Did Tesla Just Kill Nuclear Power?

[macpacheco]

50 cents per Watt for the core that just outputs the secondary salt.
Also, this is not your usual PWR/BWR turbine that needs a huge building. No LP stage.
So perhaps $1/Watt initial investment, then every 7 years another 50 cents/Watt to buy a replacement core.
This solution is quoted to cost the same as a NG plant, except higher initial investment and lower fuel costs.
Wind turbines without a bunch of powerwalls don't compare to me. Or get rid of the per MWh subsidy that allows it to sell power at 3AM getting a subsidy that's worth 10x how much they get for the power at that time.
nwdiver, we've had this argument a year ago. You are ignoring everything I already told you.
If you really want to discuss, first watch this:

 

[nwdiver]

You are ignoring everything I already told you.

No...I'm not; A magic reactor could cost as little as ~$2/w all in. Best Case. Got it. If someone actually builds one for ~$2/w I'll be very excited. And surprised. There are physical limitations to thermal power that don't exist for wind and solar.

Meanwhile wind is already <$1/w and I'm working with a friend to build a 20kW array for $0.80/w.

I take a similar view of thermal power that Elon takes with fuel cells... there are fundamental physical limitations to ALL forms of thermal power that make competing with non-thermal alternatives nearly impossible.

- Limited to ~40% efficiency by thermodynamics (<35% is more typical)
- Price floor of ~$2/w due to equipment requirements
- Cooling Requirements; 1GWe requires dissipating >1.5GWt... that's A LOT of heat.
- O&M; I operated a steam plant for 6 years... there's a lot of mechanical and chemical maintenance that isn't cheap.

But... if someone does build a nuclear plant for $2/w I'll admit I was wrong... but... even that would only be competitive for ~10-15 years (maybe). Depending on the region wind and solar are at parity now. We need a nuclear power option that's NOT THERMAL. You're missing the point. Nuclear is the energy source. My thesis is that the conversion process isn't viable.

At what point do you concede that thermal nuclear isn't worth pursuing for commercial power?

 

[AWDtsla]

Let's say climate change puts Europe into an ice age. Suddenly your nuclear plants will start to approach 100% efficiency due to waste heat being very useful.

The bad part of solar+wind+storage is that it's about 20-25 years too late, based on the assumption that solar PV will be "most" power generated around 2035.

 

[nwdiver]

Let's say climate change puts Europe into an ice age. Suddenly your nuclear plants will start to approach 100% efficiency due to waste heat being very useful.

The bad part of solar+wind+storage is that it's about 20-25 years too late, based on the assumption that solar PV will be "most" power generated around 2035.

Good luck sending heat several miles to the closest place that can use it. There isn't a single commercial nuclear power plant that uses co-generation (unless you count keeping Manatees warm in Florida). Pretty sure even their offices are electrically not steam heated...

Yes... solar+wind+storage is way behind... but it lapped nuclear a few years ago.... not in terms of installed capacity but GWh/yr growth. The US installed ~16GW of Solar in 2016. Nuclear is barely keeping its head above water.

 

[macpacheco]

