Did Tesla Just Kill Nuclear Power?

[bwa]

Interesting article in Forbes:
Did Tesla Just Kill Nuclear Power? - Forbes
A few quotes:
“We all know that the wind doesn’t blow consistently and the sun doesn’t shine every day,” he said, “but the nuclear industry would have you believe that humankind is smart enough to develop techniques to store nuclear waste for a quarter of a million years, but at the same time human kind is so dumb we can’t figure out a way to store solar electricity overnight. To me that doesn’t make sense.”

“So the nuclear argument that they’re the only 24-7 source is off the table now because Elon Musk has convinced me that industrial scale storage is in fact possible, and it’s here.”

Solar power costs six to seven cents, he said, and wind costs four or five cents. Add 2¢ for the cost of a utility-scale Tesla battery, and renewables with reliable storage are still at half the price of new nuclear power.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. Ever since I started to learn about nuclear energy plants, I've considered nuclear power a great environmental, civil and social way to power our world, to power everything, and have wanted it to be implemented everywhere that it could be done safely*, with appropriate safety controls. I've been an advocate of nuclear power ever since. But I also realized that whole time that it could eventually be eclipsed by something easier to swallow, and perhaps "better", or actually better.

At the same time I advocated nuclear power, I realized that new techniques and technologies (such as computer controlled renewables generation and use (I think the politicians call that "smart grid", but I was thinking of it before that term came out) and new implementations and refinements of storage (ala Tesla Power) as well as the eventual nirvana of energy-positive solar/wind/etc) could easily supplant the environmental, economic and military superiority of nuclear power, once developed and demonstrated. And furthermore, although we COULD have saved the preeminent superiority of USA's economic and moral position in the world if we had fully embraced nuclear power two to four decades ago and completely replaced all our cars with electric motors back then, we didn't, and NOW is always a better time to fix things than NEVER, and in fact, I consider the absolutely wonderful solution of nuclear power for almost all of our modern day political, environmental, economic, military and moral problems to have been eclipsed with a politically, technologically and economically easier to grasp and probably superior product line of solar power + battery storage and related brethren.

And what's more, I think that technology will continue to evolve with even more solutions. But, even though that's so, we have had this need for environmentally, morally and militarily superior energy/power technology for a long time now, and even though we could have used nuclear power (and we missed an opportunity to be vindicated on that front), for the first time, we have a solution that is also politically acceptable, and once implemented, we will start enjoying the fruits of our renewed labors. Any further improvements after that will just be relative icing on the cake, even if the improvements themselves will be primal in technological and economic nature.



* I consider "safety" to include physical (e.g., the appropriate industry-government counterbalances that help refine the good efforts of each), environmental, and moral ("geopolitical"+, such as appropriate safeguards against immoral regimes holding nuclear destructive level powers such as A and N bombs) safety. This has been a major problem with nuclear power, and it's no wonder that less complex technologies such as solar panels, computers and batteries will be easier to swallow by the human civil system.


P.S., I only read the title to the Forbes article, and agreed with it automatically, and hadn't read any of the rest of that article before posting. I was still interested to actually read the article and see if in that article they mentioned any thought or research in it that improved on my own. What effect do I think the article in Forbes has on our civilization? Basically getting everyone updated to the modern reality so there's less confusion. It is what it is.

P.P.S., Now that I actually read the article, I think it quoted the various speakers as cogently describing the current state of affairs. But, I think Gunderson also said something false, that "conservation" is necessary; we don't need to conserve anything, if we have solar + batteries. We pay for what we want to use, and the sky is the limit, limited only by cost (on an individual basis). This wasn't true back when solar panels produced less energy than they used to make and politics was blocking nuclear power, but now it is true. And we should continue to refine and improve that fact, and will. Having said that, his VERSION of conserving, by reducing energy use for similar amount of output product, is to insulate buildings. I personally think we are choking ourselves in most of our buildings with inferior air that needs to be exchanged with fresh (filtered) outside air more often (better filters against pollution, heat exchangers that allow more fresh air exchange, etc.), and that this will cost more in materials and energy to realize, but I concede that there are insulation efforts we could take that counteract increased energy use. Other than that one nit, I prettymuch completely agree with everything stated in the article by all parties. (Yes, it's kind of a tilting point, at which both competing arguments are true simultaneously, tilting toward the announced but not delivered Tesla Power product line and related reality).

P.P.P.S., as someone else already pointed out, "storing nuclear waste for a quarter of a million years" is wrong too; I forgot it as soon as I read it, because it's such a tired incorrect argument I mentally autofiltered it. Ahh, the frailties of my mind. Of course, it is "technically" correct since at least a very very very tiny amount would actually be stored somewhere in the universe in some form, but the implication of mounds of unprocessable nuclear waste is nowhere near true in every case.

