary sources, as well as because I am talking about the “big” numbers, and I am looking for conservative scenarios (doing it well in detail is almost impossible without going into great length, and it does not change the overall result).

And even if this new electricity production were achieved, we would still have more than 50% of the world’s energy based on fossil fuels (always depending on the primary energy source we have allocated to electricity production). Nothing like what we are being told.

I would like to thank my friend Jose Manuel, who helped me review the figures and concepts above.

*****

Nuclear energy.

Now that we have an overview of the “energy problem,” I will try to talk about nuclear energy.

I want to avoid ideological approaches, which is not easy in this matter, since most people have already taken a position (for or against) for political reasons or due to media indoctrination. I prefer to try to make a technical and cold analysis of the situation. We’ll see if I succeed.

First of all, I want to remind you of a truth that almost no one notices: practically all the energy we have used in the world so far (including renewables) is of nuclear origin. That’s because the sun is a “giant nuclear power plant.” And oil, gas, and coal came into existence because of the sun, which allowed vegetation to grow, which eventually fossilized and which we now use to produce energy. It is also true that solar panels could not function without the sun, just as windmills depend on the wind, and the wind exists because of different temperature and pressure conditions in the air in different places, which is something that occurs because of the sun.

The thing is, few people care about that. They think the sun is very far away, and they are not concerned about the existence of that large nuclear power plant or the management of its waste.

Another important point to mention at the outset is that most nuclear energy is used to produce electricity. There are exceptions, such as nuclear submarines, where the propellers are driven directly by “turbomechanical” means (meaning that nuclear energy is used to generate pressurized water, and that pressure is used to drive the propellers). But these exceptions are insignificant in percentage terms. The norm in large nuclear power plants is to use pressurized water to move turbines that generate electricity.

This leads us to believe that, in the best-case scenario, nuclear energy helps to produce electricity. And if we are thinking about the “energy transition,” making cars run on electricity instead of oil, we are going to need a lot more electricity.

It should also be noted that energy losses in nuclear power plants, from the primary source (uranium or plutonium) to the electricity generated, are around 66% (to which must be added the losses that occur later in the transport and storage of electricity to the point of consumption). In other words, there are significant losses.

However, if access to nuclear fuel (uranium or plutonium) is guaranteed and cheap, the losses are not so important from a technical point of view. What matters is the electrical energy produced and its price (the price of electrical energy).

This raises an initial question: does every country have guaranteed and cheap access to uranium or plutonium? If the answer is yes, then nuclear energy can continue to be considered. If the answer is no, then it cannot.

If the answer to the above question is yes, then the issues of risk, waste storage, and costs compared to other electricity production systems must be studied. We will look at all of these, but one issue already arises. The answer to all of these questions is very local. It depends on whether the country in question has access to nuclear fuel, as well as cheap and easy access to other primary energy sources.

Approach by production capacity.

I ask the AI, and it tells me that known global uranium reserves are around 7.9 million tons.

Put like that, it sounds like a lot, but the AI tells me that, with current technology, those reserves would be enough to supply the world’s total electricity for about 11 or 12 years. And, … seen that way, it’s not that much. After those 12 years, which is less than the useful life of nuclear power plants, there would be no more fuel.

Of course, it is clear that not all countries will decide to generate all their electricity through nuclear power plants.

If the current situation were to continue, with nuclear energy producing just over 10% of the electricity consumed worldwide (as we have seen above), the available fuel would last for about 100 or 120 years. That is more than enough to consider maintaining that percentage of production, or even increasing it slightly.

It is also possible that the discovery of new mining resources or better production technologies could greatly increase the potential years of supply, but these are theories that have not yet been proven.

Therefore, in terms of existing fuel, there is enough to maintain the nuclear power plants already built, and even to build more (as a limit, not much more than double). Another issue is whether each country has cheap access to the uranium consumed by its nuclear power plants.

To try to get a snapshot of existing power plants, I asked the AI to sort them by country. Keep in mind that the list is of power plants, not reactors, and that many power plants have several reactors. It should also be noted that each power plant has a different size and production capacity. With these considerations in mind, the list is as follows:

Country – Number of nuclear power plants

United States – 59

France – 19

China – 14

Japan – 14

Russia – 12

India – 7

Spain – 5

South Korea – 4

Canada – 3

Sweden – 3

Switzerland – 3

Ukraine – 3

United Kingdom – 3

Argentina – 2

Belgium – 2

Czech Republic – 2

Finland – 2

Pakistan – 2

Slovakia – 2

They have a single power plant: Armenia, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Hungary, Iran, Mexico, Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia, South Africa, Taiwan, and United Arab Emirates

As this series of entries focuses on the geopolitical situation in which the world appears to be dividing into two blocs of countries (the West and the BRICS), it is useful to know something about the locations of currently identified and accessible uranium mining reserves. The fact is that Australia has 28% of these reserves, Canada 10%, and the US 1%. This is in addition to other countries that will presumably end up in the Western bloc, with smaller quantities, such as Spain, with 4,650 tons. It is also thought that there may be significant deposits in Greenland, but these have not been thoroughly studied (could Trump be thinking about this?). In other words, it seems that access to uranium is relatively well distributed so that both blocs can supply themselves.

Cost-based approach.

Another way to look at the issue is in terms of costs compared to energy production from other sources.

AI tells me that the system for comparing electricity production costs is called LCOE (levelized cost of electricity). This cost varies significantly between countries, due to factors such as construction costs, regulations, labor, financing costs, fuel prices, and decarbonization policies. Capital costs are the most significant (between 60 and 80%).