Yes you are ignoring it. Its not a magic reactor. Its just not a PWR/BWR. You're stuck in that world. MSR changes everything.
600C outlet. Secondary loop is a salt, better thermal conduction also ambient pressure.
The third loop is the turbine. With 600C temps, you can use a coal / gas thermal turbine are far cheaper. Forget 33% thermal efficiency. Its 50% efficiency.
Most PWR/BWR safety equipment doesn't apply. There's no water to boil in the core. The fuel is mixed with the core coolant. The coolant needs to warm to 1400C to have a Fukushima, and since salts have hugely higher thermal capacity, an abrupt hot shutdown + full electricity loss is almost no issue. And emergency generators need far less power for the size of the reactor than a PWR/BWR. I would suggest having 2 small diesel gens plus solar panels for emergency cooling (which will still be required, much like an AP1000 requires them even though they an go for 3 days without power).
With 600C outlets, thermal efficiency is in the 50% range (depending on cooling water temps), the turbine output is so hot it can directly boil water, which enables salt water desal without electricity input. That's something that solar/wind can't dream about. If you don't want to desal, the high temperature outlet makes air cooling viable (at a small efficiency loss). Even if the input air is 50C desert heat ! But I'd much rather to desal in California to end your water shortage problem.
Any nuclear reactor drops half the periodic table in fission products. In a solid fuel reactor can't use any of those isotopes for anything (until they cool and if you do reprocessing, if they haven't decayed). In applications that might need a billionth of a gram (better radio isotopes cancer therapy), taking 10 grams of core salt and chemically separating it can produce enough isotopes for hundreds of radiotherapy treatments, which otherwise would require a dedicated reactor.
The smallest reactor is 80MWt/35MWe. Its much better than diesel in Alaska, middle of nowhere Canada/Greenland. It will cost 2x / MW, but competing with Diesel is a snap. In those places where solar is useless, and without a grid, wind alone doesn't quite cut it.
Oh and MSRs do load following without the Xenon problems. At that kind of lower costs, they might be better than adding batteries or pumped hydro to the grid to paid up with solar/wind.

 

[nwdiver]

Its not a PWR/BWR. You're stuck in that world. MSR changes everything.

Did I miss something? Does MSR not use heat to create steam to run a turbine?

We'll see what the thermal efficiency actually is once they build it... reality doesn't always match paper. Higher temperatures mean special alloys which add to cost.

 

[macpacheco]

The special alloys are in the cost.
High temperature operation was achieved in the 50s at the birthplace of MSRs, when they designed and operated a reactor meant to power nuclear bombers (before ICBMs) achieved 850C coolant temps. They then ran the MSRE a 5MWt test reactor that didn't need such high temps, operating at 650C coolant temps.
There could be surprises, but they're much farther along than you think.
They have a former NRC boss, a former president of the Canadian company that designs/makes CANDU reactors on the board. They're engaging with the CNSC regulator. They're properly funded, with the right staff to actually get certified in Canada. They produced a serious conservative design in 2014 to obtain a round of funding, using the most conservatives (lower performance/higher cost) items like heat exchangers, over built pumps, materials they knew would handle the temps and the plating of noble metals (fission products in the core loop is complex to handle, but far cheaper than PWR/BWR).
The reason we didn't get MSRs 30 years ago, is plutonium breeders were all the rage. They were flying under the radar with little funding. When the MSRE proved they were actually getting results, they asked for more money and instead they were abruptly shutdown (Nixxon era cronism, Nixxon from SoCal wanted all funding to go to his home).
The actual number for the bigger reactor is $ 0.65/Watt, $ 2/Watt for the little one.

 

[nwdiver]

The actual number for the bigger reactor is $ 0.65/Watt, $ 2/Watt for the little one.

I hope so. We'll just have to wait and see. But... it's important we don't stay idle while we wait. We should be installing ~20GW of Solar in the US next year. 150GW over the next 5 years. 2x as much wind. We need to keep pushing the solutions we have now incase that doesn't work out.

 

[lklundin]

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.

Also, it is not clear to me if the above reactor pricing includes costs of decommissioning and physical security so no one runs off with the fissile material or flies a large aircraft into the reactor core, disabling the cooling thus causing a meltdown.

So I agree that it is an increasingly uphill battle for these large, centralized, expensive power plants.

 

[macpacheco]

Physical armed security costs is a factor of how many reactors are running at the same site.
The 9/11 scenario doesn't really apply here. This isn't a reactor with any materials that react with H2O, O2 or anything else causing an explosion. The molten salt coolant prevents vaporization of isotopes. Cs + O vaporizes at fairly low temps. Cs + F is a liquid in the same temps, so it can't fly for miles.
The principles require little knowledge beyond what I learned in high school chemistry. Here in Brazil those subjects aren't optionals, we all get physics, chemistry and math in high school to a much higher level than you guys get in the USA.
Fluor is the strongest oxidant. Oxygen, Chlorine, whatever just can't take its place in the salt.

Its so easy to take uneducated pot shots at nuclear power. You look so silly to those that know better.

Yes, nothing is clear to you since all you want is to rehash the same old anti nuclear bylines. Please learn chemistry, then we can talk productively.