 

[bwa]

Since we can't get people onboard with nuclear, maybe we should get cracking on filling islands with Tesla Power units and setting up a few thousand 50 MW windturbines. That would work as well.

Here here. (I also agree with everything else you said.)

- - - Updated - - -

But there should be no nuclear plants shut down instead of coal and gas plants which are ACTUALLY harming the planet on a daily basis and killing people.

If we were dictators, we could effect this "SHOULD" (except for a few dangerous plants, e.g., Japan/USSR). But, in our current system, I fear reality will not be optimal. That's why I celebrate the real successes we will implement.

- - - Updated - - -

Coal and gas plants should be shut down before nuclear power. Actually, solar and nuclear should be with us for a long time because there are likely many houses like mine where solar can't do the job until solar panels can collect about three times as much energy as they do today.

Ok, you point out the transitional economics. Your push for keeping nuclear as opposed to coal & gas should continue and be heard by our politicians, so that the transition can be more environmental & moral sooner. Give some of the oil-heads some V-8's to tool around in and be excited by the world of oil while behind the scenes we slowly install more and more solar panels on everyone's roofs with integrated electronics and storage inside the homes, and encourage the shutdown of fossil fuels instead of nuclear power more and more.

- - - Updated - - -

Running a large country with solar is more feasible than running a small one. The U.S. has plenty of sunny areas so that if one is cloudy the others can take over. Denmark is so small that the entire country can be cloudy at the same time. Clouds and no wind = no power. And storage is finite.

I think we will need a few plants to keep us supplied.

At the same time, the faster politics of smaller populations could allow smaller footprints to make policy decisions to have both nuclear power around for cloudy days and solar panels & wind for sunny days, as insurance against international politics, and at the same time, buy and sell solar power with neighboring areas during peacetimes (on regionally cloudy days, obviously, and use the nuclear power when everywhere is cloudy).

One day around the Mississippi River, our jet pilot announced that San Jose was sunny at some high temperature. I looked out the window, and it was cloudy as far as the eye could see. I kept watching the rest of the trip, many hours. It remained 100% cloudy the whole way, until at the very end (45 minutes away?), a pinhole dot could be seen in the distance, which slowly grew into a hole exactly the size of San Jose, and we flew right into that hole and landed. It was kind of an amazing juxtaposition of what I thought seemed almost like an apparent lie being realized as 100% true. Sometimes huge regions are cloudy. Even so, there's enough solar power that if enough panels are installed we can harness enough energy, somehow. (Yes, San Jose sits in a valley which in the right conditions could cause this event, which actually happened.)

 

[Kbra]

"Did Tesla Just Kill Gas & Coal?" That should be the title of the article, but that's probably doesn't get as many clicks for some odd reason.

 

[macpacheco]

Tesla introduces an expensive powerpack 1.0 and "Tesla killed nuclear power".
This isn't a criticism of Tesla. I adore Tesla. This is a criticism of those that can't make a serious analysis of cost of things.
Now that PowerPack 2.0 has been announced, yes, solar+powerpacks are already cheaper than any electricity made from oil (most little/medium islands, even Hawaii). That's enough to keep a single GF doing powerpacks for a few years.
But for continental USA/China, powerpack 2.0 is still way too expensive for wide deployment. Plus Tesla needs to increase its production at least 100 fold before they can make a noticeable difference.
The first step is having as many grid storage batteries such that they can store 5 minutes of peak demand. That's enough to do reactive control and keep peaking plants running at idle power. Once that achieves 10 minutes, peaking plants can be shutdown and kept in reserve.
With 30 minutes of storage peaking plants are a thing of the past.
The world has peak demand >5TW, 30 minutes = 2.5TWh of storage, or 12.5 million PowerPack 2.0.
That's one GF at the revised production goal running for 25 years only making PP 2.0 !
So you say, make more GF. How many powerpacks/powerwalls must be made to generate cash flow to pay for another GF ?
There's a very fine line between lowering the price of a powerpack and having no cashflow to grow or keeping the price too high demand doesn't grow enough.
Specially considering Orange Menace President, I'm already seeing Tesla being hit hard with all sorts of shenanighans to try to put it out of business.
And no, nuclear power isn't dead. Its in trouble in the USA/Canada due to cheap gas (which isn't a worldwide phenomena) and massive overregulation of nuclear power. Running a nuclear reactor with regular maintenance and everything that was required before Chernobyl is cheap. Fresh Uranium cost is insignificant. Most fuel costs is enrichment and making oxide solid fuel. Running the reactor requires little people. Maintenance isn't expensive.
The issue is the NRC has happily hatched security/safety requirements such that operating a nuclear reactor now costs many times what it should. Not just 2x, but over 3x. Go back to sane costs and nuclear is cheaper than gas, and nuclear can run on 1/3 of the storage vs solar to be the sole provider.
Solar right now needs boatloads of fossil fuels cause there isn't enough pumped hydro capacity in most places in the world and batteries are still way too expensive.
We should all be shouting from the top of our lungs for a carbon dividend law. That would place export/import tariffs over countries that don't do it.
Either climate change is real and we're going wayyy to slow to fix it, or climate change is a hoax and we don't need nuclear nor solar.