Depending on the country, it seems that the costs (LCOE) for existing nuclear power plants are between $30 and $100/MWH, and that they almost double for new power plants (due to financial and regulatory issues).

It is important to compare these costs with the production costs of other energy sources:

Energy source	LCOE Approximate global average (USD/MWh)	Typical range (USD/MWh)	Key notes
Solar PV (solar panels/photovoltaic)	43	30-78	The cheapest globally for new plants, thanks to falling panel costs.
Hydroelectric	57	40-100	Competitive in regions with water resources, but higher costs for new large dams.
Natural gas (combined cycle)	60	40-110	Cheap in regions with abundant gas (e.g., US), but vulnerable to volatile prices.
Geothermal	66	50-110	Stable and baseload, but limited to geothermal areas.
Coal	120	70-170	Increasingly less competitive due to environmental regulations and unaccounted carbon costs.

As these are global average estimates, it should be noted that things vary considerably for each specific country due to regulations, taxes, subsidies, and the cost of access to raw materials. In addition, the AI tells me that this table does not take into account the external costs of CO2 emissions, which makes fossil fuels even more expensive.

From the above, it can be deduced that existing nuclear power plants are quite competitive in terms of costs compared to other energy sources. However, potential new plants would only be competitive against coal, or in specific cases.

Focus on accidents.

Now I am looking for figures on deaths caused by accidents or pollution resulting from electricity production. I have asked the AI to find historical data and sort it by energy source. The result is as follows:

Energy source	Deaths per TWh (accidents + pollution)
Coal	24.6
Oil	18.4
Natural gas	2.8
Biomass	4.6
Hydroelectric	1.3
Nuclear	0.03
Solar	0.02
Wind	0.04

As can be seen, deaths caused by fossil fuels are much higher than those caused by nuclear energy. The same is true for hydroelectric power. This is not the case for other renewable energies, which have rates very similar to those of nuclear energy.

The result is counterintuitive. This is because accidents caused by nuclear energy are few, but very significant in terms of the figures for each case. The opposite is true for other energy sources, which have many accidents, although each one is minor.

In other words, from the point of view of accidents, nuclear energy is one of the safest forms of energy.

Related to this issue of accidents, data on radioactivity must also be sought. It is significant to note that what is called the “global natural background,” which is the average radioactivity found anywhere on earth, is 2.4 mSv/year. In the vicinity of a nuclear power plant, this increases by 0.001 mSv/year, and in the vicinity of a nuclear waste repository, by 0.01 mSv/year. In other words, the increase is almost irrelevant.

As few people know how to interpret what 1 mSv/year means in terms of risk, it is helpful to look for comparisons. An abdominal CT scan, for example, exposes you to 10 mSv each time. Yet there is little public debate in favor of banning CT scans. Another comparison is that eating 100 bananas a year exposes us to 0.01 mSv/year of radioactivity (due to the potassium they contain), which is the same as living near a nuclear waste dump. Therefore, the risk of radioactivity does not seem to be significant in relation to nuclear power plants.

Conclusions.

At the beginning of this article, I presented some initial conclusions. These were conclusions about energy in general. I will not repeat them here, but I do suggest rereading them.

I will now present my conclusions regarding nuclear energy:

Today, nuclear energy accounts for approximately 5% of the total energy produced worldwide and 10% of electrical energy.

There is enough fuel (uranium) to power existing plants for 100-120 years. That is almost twice the useful life of a nuclear power plant.

Therefore, one could consider building more nuclear power plants, but no more than twice the number of existing ones, as there would not be enough fuel to power them. So, the possibility of massive nuclear generation is ruled out, but a significant percentage of the energy generated is viable.

In terms of energy production costs, existing nuclear power plants are competitive with renewable energies. And they are much more competitive with coal. However, potential new plants would only be competitive with coal. Therefore, from this point of view, it makes sense to maintain existing plants and only consider new ones if they are to replace coal.

Contrary to what we all subconsciously believe, nuclear power plants are much safer than fossil fuel-based plants. And they have the same safety rating as renewable energy plants.

Radioactivity in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant or a nuclear waste repository is almost irrelevant compared to natural radioactivity anywhere. As an example, this radioactivity is 1,000 times lower than having an abdominal CT scan once a year.

From the point of view of the geopolitics of country blocs, identified uranium mining is well distributed between the Western blocs and the BRICS. Therefore, there is no problem of one bloc limiting access to fuel for the other.

As for specific countries, those that do not have good access to other energy sources (e.g., natural gas) should pay more attention to nuclear energy.

I have two final comments. The first is that everything I have discussed in this entry refers to fission nuclear energy. I have not talked about fusion because we do not currently have the technology to exploit it commercially in a viable way. But it is important to note that we are close to achieving this, and that when we do, access to fuel will be almost unlimited, and the risks of contamination will be zero. It is very much worth continuing to try.

The second comment is that the cheapest and least polluting energy is the energy we avoid consuming. I am not referring to living worse because we do not consume energy, but rather to doing things in order to consume it better. For example, if our house is well insulated, we need to consume less energy to heat and cool it. Another example is that it makes no sense to consume energy to move a 1,500 kg car around the city when the goal is to transport a person weigthing less than 100 kg. For that, a small car, a motorcycle, or an electric scooter is better.

*****

Recommended reading.

Of the many things I have read in my search for information to write this article, there is one article that I particularly liked. It is this one. It provides good descriptions of the energy issue in relation to geopolitics.

I also recommend this article that my friend Victor sent me. It shows how much China is doing to address its energy issue.

As always, I welcome comments at my email address: pgr@pablogonzalez.org