Nuclear power

[macpacheco]

As I've stated numerous times I agree that nuclear power is safe.... I also agree that it is too expensive to be viable.

At the risk of repeating myself:
1 - Nuclear is somewhat expensive because it's not enjoying any economies of scale
2 - Nuclear regulatory costs are expensive because the population at large considers nuclear unsafe and demands inordinate/absurd regulatory requirements
3 - We should have moved from LWR/BWR nuclear onto IFR/Molten Salt decades ago, those use much cheaper fuel, and enjoy lots of other initial/maintenance cost reductions.
Even as of right now, a new nuclear power plant will be cheaper than coal if its operated for 60-80 years.
Once built, a nuclear power plant is many times cheaper to operate than a natural gas thermal. Even the current complex LWR reactors.
So nwdiver I disagree with you.
And China, India, South Korea, Russia and a few more countries disagree too.
The problem with nuclear is public perception, I fully intend to continue pushing for nuclear, since we are already seeing Hawaii, Germany and a few places that adopted solar+wind on a large scale already showing the limits of relying on intermittent electricity sources. With a few more years those shortcomings will become more visible.
Once we see the limits on solar and wind, the only solution to climate change will be nuclear, with limited geothermal and biomass where available.
Plus just look at Germany, since they are heavily dependent on Russia's natural gas, they can't even think about hitting Russia with sanctions for its Ukraine absudities. Nuclear power also means independence for many countries. Solar+wind+hydro+biomass will never even power 2/3 of Germany's needs.

 

[nwdiver]

At the risk of repeating myself:
1 - Nuclear is somewhat expensive because it's not enjoying any economies of scale
2 - Nuclear regulatory costs are expensive because the population at large considers nuclear unsafe and demands inordinate/absurd regulatory requirements
3 - We should have moved from LWR/BWR nuclear onto IFR/Molten Salt decades ago, those use much cheaper fuel, and enjoy lots of other initial/maintenance cost reductions.
Even as of right now, a new nuclear power plant will be cheaper than coal if its operated for 60-80 years.
Once built, a nuclear power plant is many times cheaper to operate than a natural gas thermal. Even the current complex LWR reactors.
So nwdiver I disagree with you.
And China, India, South Korea, Russia and a few more countries disagree too.
The problem with nuclear is public perception, I fully intend to continue pushing for nuclear, since we are already seeing Hawaii, Germany and a few places that adopted solar+wind on a large scale already showing the limits of relying on intermittent electricity sources. With a few more years those shortcomings will become more visible.
Once we see the limits on solar and wind, the only solution to climate change will be nuclear, with limited geothermal and biomass where available.
Plus just look at Germany, since they are heavily dependent on Russia's natural gas, they can't even think about hitting Russia with sanctions for its Ukraine absudities. Nuclear power also means independence for many countries. Solar+wind+hydro+biomass will never even power 2/3 of Germany's needs.

Hmmm... well, this debate has definitely begun to circle so I'll repeat one point and then try to rephrase this...

Nuclear Power is safe because it's expensive and it's expensive to make it safe... those two cannot be decoupled. You cannot build a 'safe' nuclear plant without A LOT of QL1 components and those are EXPENSIVE. Making a bolt QL1 automatically increases the cost >5 fold. This is what happens when substandard materials are used... http://www.nationalboard.org/index.aspx?pageID=164&ID=226

I recently sold a 10kW PV system to a friend for $18k; I closed the deal with the fact that this system will produce >400,000kWh over 20 years. $18k/400,000 = $0.045/kWh. AND 400MWh is probably low since it actually produced it's 10th MWh since going on-line March 4, 2014. My friend is paying $0.12/kWh so obviously $0.045/kWh is VERY attractive. The 30% Tax Credit that knocks that down to ~$0.03/kWh doesn't hurt either :smile:... This system will pay for itself in <9 years; <7 after tax credit.


For the sake of argument we'll forget the fact that in most of the developed world electricity demand is somewhat stagnant and imagine that XYZ utility wants to add 1GW of generating capacity. They've narrowed their choices down to...

A- 1GW combined cycle plant; Cost: $2B; Fuel cost per kWh: ~$0.03/kWh; Fixed O&M: $0.004/kWh

B- 1GW nuclear plant; Cost: $5B; Fuel cost per kWh: ~$0.001 (You know what... let's say it's free) ~$0/kWh; Fixed O&M: $0.007/kWh

So... a nuclear plant would save ~$200M/yr vs a Natural Gas plant (@ a 90% capacity factor)... so going with a 1GW nuclear plant would payoff in ~15 years... try selling that to your investors... I get laughed out of the room when my ideas payoff in 7 years...

