Nuclear power

[Robert.Boston]

Harvard grauduate, UC Berkeley physicist interview and speech about nuclear power:

Michio Kaku -- The True State of Fukushima - YouTube

This lecture was given in May 2012, so its immediate concerns about whether Fukushima Daichi 4 might blow are now behind us. The fact that we dodged that particular bullet shouldn't anything away from his primary point, which is that any one major incident at a nuclear power plant could be globally catastrophic.

What he doesn't address is whether new reactor designs have the same potential for risk. Many here have expressed informed judgment that the new designs are far safer.

 

[macpacheco]

Harvard grauduate, UC Berkeley physicist interview and speech about nuclear power:

Michio Kaku -- The True State of Fukushima - YouTube

Dr Michio Kaku has a 100% serious anti nuclear bias. He lost relatives on the WWII nuclear bombings of Japan. His opinion was the the USA shouldn't have used the bomb.
For him nuclear reactor are a helper to the nuclear arsenal.
So he is always looking to frame nuclear energy in a bad way.

 

[dhrivnak]

The fact that we dodged that particular bullet shouldn't anything away from his primary point, which is that any one major incident at a nuclear power plant could be globally catastrophic.

How could a nuclear power plant be globally catastrophic? A large problem yes, but look at Hiroshima or Nagasaki they are now vibrant cities. Even Chernobyl is far from a wasteland. In Japan more people died at an oil refinery during the earthquake than have died from Fukushima. So should we ban all oil refineries?

While I am very pro-solar and have installed enough for over 90% of my use; it has it's limitations. The Navy has been running nuclear reactors for 40 years with kids barely out of high school with no significant problems. ALL forms of power have risks. From all I have read nuclear power is one of the lowest risk alternatives, and certainly the lowest risk from a climate viewpoint.

 

[3mp_kwh]

Your cost estimate misses a key point... the inevitable drop in Capacity Factor of nuclear plants due to the expansion of wind and solar. If we could find a way to keep nuclear capacity factor >80% long-term (>10 years) I would not oppose new construction. I see no viable way for that to be possible. The odds that Vogtle will ever repay its investors is very low and the economics of nuclear power get worse every year.
.

You aren't putting a lot of numbers to your thoughts. I'll repeat two. EPA expects, and its a credible projection, that coal and natural gas will be 30% of the U.S. mix in 2030. And you are saying nuclear's capacity factor will go down? Is that a priority for you, or is it that you are ok with 60% fossil generation as late as 2030?

The renewable factors that are embedded in the rate-based EPA carbon goals, are based on available sun and wind for each state. The total renewable footprint is expected to grow only into the teens, of mix percentage. I appreciate the optimism and continue to respect what's possible, but I do not see where you are coming from with respect to what will happen, and where.

Here's a way at looking at the EPA rule, and why by some measure it's not that aggressive. The Lima meeting, on global policy, and EPA policy each feature 4 aspects. Lima's policy makers cite nuclear and carbon capture. EPA cites better coal plants and rotating from coal to natural gas. The other two pillars, they both share, are renewables and efficiencies. Right now, it is a fair bet that even nuclear is too "big government" for the Republican caucus. I've given you numbers, with the capacity factors that amortize the costs of the form of generation with episodic risk (the $.022/kwh rates[EDIT,or 4-5 cents including the O&M cited in my last post). But if you are realistic about throwing numbers on the form of generation with cumulative risk, I think you might reconsider where the capacity factors are going to trail off.

I don't mean to be such a champion of nuclear, but the renewables crowd has to be brought down a little bit on just how wind and solar are apt to fit into any solution. As it is, wind is getting a $23/mwh subsidy, from the PTC (prod tax credit). EPA remarked in its rule that, in their opinion, nuclear is only $6/mwh at a disadvantage in the current markets ($35-50/mwh prices). A lot of the pressure they see is in places like Pac Northwest, where lots of wind blows at night, and basically gets priority dispatch over nuke, or even hydro. One of the public utilities I look at actually spent 3% of its entire annual operating expenses making the wind guys whole, for not being able to open the spillways (it was going to kill the fish). Wind gets paid, is the point, and I am not against them either. I just can't sit still when I hear "it's nuclear that's too expensive" when, beyond Robert's implied insurance status, there really isn't much subsidy on top of a reasonable cost. Of course, this assumes you use it if you build it (not a small problem).