 

[nwdiver]

The issue is the NRC has happily hatched security/safety requirements such that operating a nuclear reactor now costs many times what it should. Not just 2x, but over 3x. Go back to sane costs and nuclear is cheaper than gas, and nuclear can run on 1/3 of the storage vs solar to be the sole provider.

If the NRC is the problem then why does Brazil only have ~2GW of nuclear?

 

[mspohr]

Tesla introduces an expensive powerpack 1.0 and "Tesla killed nuclear power".
This isn't a criticism of Tesla. I adore Tesla. This is a criticism of those that can't make a serious analysis of cost of things.
Now that PowerPack 2.0 has been announced, yes, solar+powerpacks are already cheaper than any electricity made from oil (most little/medium islands, even Hawaii). That's enough to keep a single GF doing powerpacks for a few years.
But for continental USA/China, powerpack 2.0 is still way too expensive for wide deployment. Plus Tesla needs to increase its production at least 100 fold before they can make a noticeable difference.
The first step is having as many grid storage batteries such that they can store 5 minutes of peak demand. That's enough to do reactive control and keep peaking plants running at idle power. Once that achieves 10 minutes, peaking plants can be shutdown and kept in reserve.
With 30 minutes of storage peaking plants are a thing of the past.
The world has peak demand >5TW, 30 minutes = 2.5TWh of storage, or 12.5 million PowerPack 2.0.
That's one GF at the revised production goal running for 25 years only making PP 2.0 !
So you say, make more GF. How many powerpacks/powerwalls must be made to generate cash flow to pay for another GF ?
There's a very fine line between lowering the price of a powerpack and having no cashflow to grow or keeping the price too high demand doesn't grow enough.
Specially considering Orange Menace President, I'm already seeing Tesla being hit hard with all sorts of shenanighans to try to put it out of business.
And no, nuclear power isn't dead. Its in trouble in the USA/Canada due to cheap gas (which isn't a worldwide phenomena) and massive overregulation of nuclear power. Running a nuclear reactor with regular maintenance and everything that was required before Chernobyl is cheap. Fresh Uranium cost is insignificant. Most fuel costs is enrichment and making oxide solid fuel. Running the reactor requires little people. Maintenance isn't expensive.
The issue is the NRC has happily hatched security/safety requirements such that operating a nuclear reactor now costs many times what it should. Not just 2x, but over 3x. Go back to sane costs and nuclear is cheaper than gas, and nuclear can run on 1/3 of the storage vs solar to be the sole provider.
Solar right now needs boatloads of fossil fuels cause there isn't enough pumped hydro capacity in most places in the world and batteries are still way too expensive.
We should all be shouting from the top of our lungs for a carbon dividend law. That would place export/import tariffs over countries that don't do it.
Either climate change is real and we're going wayyy to slow to fix it, or climate change is a hoax and we don't need nuclear nor solar.

In the Leo DeCaprio climate movie, he and Elon discuss batteries as storage and Elon states that 100 Gigafactories could produce enough batteries to meet the entire world's need for storage/peaking. This is doable.
Nuclear people keep whining about over regulation and the arguments don't hold water. Nuclear is inherently dangerous and must be regulated to try to prevent/contain nuclear release. This costs money. Get over it and just do it. Nuclear already receives billions in subsidies plus government last resort insurance. No insurance company will insure a nuclear plant so that fact alone would make them too expensive to build and run. Insurance companies are not driven by fear or ideology... just the numbers and those don't look good.

 

[mspohr]

09/12/16:German PV tender: Prices fall below EUR 0.07 per kWh. 27 bids with a total capacity of 163 MW won contracts in the tender, with the lowest bid at 0.63 EUR per kWh.

 

[macpacheco]

If the NRC is the problem then why does Brazil only have ~2GW of nuclear?