THEN there's the problem of the 'duck curve' and this duck is going to DESTROY your 90% capacity factor. As solar PV suppresses demand we need power plants with LOWER fixed operating costs since they're going to be reduced to standby generation in the coming years.

See this? Nuclear Power plants HATE this...

http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/workingpapers/2009-004.pdf

 

[William13]

@nwdiver, the issue I think that is missed with solar and wind prices is that their intermittency requires overbuilding of other sources. Yes, in the short run natural gas might work, but without 100% NG capacity build out one must talk about expensive storage solutions and Ultra high voltage DC lines crisscrossing the country. Thus your listed prices are not accurate.

 

[nwdiver]

@nwdiver, the issue I think that is missed with solar and wind prices is that their intermittency requires overbuilding of other sources. Yes, in the short run natural gas might work, but without 100% NG capacity build out one must talk about expensive storage solutions and Ultra high voltage DC lines crisscrossing the country. Thus your listed prices are not accurate.

Yep... I posted about this a few pages back... 100% nuclear may indeed be cheaper than 100% Solar/wind/Storage for the exact reason that you stated... trouble is that there's no way to get there absent central government control... since 0-20% solar PV doesn't require storage (Solar is ABSOLUTELY cheaper) and >20% Solar/wind nuclear begins to suffer from depressed capacity factor...

Additionally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanson's_law is very likely to continue for several more decades... building out excess levels of solar PV in 20 years will likely NOT be cost prohibitive since we could very well be looking at module prices <$.10/w...

Phase 1 (Today - ~2020)
Where we are now is REALLY easy... you just slap some panels on your roof, no need to worry about storage or "self-consumption". To the grid your PV array just looks like reduced load.
Solar is cheaper per kWh than nuclear... even today.

Phase 2 (~2020 - ~2035)
Hawaii and Germany are either here now or getting close... When peak power is 80%+ of demand you're still <20% of total generation. Most grid-tie inverters CANNOT regulate voltage and frequency. They are on or off; they are inverting 100% of what's available from the panels or they produce nothing. This would need to change to expand past ~20%. Germany has "smart" inverters that can be active participants in grid stability. When frequency gets too high they can curtail power or preferably divert power into a battery bank. Demand Response and small amounts of storage become critical. SMA has already developed solutions. They are starting to bundle inverters with a 4kWh battery pack and they've got what's called the "Sunny home manager" http://www.sma.de/en/home-systems/so...tem-smart.html I wrote an anti-net-metering blog and this is why... we've got to dump "net-metering" LONG before "phase 2" Investments in "smart home" technology are worthless with "net-metering" in place. Solar "would" start to lose it's cost advantage with nuclear... but as the capacity factor of nuclear falls the capital costs increase on a per kWh basis.

Phase 3 (~2035 - ~2050)
IMO going from 80% => 100% wind/solar is probably going to be harder than 0% => 80%. My prediction is that we'll likely have sufficient solar PV installed to completely displace fossil fuels but be unable to due to a lack of storage and the disparity between summer/winter insolation... but... unlike nuclear, so long as it's cheaper to install solar than import power from the grid we will continue to build out solar PV FAR beyond what is 'needed'. The path to >80% solar/wind is probably the day when we've got so much excess energy during the summer months that there's nothing better to do with that extra energy than split water. The hydrogen can then be stored for later use.

Keep in mind that the cost of equipment will likely continue to fall... even though "smart" inverters will be more sophisticated than the grid-tie inverters we're using today I would expect the cost to be the same or lower. Similarly even though we'll need an overabundance of solar in "phase 3" with module prices expected to fall <$0.30/w in 2020 that won't be a problem.

While my premise has always been that solar is cheaper than nuclear the fact I'm 100% certain of is that there IS an economically viable path to 100% solar/wind while there IS NO path to any reasonable expansion of nuclear... let alone >50%. 100% nuclear could in fact be cheaper than 100% solar but with the cost point of solar where it is there's no way for nuclear to expand. The window for nuclear expansion was in the 70s, 80s and 90s... cheap solar has slammed that door HARD.

- - - Updated - - -

The bottom line is that people are going to keep installing solar... absent a law prohibiting self-generation (Anyone seriously want that or think it's possible?) the duck curve WILL happen... it's inevitable... the question is how does the grid take advantage of and cost-effectively integrate intermittent sources like solar? In almost every way nuclear is the WORST fit...