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

How could a nuclear power plant be globally catastrophic? A large problem yes, but look at Hiroshima or Nagasaki they are now vibrant cities. Even Chernobyl is far from a wasteland. In Japan more people died at an oil refinery during the earthquake than have died from Fukushima. So should we ban all oil refineries?

While I am very pro-solar and have installed enough for over 90% of my use; it has it's limitations. The Navy has been running nuclear reactors for 40 years with kids barely out of high school with no significant problems. ALL forms of power have risks. From all I have read nuclear power is one of the lowest risk alternatives, and certainly the lowest risk from a climate viewpoint.

Yes, we should ban refineries.

Nuclear power may have a place in a low GHG electricity sector, but costs likely need to decrease, especially as DSM proliferates.

 

[nwdiver]

You aren't putting a lot of numbers to your thoughts.

My 'numbers' were in previous posts... namely this one...

Also these....

The US is on track to install ~6.6GW this year, a 40% increase over 2013. The power of exponential growth cannot be understated. At this rate of growth the US will be ~100% solar/wind by 2030. This growth will likely only be hampered by the lack of storage. We'll only need centralized generation when the sun isn't shining... nuclear power is not a cost effective option for that kind of on/off power.

Elon has stated that ~30% of the Gigafactory output will be slated to grid storage.

PLUS... solar isn't the only variable power source eating nuclear plant profits...

Notice how wind typically peaks at night... it also generates more in the winter. Wind is a perfect companion to solar. Wind + Solar + Storage haunt the dreams of Nuclear CFOs...

Some final #s to chew on in terms of scalability of solar... there's an estimated 800M parking spaces in the US ~9' x 18'; Each space can support ~2kW. That's 1.6TW of capacity. Producing 2600 TWh/yr; US consumption is ~4000TWh/yr. Adjusting for the average US capacity factor of ~18% that's equivalent to 320GW of nuclear power; The US nuclear fleet is currently <100GW. THAT'S ONLY PARKING SPACES! That doesn't even count the numerous rooftops, brown spaces or road sides. We have the WAY... please summon your WILL...

To be 100% clear; I make my living in the nuclear industry; Nuclear power is safe; I am 100% pro-nuclear, 100% pro-clean energy and 100% in favor of using our limited capital effectively... sadly those last three are not 100% compatible... building a new nuclear plant is a waste of limited capital.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Regarding the duck curve --

Suppose (contrary to current retail tariffs) that all power injected into the system, from whatever source, was paid the real-time price (RT LMP) by the system operator (CAISO, PJM, ISO New England, etc.).

Suppose further that the costs of operating reserves (regulation, flexi-ramp, etc.) are assigned to market participants (generators or loads) that deviate from their hourly dispatch set-point or consumption average. Simply put, if your generation is going down while system load is going up, you (and load) get charged for operating reserves.

(In case you think that my hypotheticals are extreme, what I've described is exactly how the Midcontinent ISO pays transmission-level generation resources, be they renewable, nuclear, or fossil.)

Finally, suppose that there are no federal or state subsidies for solar, but there is a $40/ton (CO2 equivalent) carbon tax.

Given these (radical) hypothetical changes in how solar gets paid, will the penetration of solar be as deep as CAISO projects in the duck curve?

My guess is no. When we get to an "over generation" point, the LMP goes negative -- that is, you have to pay to inject power on the system. In all those hours of high insolation, LMPs will either be negative or fairly low, probably about $0.03/kWh (=marginal dispatch cost of a modern combined-cycle plant). So, there's not a lot of revenue to PV owners. Then, during the evening ramp, PV suppliers will be charged for part of the substantial costs of all that ramping.