Cause Brazil has a lot of cheap big hydro. Big Hydro costs less than half of Nuclear, even considering the reactor is 10 miles from its main consumer while the hydro dam is 1000 miles away (including both losses and the cost to build the transmission lines). Dams last for 100+ years. And pay for themselves in 20 years.
When we're getting enough rain, we run 90% on hydro and the remaining 10% single city grids running on diesel, and cities that have a lot of cheap gas vs the cost of adding grid transmission.
Brazil has almost the dream long distance grid that renewable people would love the US to have. We have many long distance lines each with multi GW capacity. Total we ship many tens of GWs at least 500 miles from generation to consumption. This is the result of being a big hydro country. We're also a continental country that's much less uniformly populated than the USA, hence both a highly connected grid and a lot of little island grid cities. The two most distant places in Brazil are 30% farther than San Diego to NE corner of Maine or Miami to Seattle.
Oh and Brazil gets insolation on par with Mexico or better for 80% of our country. I'm not anti solar. Solar is great for Brazil, cause insolation is great and our big hydro plants don't loose thermal generation efficiency for load following, and the grid is so well connected, we have very little peaking plants.
But solar is expensive here since its mostly imports and we pay 100+% in taxes, and we're a developing country, our per capta income is quite low in US$. We do have net metering.
Brazil never had a serious nuclear policy. We got those 2 reactors because back then we were a military dictatorship and the generals wanted to dip their toes on nuclear, maybe for nuclear subs or nuclear bombs. The single reactor in construction (Angra-3) is 80s hardware that was kept in storage for a long time, and pulled out because the president was a create jobs with public money to pump down unemployment, now we're in a major economic bust cause our debt skyrocketed, we're in stagflation due to having true commies wannabe in government (and I don't think Bernie is a commie, commie like Venezuela crashed its economy).
But we sure could have used Angra-3 when we had a big drought 2 years ago. I wish we had 10GW of net nuclear. It will saves us from periodic serious droughts we'll have in the next decades as climate change further reduces rains periodically in Brazil.
But we can just as well get the same results with 50GWp of solar PV (we don't need powerpacks or pumped hydro). Wind here also makes a lot of sense as wind compliments hydro perfectly in the northern shore.
If the USA could add 100GW of big hydro, I would be talking only about hydro here. But that's not possible.
Brazil needs to clean its transportation emissions. Our grid emissions are among the lowest of all large countries in the world. In the transportation side we have far more natural gas cars and ethanol powered cars than the USA. We do have next to no EVs, since they're all imported and our car market is too small.

Nuclear is inherently dangerous and must be regulated to try to prevent/contain nuclear release. This costs money. Get over it and just do it.

Coal / GAS / Oil is "inherently" aka really dangerous. Coal is estimated to kill 13000 people in the USA every year and over 200000 people worldwide yearly. Gas/Oil kills less but at least hundreds / year in the USA and thousands worldwide.
Nuclear radiation killed nobody in the USA in the last 40 years.
Chernobyl style incompetence caused China to kill 200000 people in a single hydro accident, yet Hydro is still going, and people don't demand the Hoover Dam be shutdown.
I'm not a nuclear professional, but this kind of logic drove me to seriously study how nuclear power works after Fukushima, which BTW zero radiation deaths or cancer cases that match nuclear radiation exposure.
The problem with nuclear is people don't want to understand it. Its so much easier to label it as the bogey men and go for pleasant solar/wind.
The real problem with nuclear is it was a huge threat for Coal back in the 70s. When TMI hit, coal made a deal with environmentalists and started funding then in exchange to ignore Coal sins. There are several "environmentalist" groups which are really coal funded anti nuclear merchants of doubt people.
If you own a gasoline car and live 1 mile from a nuclear reactor, your car is a much greater danger to you than the reactor.
People can't think with numbers. Nuclear accidents trigger some reactions like those we have hard wired in our brains like run away from horde of savages. Its not a rational response. Its almost impossible to get people to accept facts from feelings.
Its the exact same deal with the media being silent about the dramatic number of car deaths and every plane crash is a big sensation.

 

[nwdiver]

Cause Brazil has a lot of cheap big hydro.

Ok... but why haven't they replaced the ~4GW generated from oil?

I'm not a nuclear professional, but this kind of logic drove me to seriously study how nuclear power works after Fukushima, which BTW zero radiation deaths or cancer cases that match nuclear radiation exposure.

It just so happens that I am a nuclear professional. Your statement on Fukushima is like saying that cigarettes don't cause cancer either because the tobacco sold 10 years ago hasn't caused any cancer either...

Tens of thousands of Japanese still haven't returned home and the government is spending Billions to clean up contaminated soil. If there are few cancer deaths related to Fukushima it's not because radioactive contamination doesn't cause cancer... it's because most of it was cleaned up... at great expense.

Cost to clean up Fukushima is $40B and rising....

Why take the risk adding a kWh of nuclear generation for $0.10/kWh when Solar is ~$0.04/kWh and wind is $0.02/kWh? What were you saying about logic?

 

[macpacheco]

We have a few million people that live in dozens of little/medium cities in the middle of the Amazon jungle, often 300 miles away from the grid. Its far cheaper to install diesel generators than connect them to the grid. Its like American Samoa and yes, they should get solar+powerpack.