 

[William13]

@nwdiver, solar plus wind for 100% requires 4-10 times build out of capacity with storage. Your math doesn't work.

Eg. Solar in sw desert will generate 100% capacity for 6 hours a day requiring minimum 4 times storage capacity
Wind intermittency will require several days of storage even with transcontinental high voltage DC transmission

Now I will admit that back up NG turbines will work as backup but also require near 100% capacity as back up or brownouts occur.
I suggest you read the Economist July 26,2014 page 63. Free Exchange: Sun,Wind and Drain.

Cited studies at Free exchange: Sun, wind and drain | The Economist

 

[nwdiver]

@nwdiver, solar plus wind for 100% requires 4-10 times build out of capacity with storage. Your math doesn't work.

Eg. Solar in sw desert will generate 100% capacity for 6 hours a day requiring minimum 4 times storage capacity
Wind intermittency will require several days of storage even with transcontinental high voltage DC transmission

Now I will admit that back up NG turbines will work as backup but also require near 100% capacity as back up or brownouts occur.
I suggest you read the Economist July 26,2014 page 63. Free Exchange: Sun,Wind and Drain.

Cited studies at Free exchange: Sun, wind and drain | The Economist

So a few things...

- I'm not sure what 'Math' you're referring to but to get 100% solar/wind, yes, obviously if your generator has a capacity factor of ~25% then you'll need >4x the capacity to generate 100%. That's not a problem. My home in NM has >6x the 'capacity' needed and it's only 1100 sq feet.
- When someone says '6 hours/day' they're not saying the PV system only produces power for 6 hours... it means that the daily AVERAGE is equivalent to operating for ~6 hours at rated capacity.

Vanadium Flow Batteries offer an exciting storage option in the future... near zero self-discharge and near infinite cycle life
http://energy.gildemeister.com/en/

I never claimed Solar/Wind/Storage was perfect... it just has an economically viable path to 100%

The bottom line is that people are going to keep installing solar... absent a law prohibiting self-generation (Anyone seriously want that or think it's possible?) the duck curve WILL happen... it's inevitable... the question is how does the grid take advantage of and cost-effectively integrate intermittent sources like solar? In almost every way nuclear is the WORST fit...

 

[Robert.Boston]

Moderator's Note: We're wandering pretty far off-topic here.

 

[nwdiver]

Moderator's Note: We're wandering pretty far off-topic here.

I suppose we could be more specific but the previous posts were A vs B... A always being nuclear and B solar/wind... although A wasn't specifically stated. Point being that if 100% wind/solar/storage is economically viable then nuclear power is certainly living on borrowed time...

Nuclear Power is an economic disaster if Solar/Wind get to ~50% total generation... something that is very likely inevitable.

 

[William13]

Sorry about appearing to stray off topic but the Economist article and its references which can be accessed via the web show a much better carbon footprint for nuclear than competition. Unfortunately this topic is not likely to be decided on merit. Emotion runs hard when the word "nuclear" is used. China is run by technocrats who call themselves "communists" and have a strong interest in nuclear. I expect they will drop the costs of nuclear by 10 fold and solar by another 4 fold by 2035. Otherwise read "The Collapse of Western Civilization" and realize its profacy.

 

[nwdiver]

I expect they will drop the costs of nuclear by 10 fold and solar by another 4 fold by 2035. Otherwise read "The Collapse of Western Civilization" and realize its profacy.

Just finished reading CWC... we've been waiting for the cost of nuclear to come down for over 40 years... In that time the cost of nuclear has quadrupled and the cost of solar is down ~99%... The economics of Nuclear Power are currently terrible and only getting worse :crying:

If you think the cost of nuclear power will decline ~90% I've got a bridge you may be interested in purchasing :wink:

 

[nwdiver]

"Nuclear, then, is entering a long twilight period of decline, and it’s difficult to see how it will emerge as a viable industry. Like the dinosaurs of old that did not realize their days were numbered, the nuclear power industry is a slow-to-adapt sector requiring a very specialized operating environment in the form of hugely expensive subsidies and an exquisitely calibrated — some would say rigged — market to exist. Since those two pillars of the industry are crumbling, the future of fission-based nuclear power plants may very well become something only talked about — as Lewis Strauss predicted long ago — in the history books."

http://www.mintpressnews.com/slow-death-nuclear-power/194770/

 

[Robert.Boston]

NuScale looking to build small scale nuclear power plant in Washington

NuScale aims to develop small modular reactor (SMR) technology, which may be more cost-effective and generate less waste. Last year, NuScale won $226 million in funding over a period of five years from the U.S. Department of Energy to advance development of the company's NuScale Power Module SMR technology.