So the problem is not that nuclear isn't flexible enough. It's that retail tariffs and subsidies are promoting uneconomically high levels of PV adoption, at least in California. If the real costs and value of PV were charged/credited to PV owners, there will be a natural equilibrium point of PV adoption. By masking these true prices, the retail tariff structure has the potential to create serious grid operational issues.

 

[dsm363]

Yes, we should ban refineries.

Nuclear power may have a place in a low GHG electricity sector, but costs likely need to decrease, especially as DSM proliferates.

I'm proliferating?

Nuclear probably should and will be part of the mix, especially safer designs that can shut down on their own without active cooling pumps.

It's not just 'environmentalists' who help drive up the cost of nuclear. Just a guess but if you went to any state red or blue and asked people in a town 'mind if you build a nuclear plant right next to your city?' They'd tell you 'we'd love the cheap electricity but build it somewhere else'.

 

[Lloyd]

@Robert,

Nice summary....... I agree that the subsidies should go away as the cost for solar is down to the cost that it can stand on it own. However I disagree on your conclusion as the costs are so low now (< $1.00 per watt including inverter!) that it makes economic sense without subsidies and lower payback rates. Yes high rates have encouraged PV adoption, but additionally voters mandated specific levels of green power.

State subsidies are going away in California, and carbon is being taxed. Fuel (gasoline) in California will recieve an additional $.68 per gallon as an environmental FEE. January 1st begins the phase in. By calling it a fee, we did not get to vote on it as a tax!

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

So the problem is not that nuclear isn't flexible enough. It's that retail tariffs and subsidies are promoting uneconomically high levels of PV adoption, at least in California. If the real costs and value of PV were charged/credited to PV owners, there will be a natural equilibrium point of PV adoption. By masking these true prices, the retail tariff structure has the potential to create serious grid operational issues.

I don't think that's accurate, specifically in California. It might be accurate in other states, but current PV adoption has drastically reduced the need for peaking generation in the summer, and IIRC, the levelized cost is pretty close to the cost of load following imports in the winter. The only subsidy still around in CA in force is the federal tax credit.

Even with the projected ~10MW duck curve from PV in 2020, the only thing that will wipe out are imports. It might take a little bit out of local thermal generation, but not a lot.

http://content.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/DailyRenewablesWatch.pdf

The duck curve graph is a great example of lying with statistics, specifically by using a deceptive presentation that starts at 10MW instead of 0MW.

The first basic trick is to have the Y axis (vertical) start at some value above zero. This allows you to magnify (vertically) the display.

Lying With Statistics

Utilities Cry Over Duck Chart And Distributed Solar Power | CleanTechnica

The power of exponential growth cannot be understated.

*cough* logistic *cough*

 

[nwdiver]

So the problem is not that nuclear isn't flexible enough.

I agree that the problem isn't flexibility... even ramping up 100% in 3 hours as the duck curve suggests will be necessary is within the capability of modern reactors. The problem is and always has been economics. Realize that new vs existing nuclear are two VERY VERY different debates. I firmly believe that shuttering existing plants is even more foolish than building new ones.

If XYZ utility wanted to build a 1GW AP1000 and made that decision today the SOONEST (if EVERYTHING went PERFECTLY) that unit would be tied to the grid would be ~2020. 2025 would be a more conservative estimate. Imagine what the energy landscape is going to look like in ~2030... less than half-way through the initial license of this new plant... instead of the 'Duck curve' there will probably be the 'Valley of Death'. Here's a prediction... during the summer months in southern states by 2030 solar + wind + storage will carry >90% of the grid.

The US nuclear industry is on the edge of its seat watching Vogtle and VC Summer. If things do not go smoothly those two projects could very well be the final nails in the coffin... and things ARE NOT going smoothly...

http://chronicle.augusta.com/latest...-further-behind-schedule-construction-monitor

Lloyd makes a good point; Solar PV costs have dropped so low that subsidies are now largely irrelevant. With ~30% of the output of the Gigafactory being slated to grid storage it's likely that home storage will be cost effective enough to step in as net-metering policies are withdrawn. As I mention in my Blog I believe the repeal of net-metering could actually BENEFIT the solar industry.