#ItsSoEasyToTakePotShotsAtNuclear

 

[lklundin]

Physical armed security costs is a factor of how many reactors are running at the same site.
The 9/11 scenario doesn't really apply here. This isn't a reactor with any materials that react with H2O, O2 or anything else causing an explosion. The molten salt coolant prevents vaporization of isotopes. Cs + O vaporizes at fairly low temps. Cs + F is a liquid in the same temps, so it can't fly for miles.
The principles require little knowledge beyond what I learned in high school chemistry. Here in Brazil those subjects aren't optionals, we all get physics, chemistry and math in high school to a much higher level than you guys get in the USA.
Fluor is the strongest oxidant. Oxygen, Chlorine, whatever just can't take its place in the salt.

Its so easy to take uneducated pot shots at nuclear power. You look so silly to those that know better.

Yes, nothing is clear to you since all you want is to rehash the same old anti nuclear bylines. Please learn chemistry, then we can talk productively.

#ItsSoEasyToTakePotShotsAtNuclear

Since the IMSR is a good design, it is a bad idea to take the ad hominem approach.

The problem is just that this design (which is all it is) while probably addressing a whole range of serious issues with fission power comes at a time where it has to compete with alternatives that are cheap and improving at an exponential rate.

Great (especially for the rest of the world) if Canada (where the IMSR is being designed) wants to spend tax money on this.

Well, maybe not. After all, with more than half of their electricity coming from hydropower, Canada is perfectly suited for producing the remainder with wind turbines. Wind turbines that are cheap, reliable, predictable (a couple of days in advance), scalable from MW to GW installations, easy to both install and decommission, can be sold anywhere in the world, free of nasty, toxic materials and with low energy densities, i.e. devoid of catastrophe potential.

Yes, nowadays it is easy to criticize nuclear power - even without actually getting into the nuclear aspects.

 

[macpacheco]

If you watched the video I linked here, you'd know that Terrestrial's President and CTO has stated they have received zero money from Canadian government, not that they're actively seeking it, nor that they would turn it down.
I get very frustrated at people that use confusing, incomplete, biased, mostly anti nuclear merchant of doubt PR to come to conclusions about nuclear power.
When people talk Solar PV/CSP and Wind turbines, they're talking just electricity production.
The primary goal of the IMSR is actually to save gas that needs to be burned to make steam for shale oil production in Alberta. Gas is quite valuable if exported to Japan or Europe. They just expect their reactor to break even with Oil company internal cost to make NG (per raw thermal power generated).
Solar or Wind in northern Alberta just doesn't do the job. Some of those places might be off grid.
And of course, if they can produce raw heat cheaper than it would cost a grid generator (including profits and pipeline gas costs), the reactor becomes actually affordable. And by producing 600C steam, district heating becomes a logical idea, ultra expensive 250C heat from a PWR/BWR makes no sense.
And process heat isn't just making un ecological oil. Most large industries need to burn NG for all sorts of processes. Any time 600C is hot enough, their reactor can replace that at lower cost.
Process heat isn't talked about in the nuclear world, cause 99% of the world's reactors are limited at around 250C outlets.
600C is hot enough for cleaner oil refining for instance. Yet, I've given the worst possible examples of using IMSR for process heat, there are thousands of other cases, but I'm a computer guy, I don't know much about industry processes.

 

[Brovane]

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.

What is the cost of solar per W to provide power 24x7? If we are considering costs of various forms of producing power, we need to consider the capacity factor, not just the max power generating capacity of the power plant. EIA - Electricity Data

 

[lklundin]

What is the cost of solar per W to provide power 24x7?

That is a misleading question, given that power consumption is higher during the day.

You should just as well not ask: How would a nuclear power plant match the intraday consumption variation?

But don't get all mystified about this, just enter
'renewable energy growth'
into your favorite search engine and see for yourself how the whole world is getting more and more renewable energy.

 

[transpondster]

funny thing grid data shows highest demand ~18:00 and zero solar in Germany...
Im all for solar in sunny places, but looking froward for advanced nuclear for countries which don't have much sun/hydro

 

[Brovane]

That is a misleading question, given that power consumption is higher during the day.