 

[nwdiver]

A few of my now former co-workers have left to go work for Nuscale. I wish them the best; I think it would be awesome if they would start building Marine Reactors. The 50MW factory-built style that NuScale is developing would be perfect. Solar can't touch Marine Reactors (yet) .. sadly I know from my time in the Navy that some ports don't allow nuclear powered ships but I'm sure they can find a market somewhere.

NuScales first reactor isn't expected to go on-line until 2024... By that time I fear that the 'duck curve' will not be very friendly toward generators that require high capacity factors to provide a return to their investors; Also, our increasingly limited water resources are going to make constructing thermal power plants away from the coasts nearly impossible.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140729093112.htm

http://www.caiso.com/documents/flexibleresourceshelprenewables_fastfacts.pdf

 

[Ludus]

Going Nuclear! Founders Fund Plugs $2 Million Into Transatomic. | Re/code

Founders Fund, close associates in Paypal Mafia of Elon Musk, invest VC in Transatomic, a startup with a 4th generation reactor design specialized to burn existing nuclear waste stockpiles while hitting other 4th generation design targets.

This is a low pressure, high temperature, liquid fuel reactor design very similar to LFTR but adapted not to burn Thorium but either nuclear waste or low enriched Uranium.

 

[nwdiver]

I'm excited about Solar PV because I've seen a $13000 system produce >2MWh in a month...

When an investment in LFTR produces >2MWh/mo for every $13k invested I'll get excited about that too :smile:

 

[William13]

Reading the white paper at the end of the article is uplifting. This holds promise. I hope it succeeds. I think it will succeed. Tesla succeeded in spite of naysayers. We need this to stop AGW. It will work much better than wind/solar spite of the "duck curve" that nwdriver continues to espouse. My local utility only allow 10 kW max panels as they are aware of the danger posed by the duck curve and will fight it with vigor. nw does not account for this in his analysis.

 

[nwdiver]

I would absolutely love a nuclear powered future... but 1 of 2 things needs to happen;

- Nuclear Power gets MUCH cheaper... <$3/w

- The exponential expansion of solar PV / wind stops

Neither seems likely... I'm very familiar with limits on solar PV installs... I'm also limited to 10kW. That's more than enough to power my home AND car. Even limited to 10kW we're likely to see certain periods where central generation is not required. Add storage to the mix and there will be months where central generation is not required. No utility will pay $5/w for a power plant that will have a capacity factor of <70% in <10 years... We need low capital / high or low O&M not HIGH capital / low O&M. A natural gas plant costs ~60% less than any nuclear plant... sadly that's what's probably going to get built until we have sufficient wind/solar/storage... hopefully in <30 years.

 

[Ampster]

.....; Also, our increasingly limited water resources are going to make constructing thermal power plants away from the coasts nearly impossible.

I am not sure I understand this statement in light of requlations that require (at least in California) thermal power plants to no longer use ocean water cooling. The second document refers to this, and I have already seen recent examples of power plant retrofits here in California.

 

[Robert.Boston]

I am not sure I understand this statement in light of requlations that require (at least in California) thermal power plants to no longer use ocean water cooling. The second document refers to this, and I have already seen recent examples of power plant retrofits here in California.

Good point; modern gas-fired and nuclear power plants use a very modest amount of water. They use a "dry cooling" technique instead, basically using air instead of water as the cooling fluid. Water requirements are mostly for "make up" water in the system; even in a closed-loop system, some water is lost.

In decarbonizing electric generation, we need to keep moving forward on all potential technologies. First, there are important resource differences around the globe: solar in Seattle isn't a great option, wind isn't going to be a principal power source for New York City, and marine energy isn't going to be useful in Kansas. Second, until we get cheap and abundant energy storage, having power from diverse sources is important to ensure reliable deliveries.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Regional differences in renewables can be mitigated to some degree with large grid interconnects or even bi-directional HVDC transmission.

Tres Amigas SuperStation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SoCal and the PNW have had a bi-directional DC connection for a while. Excess wind/solar can be sent to the PNW during cool winters, and excess hydro sent down to SoCal during warm summers.

Pacific DC Intertie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Demand management and storage will help out too.