The problem is, the Brazilian government is very corrupt. It seems like nobody does business with the Brazilian government unless you pay 20+% in kickbacks. Tesla wouldn't be able to do business with them from what I heard they're honest, while the Brazilian govt makes Hillary's e-mails or Trumps crazies sound like child's play. Our madam president was impeached this year, the speaker of the house was forced by the judiciary to step down from speakership for interfering with the process of the sacking of his term for having undeclared millions of US$ in Switzerland (he now has lost his term). The leader of the Federal senate is next target (many 10+ year inquiries that has been kept in the shelf because he's too powerful). For somebody from another country it might even be funny to watch it.

We do use a lot of fossil fuels when we have abnormal droughts that didn't use to happen 20 years ago. That's a much bigger emissions and cost problem than the diesel powered cities. We can and should add tens of GWp of solar PV. This is being done both with net metering and grid scale solar, but due to import duties and no subsidy (except for net metering) its a slow process. I wish we both complete Angra-3, add another 3 big reactors and add tens of GWp of solar.

The way I understand is in Brazil's main grid we don't have peaking plants. We have reserve thermal plants that are dispatched when needed, their generators run at full power or are off. With the whole massively integrated grid and 100GW of installed Big Hydro every hydro plant in Brazil does load following, except they're overflowing with water then they run at 100%.

 

[macpacheco]

The cost to clean up Fukushima is based on radiation safety assumptions that make little sense. I've explained this more than once here.
Aviation professionals spend 1/3 of their time in an environment 20x the radiation of sea level.
ISS Astronauts spend 6 months of their lives (if they do only one rotation) at 100x sea level radiation.
The assumption is unless you bring radiation levels down to ultra close to natural levels, you're not done.
This makes no sense given just the two data points I just gave you. I could give more, but you can search it here, or google radiation hormesis.
Japan is spending that much money, cause they're rich, they're perfectionists, they have a big radiation trauma, land in Japan is scarce, and they love big government spending. It just fits their entire way of governing.
Its as logical as Chernobyl happening in the USSR where human life weren't properly valued.
Fukushima radiation levels just an year after the accident were below the radiation all of us get when we fly in the airlines.

 

[nwdiver]

The cost to clean up Fukushima is based on radiation safety assumptions that make little sense. I've explained this more than once here.
Aviation professionals spend 1/3 of their time in an environment 20x the radiation of sea level.
ISS Astronauts spend 6 months of their lives (if they do only one rotation) at 100x sea level radiation.
The assumption is unless you bring radiation levels down to ultra close to natural levels, you're not done.
This makes no sense given just the two data points I just gave you. I could give more, but you can search it here, or google radiation hormesis.
Japan is spending that much money, cause they're rich, they're perfectionists, they have a big radiation trauma, and they love big government spending. It just fits their entire way of governing.
Fukushima radiation levels just an year after the accident were below the radiation all of us get when we fly in the airlines.

You're confusing different types of radiation... I've also explained this more than once here.

In a nuclear accident the main concern is radio-active contamination... not really the radiation... which is why Fukushima workers look like this;

View attachment 98328

A tyvek suit doesn't offer anymore protection against radiation than a birthday suit... it DOES provide protection against contamination. Of all the types of radiation only neutrons and gammas can penetrate your skin and clothing. Gammas don't do nearly as much damage as their ionized cousins Betas (an electron) and alphas (Helium atom stripped of electrons) Fortunately β and α can't hurt you.... unless you ingest or inhale their parent nuclides. Which is why Radon (an α emitter) is a far greater threat than other sources of radiation.

A whole stew of β and α emitters are released when a radiated fuel rod is breached. Some of these are not only easily ingested but are also chemically identical to non radioactive isotopes living things actively absorb such as iodine.

Yes... you're naturally exposed to ~500mRem/yr... but that's not really the concern in a nuclear accident... it's the actual sources of radiation ending up in your body. The 3 defenses agains radiation are Time, Distance and Shielding... kinda irrelevant when your thyroid is the source

Pilots and Astronauts are exposed to Gamma Radiation. The primary concern with nuclear contamination is Alpha Radiation.

Gamma rays are a biological pin prick... Alpha Radiation is a biological wrecking ball. It's not only ~20x more harmful but it's internal so the damage is 24/7 and the distance is 0. That's the misconception with the public. It's not really the radiation that's harmful. It's the contamination. Those suits you see Fukushima workers wearing don't protect them from radiation at all... they protect them from contamination.