You should just as well not ask: How would a nuclear power plant match the intraday consumption variation?

But don't get all mystified about this, just enter
'renewable energy growth'
into your favorite search engine and see for yourself how the whole world is getting more and more renewable energy.

So are you saying capacity factor is not a important question to consider when looking at the cost to generate power?

"How would a nuclear power plant match the intraday consumption variation?" It doesn't because Nuclear power isn't dispatchable and is. setup to run constantly 24x7 which is why it has the highest capacity factor of any method of generating power that doesn't use fossil fuels.

How would a Solar PV or Wind Farm power plant match the intraday consumption variation? It doesn't because PV Solar and Wind farms are not dispatchable either.

Which is why a mixture of power sources is important and that is why without exorbitant costs we cannot switch over to 100% renewable energy. That is also why Nuclear needs to remain a important part of the power mix for the US power grid if we expect to continue to reduce C02 emissions.


So let's stop quoting cost per W for Utility scale power plants when we know that is just one part of the equation for the cost equation for a power plant.

 

[nwdiver]

What is the cost of solar per W to provide power 24x7?

As mentioned in other responses. That question is largely irrelevant for two reasons.

- Nuclear also requires load following generation; either storage or peakers.
- Installed Solar is currently displacing generation not capacity. This will be true for the next 5-10 years. So we've got awhile until 24x7 costs become relevant.

 

[Skotty]

I continue to support nuclear in theory, as well as R&D in both fission and fusion. But the current reality is that nuclear still has big problems, and solar is looking better each year. In my opinion, the only real blocker for large scale solar and wind was a lack of serious stationary storage, but Tesla has been making huge leaps forward on this front with the Gigafactory and their Tesla Energy products. This was the push that pushed me over the fence to full renewable backing. Lets move forward with wind and solar. Just don't be hating on nuclear technology; it still has real potential down the road in certain cases. The science for nuclear is sound; we just need more time to properly master it.

 

[nwdiver]

Just don't be hating on nuclear technology; it still has real potential down the road in certain cases.

Agreed; But we also need to accept nuclear for what it is... a gamble. Solar, Wind and Storage now have a strong track record of success and the trend is very favorable. It might change...but the odds of success with nuclear are poor at best. Every solar PV plant in the last 10 years has been completed under budget and in a reasonable amount of time. Is there a single nuclear plant that has been built in the last 30 years that can say that?

Investment in nuclear is fine. Boondoggles are not. We need to stop spending ~$8+/w on nuclear plants.... it's insane. If a company says they can build a plant for $2/w fine... here's $2B but don't ask for more until that 1GW plant is producing power.

 

[macpacheco]

That's mostly building reactors that don't have any other fully running yet, like AP1000.
Also, people keep saying that nuclear isn't safe enough, so the NRC pretty much forced the creation of AP1000 and ESBWR.
Then NRDC, Green Peace and the Sierra Club go an sue to try to prevent the reactor from being built.
Then 1000s of concerned citizens demand their politicians cancel building the reactor.
And its not like there are thousands of experienced nuclear construction workers available to go work on each site (living in the area).
Oh, and the NRC also doesn't make it any easier.
Yep, PWR/BWR are too expensive vs NG today. It would take a picture perfect construction with zero delays to achieve quoted prices and schedules.
That's one of the many reasons new reactors must ideally have the core (the actual reactor) be really build in the factory, worst case ship it in a few pieces and the manufacturer sends qualified people to get the work done. Everything else needs to be compatible with non nuclear thermal plant construction jobs.

Load following is done TODAY in France with reactors designed in the 70s and built in the 80s.
For PWR/BWR it takes a reactor that has been reloaded fairly recently. Like standard burnup = 24 months, reactor must have been reloaded last 6 months. The issue is Xenon buildup and too little excess reactivity to raise power quickly. And not all reactors are designed with this feature in mind.
MSRs will be able to do load following normally, its only a matter of economics (which shouldn't be a problem with stated $$$ targets). In fact due to negative temperature coefficient they can do some load following without any active systems regulating reactor power production.