The duck curve graph is a great example of lying with statistics, specifically by using a deceptive presentation that starts at 10MW instead of 0MW.
*cough* logistic *cough*

.... I don't think any of us were really misled by the duck-curve... it's obvious that there's still 12GW of demand being carried by other sources. The key takeaway is the ~20% reduction in demand between 2014 and 2020.... and the ~100% ramp-up in the evening... Keep in mind that 2020 is not far off and solar PV growth is almost always underestimated...

 

[Robert.Boston]

Finland decides to move forward with new nuclear, to be built by Rusatom:
Finland clears way for new nuclear power plant project - Pennenergy

 

[nwdiver]

Finland decides to move forward with new nuclear, to be built by Rusatom:
Finland clears way for new nuclear power plant project - Pennenergy

Should be interesting but this is the preliminary stages. 10 years ago it looked like the US might have a dozen more reactors by 2020... now we're only getting 4 new ones... less than the number that have either been retired or will have retired by that time.

 

[Fezzik]

I work in the nuclear supply chain. Cost or supply of enriched Uranium isn't even close to being any kind of issue thanks to Japan. Our enrichment technology is so efficient and we've overbuilt our enrichment infrastructure so much planning on demand that never materialized that we could easily turn the >400,000 metric tons of depleted Uranium the US has stockpiled in Paducah into a virtually infinite supply of feedstock. 'Depleted' Uranium still has ~33% as much U235 as natural.

I #1, #2 and #3 reasons nuclear power is struggling is Capital Cost, Capital Cost and Capital Cost. If they can get the cost of nuclear power <$2/w then it might have a chance.

This is true. Funny reading this since I know a lot about the Paducah plant. I grew up there. My dad was head of power operations at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. He used to go around the world building Nuclear plants back in the day when he was working for Westinghouse. He advocates that Nuclear is still the way to go but people are way to scared of it, and cost is not there yet.

 

[nwdiver]

He advocates that Nuclear is still the way to go but people are way to scared of it, and cost is not there yet.

Every technology has a window of opportunity... It's unlikely that Blu-Ray will ever achieve the same level of dominance DVDs did. Not because there's anything really wrong with the technology... it's just been usurped by cheap hard drives and streaming. More people get their movies from the internet than the store. The window for Blu-Ray is closing.

The window for thermal generation is also closing. In the next decade we're very likely to see daytime energy rates fall to nearly nothing and the cost of storage drop significantly. Nuclear power might find a niche in areas with poor solar insolation like the poles or in places that significant amounts of heat are required but a large scale resurgence is next to impossible. The window for nuclear is closing.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

For you and I it's obvious, but I'm not so sure for a lay person. As a general rule, starting from 0 and going to your max is best for transparency.

And, again, there's no comparison between existing generation and the assumptions in terms of 2020 generation. Even if we take your assumptions that demand will continue to decrease, and that PV increases at a rate greater than anticipated, the worst thing that happens is that it starts cutting into in-state thermal generation, which again, should be included as a reference.

My WAG is that PV would have to more than double it's growth by 2020 before we ran into problems with negative pricing during the duck-curve, etc... At worst, or best IMO, PV will grow faster than expected and not only wipe out electricity imports during that time, but will also take a big chunk out of existing in-state FF generators.

I don't think that's a bad thing since I'm not a fan of FF electricity generation, but odds are those generators do.

 

[nwdiver]

My WAG is that PV would have to more than double it's growth by 2020 before we ran into problems with negative pricing during the duck-curve, etc...

Growth could actually DECEASE slightly and the 'duck curve' would still become a reality without providing motivation for demand response or grid storage. Solar capacity is roughly doubling every 2 years. At current rates of growth there will be >4x as much solar installed in 2020 as there is today.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

I think we're talking about the same thing, that the duck-curve is really only an issue for FF generators, and that we won't need DSM or grid storage until it eliminates imports/FF generation during the late afternoon.

 

[nwdiver]

What is an 'FF generator' ?

 

[Johan]

What is an 'FF generator' ?

Fossil Fuel? (Coal, NG, rarely oil).