 

[mspohr]

The cost to clean up Fukushima is based on radiation safety assumptions that make little sense. I've explained this more than once here.
Aviation professionals spend 1/3 of their time in an environment 20x the radiation of sea level.
ISS Astronauts spend 6 months of their lives (if they do only one rotation) at 100x sea level radiation.
The assumption is unless you bring radiation levels down to ultra close to natural levels, you're not done.
This makes no sense given just the two data points I just gave you. I could give more, but you can search it here, or google radiation hormesis.
Japan is spending that much money, cause they're rich, they're perfectionists, they have a big radiation trauma, land in Japan is scarce, and they love big government spending. It just fits their entire way of governing.
Its as logical as Chernobyl happening in the USSR where human life weren't properly valued.
Fukushima radiation levels just an year after the accident were below the radiation all of us get when we fly in the airlines.

Radiation hormesis is crackpot denialist obfuscation. There is no amount of radiation that is harmless

 

[nwdiver]

Radiation hormesis is crackpot denialist obfuscation. There is no amount of radiation that is harmless

Well.... it's complicated... I've had rather lengthy discussions with radiation protection people at work about this. It's not cut and dry.

Here's a study that claims non-leukemia cancer rates increase 48% per Gy.

But... a Gy is A LOT of radiation. ~100Rem. I'm limited to 500mRem/yr by the NRC. My typical annual dose is <100mRem. In 15 years of nuclear work I doubt I've received 1Rem of occupational radiation. There's so many other environmental factors that the radiation dose kinda blends into the background. Most people receive ~500mRem/yr from natural radiation.

That's not to trivialize fallout. Getting radioactive isotopes in your body is a completely different scenario. Cancer.... Cancer is complicated. Ken Burns did a great documentary...

In a sense we're having two separate debates... I agree that there is some level of RADIATION that is effectively harmless (the increased risk of cancer is statically insignificant compared to other environmental factors) BUT; I disagree that there is ANY level of CONTAMINATION that is acceptable... at least any level high enough to be 'useful'. The amount of radioactive material required to exceed contamination limits is so low for fission products that you're dealing with picograms.... and a single fuel assembly contains several kilograms.

 

[lklundin]

Denmark is powered mostly by coal and it is killing thousands every year. We are in one of the most geologically stable places on the planet. We have a metric ton of isolated islands that are suitable for nuclear power stations. But if you mention nuclear out comes the torches and the pitchforks.

Nonsense.

A tiny country with 5 million people that for over 40 years has done no nuclear R&D cannot sustain a nuclear industry. Also, what sense does it make to place a 1 GW expensive power station on an island with just a few thousand people, in a country where the total power usage is on the order of 3-5 GW?

Further, in 2015 just over 50% of Denmark's electricity production came from wind turbines, up from 2014 and expected to improve.

Via its participation in Nord Pool Spot Denmark gets the best of both worlds:
1) The trading of electricity with Sweden, Norway and Germany, where there is lots of cheap nuclear + wind + hydro power, and
2) Not having to invest billions in a utterly unsustainable nuclear industry, while
3) Instead being a world class wind turbine developer and exporter.

As such Denmark has the world's most stable electricity supply - and this only gets better with new subsea interconnectors in the 1/2 to 1 gigawatt range to the Netherlands (Cobracable), Germany (Krieger's Flak) and England (Viking Link).

If you want to bash coal (and you should), then look to Germany, that still uses brown coal while protesting that the beautiful view of wind turbines producing pollution free power is a problem. Now that is an embarrassment.

Look here for a real-time view of the current (low) cost and flow of electricity in the seven Nord Pool Spot countries:
The control room
- the Nord Pool Spot area has a very healthy energy mix, including Swedish and Finnish nuclear power, and the fossile part is typically 12 - 18% (peaking during winter).

As for the ever cheaper batteries I would argue that they are a more resource demanding and thus less desirable alternative to net metering, which is how the renewable power should first be absorbed.

 

[lklundin]

Thank-you.

The idea that the world could replace the vast amounts of nuclear generated power with a bunch of windmills and solar panels is a fantasy. The only failure of Nuclear power is a public relations one. In a world governed by sane policy and science, we would have nuclear reactors powering neighborhoods and cities, college campuses and factories, much as they power submarines, carriers, and spacecraft now, where public paranoia doesn't limit them.

Renewable energy is not a fantasy. Current world electricity production is on the order of 3TW. At a capacity factor of 0.4 just 1 million 10MW wind turbines will produce 4TW, i.e. the global consumption. The actual wind turbine production can be accurately forecasted two days in advance, leaving plenty of opportunity to plan the actual supply - which would involve photo voltaic (modelled to be optimal at 1MW PV for each 4 MW wind) and hydro, with HVDC cables connecting regions with different weather systems for a stable supply.

Nuclear failed because the industry and governments failed to allow for proper safety inspections, thereby both causing a few accidents, but far worse, causing the public to completely distrust the nuclear industry.

Governments should have required of the nuclear industry what they do in some countries with companies that are allowed to perform animal testing: Allow for inspections with teams including members of your most ardent critics, that way the public can trust that no shortcuts are made, which will do a lot to prevent accidents and more to build up trust with the public.

When (in an industrial sense) highly developed countries like the USA and Japan cannot run nuclear reactors safely, what do you expect to happen in countries like Russia(*), India and Brazil and other places where e.g. corruption is rampant?

Now it is too late for the nuclear industry, they are being outcompeted on price-performance by wind and solar. So let's hope regulators can ensure that the currently operational nuclear reactors can be run in a reasonably safe manner until the renewables can take over. And I feel sorry for the British tax payers that are being made to pay 2-3 times too much per unit energy for the monumentally stupid Hinkley Point C reactors. But HPC is probably good for those who do not pay for it, since it helps to curb the CO2 pollution.

(*) I am not even going to mention Ukraine, the super-corrupt country that is home to Chernobyl.

 

[macpacheco]

lklundin you're still not grasping it. The facts and data about the 3 nuclear accidents you mention are insignificant vs what coal does everyday in the world.
In India New Delhi had to suspend classes due to excessive particulate pollution in the air. Nuclear doesn't cause that.
Coal causes black lung disease. Lung cancer. Kills kids with asthma. Aggravates many conditions. That's not an if or maybe. It happens every day. It happens right now all over the world.
Remember that nasty gas leak near Porter Ranch-CA that got a ton of people sick for weeks. The gas pipeline had no redundancy so they'd rather keep the people sick with the pipeline leaking and running than shut it down. That's called unsafe designs.
Gasoline kills thousands every year in the world. That's not a maybe. They will die from that. Its just a lottery to randomly select who will die. Oil refining pollutes a lot too.
Everything you claim is a problem with nuclear is an opinion based on feelings. What you think should happen cause you don't like it.
So I apologize but although you have every right to state your opinions they're worthless in my book. Feelings don't matter when the real world alternatives are killing people every day. Solar+wind is still many, many, many decades away from ending coal/oil/gas worldwide.
And that's ignoring climate change. It doesn't matter which country is burning lots and lots of coal, gas or oil. In a month CO2 will have its levels equalized worldwide. You might not truly need nuclear on your home town. But by spreading this irrational anti nuclear feeling you're brainwashing others to think like you. So instead of forming a picket line in front of a coal power plant they go demand every nuclear reactor in the country is shut down.
For instance shutting down Diablo Canyon will increase California's gas consumption. More gas will cause more people to get sick or die, even if its 10 people, the reactor wouldn't kill a single soul. Only in your dreams that is happening.

 

[nwdiver]

lklundin you're still not grasping it. The facts and data about the 3 nuclear accidents you mention are insignificant vs what coal does everyday in the world.
...........Solar+wind is still many, many, many decades away from ending coal/oil/gas worldwide.

Your insistence on comparing fools fuel to nuclear leads me to believe that YOU'RE still not grasping it. Pretty sure that everyone on this thread would prefer nuclear over coal... that's not the debate.

Yes... solar, wind and storage are still many decades away from ending our fools fuel addiction. But nuclear is even further away... and getting further... not closer. At least wind and solar are making forward progress. Every wind/solar project is cheaper than the last. Nuclear just keeps getting more expensive.

Diablo Canyon will keep operating until 2024. Even with pessimistic growth projections we'll either be curtailing wind/solar output or nuclear output by then. As mentioned numerous times... you can't economically operate a nuclear plant as a load follower. By 2024 it will be more cost effective to shut down the plant and invest the savings in more wind, solar and storage.

Solar/Wind is now <$1/w. By 2020 Solar will probably be <$0.50/w. Nuclear is now $7/w. Hinkley Point C will probably be built for >$10/w. At what point will you accept the fact that fission simply isn't worth pursuing for commercial power? The idea that eliminating the NRC will make nuclear cost competitive is pure fantasy. 1) That will never happen & 2) The steam plant alone with no regulations still costs >$2/w and reactors don't come free.

 

[macpacheco]

Canada's Terrestrial IMSR big size is a 300MW net electric (600MWt), it will be initially certified for 7 years of operation but will be very cheap. Fuel costs is $0.002/kWh (fluoride salt fuel=the fuel is ready right out of enrichment and will run with as little as 2% U235 enrichment). There has been talk that it would cost 50 cents per Watt (but the core must be replaced in 7 years).
The real issue will be certifying this in the US of A. In 12 months it should receive the first stamp of approval from CNSC, sort of "We the CNSC see no show stoppers in this design, we'll just need more data and more detailed documentation to give our final OK in a year or two". It will be mass manufactured in an assembly line. The bigger core might take 2 semi loads, the smaller ones will fit in a single semi.
And 7 year operations isn't a design limitation, most of the reactor can last 20 years, but instead of trying to prove to the regulators, its already affordable, get 100 running, and gradually increase the operational lifetime, I would estimate 12-20 years, to be determined. Meanwhile apply with the CNSC to have one special reactor run for 20 years non stop with special containment to get the data necessary for longer operating duties.
Standard installation design has dual reactor slots, the first comes in on slot A, runs for 7 years, 6 months before 7 years is up, another one comes in and is installed in slot B, when the 7 years are up, transfer the fuel/coolant, run reactor in slot B and leave slot A cooling.
There would be also 4 additional auxiliary slots. Once 14 years are closing, the first reactor is moved to aux 1, a new one installed on A, move the fuel and transfer power generation, only after all 4 aux slots are filled, the older reactor is shipped to the factory, without the fuel, such that any concerns that there are mildly radioactive spots in the reactor and if there's a shipping accident, the radioactivity is already insignificant.
Oh the big one uses 1/6th the Uranium of a regular PWR/BWR. In a 7 year burnup cycle almost all of the U235 is gone (vs 50% on a PWR/BWR cycle), in the end the reactor is mostly running on Pu239 fission instead of U235. That's the point when some extra fuel is added (online) to the reactor to raise U235 levels just enough to go for another year.
The 7 or even 12 year operating life is like the razor blade economics. Part suppliers can count on a steady long term part demand, which combined with the modularity and low fuel costs, enable parts to be much cheaper. And the core runs at nearly ambient pressure, some places even lower than ambient. No need for thick water pipes. The shorter operational life eliminates the issue with corrosion from the salts.
1/6th the fuel / kWh is due to:
600C outlet vs 250C for PWR/BWR = increases thermal efficiency to 50% without requiring a low pressure turbine (but using re-heats). 34% vs 50% thermal efficiency is the first step
A PWR/BWR end its burnup cycle with 50% of the U235 intact and another similar volume of Pu.
With a 7 year burnup cycle without removing any fuel from the core, the initial mass of U235 fully fissions (but some extra U235 has been added gradually). Better neutronics produces a LOT more Pu239 over 7 years. By the end of a 7 year burnup cycle the overwhelming of majority of energy comes from Pu/Am/Cu/Np fission.
And 1/6th the fuel usage is for a 7 year, once through cycle (when each 7 year cycle ends, fresh fuel is loaded on the other reactor, and old fuel is initially cooled in the reactor).
With 7 year burnup cycles (using far less fuel / kWh) a country could opt for the once through cycle, but reprocessing is far cheaper due to many reasons:
1 - Unlike PWR/BWR, there's no problem with too much Pu/Am/Cu/Np in the fuel, pyro reprocessing can be used forever (just remove fission products and recycle all fertile/fissile), if after reprocessing there's too little fissile, blend with 5-20% enriched U235, or if there's too much fissile, blend with depleted U. Pyro reprocessing isn't done commercially cause its useless for PWR/BWR, but its a much simpler/safer/cheaper process.
2 - Pu/Am/Cu/Np from regular reprocessing. For instance France has a substantial stockpile of Am/Cu/Np and Pu produced after several reprocessing cycles that has too much Pu240/242 for PWR/BWR. MSRs don't have that issue, as long as there's enough fissile, its can be blended in to increase fissile.
So this plugs the fuel cycle extremely well. Even though its not a breeder, it achieves over 80% conversion (for each ton of fissile it fissions, it makes another 800Kg of new fissile) and being able to use all of the gunk from reprocessing that needs to be stored for a million years is appealing. Since it can operate on 2% U235 vs 3-5% for PWR/BWR, it was stated the world could replace 100% of coal/gas/old nuclear with IMSR with existing U mining and enrichment resources (and retiring all solid fuel production).

 

[nwdiver]

There has been talk that it would cost 50 cents per Watt (but has to be replaced in 7 years).

Talk of $0.50/w? Where? From whom? Source?

That would be a neat trick considering the turbine alone costs >$0.40/w. Then you have to find a way to dissipate as much heat energy as electrical production and you haven't even gotten into the cost of the reactor itself...

Expecting thermal power to compete with solid state power is like vacuum tubes vs silicon.... they might be neck and neck for a while... but now that solid state has a lead... that lead will only widen. Follow the trend lines... Solar will hit $0.50/w by 2020... ~$0.30/w by 2025... thermal power is only getting more expensive...

Meanwhile... wind PPAs are being signed for $0.02/kWh. That's not just fuel (the fuel is free)... that's EVERYTHING. Capital, O&M, permitting... EVERYTHING.