Nuclear power

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Here you go with cherrypicking again. You need to see this:
View attachment 86050
Sunpower is great, but majority of world's solar panels produced today are represented with gray line on the chart. Does Sunpower allow other's to use their IP? Can they scale up to hundreds of gigawatts per yer capacity within next 10 - 20 years to make a real dent in carbon emissions? I don't think so. Your $1/Wdc is wishful thinking by Firstsolar CEO who is desperately trying to keep his inferior CdTe tech relevant. Did they figure out how to make thin-film panels last more than 10 years yet?

Edit:

Your future will end as soon as subsidies are taken away.

Speaking of cherry picking... It's very unlikely that the majority of the world's panels produced will track the grey line. As it stands, a much larger survey of nearly 2000 degradation rates from existing literature show an average degradation rate of .8% and a median of .5%.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf

$8/Watt and a lifespan of 60+ years for nuclear is extremely optimistic. The last plant built was $10+/W in 2015 dollars and the average lifespan of all plants in the US is 34 years.

 

[AntronX]

View attachment 86060
I recently bought ~26kW of Sunpower panels for $0.72/w ($0.50/w after subsidies)

Nice panels. Are those Sunpower or Chinese knockoffs? Is that factory direct price?

I am curious though... at what point do you agree it is no longer economically viable to build more nuclear plants?

When all coal, gas and oil power plants around the world are shut down and cars run on electricity.

 

[nwdiver]

When all coal, gas and oil power plants around the world are shut down and cars run on electricity.

Curious... so even if nuclear power is twice as expensive per kWh as solar... you would still support more nuclear? Why? Why not just generate twice as much from solar? I agree that if the options are nuclear or fossil fuels I pick nuclear... but those AREN'T the options...

Sure, solar is intermittent but with $100/kWh for batteries looking VERY likely in the next ~5 years that's ~$0.02/kWh for storage.

 

[AntronX]

Curious... so even if nuclear power is twice as expensive per kWh as solar... you would still support more nuclear? Why?

Yes, because solar cost is directly tied to climate. In the northern climates solar cannot replace coal base load generators at any price. When you got a month without sun even battery storage will not save you.

 

[nwdiver]

Yes, because solar cost is directly tied to climate. In the northern climates solar cannot replace coal base load generators at any price. When you got a month without sun even battery storage will not save you.

No one is suggesting that solar is going to be the sole technology....

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...

View attachment 54609

 

[3mp_kwh]

Former Sen. Bayh hits it, at the end of the article:

"Bayh said that reducing carbon emissions was one of the USA's top priorities, yet existing nuclear plants received "no value" for their ability to generate carbon-free reliable electricity. "

EPA did this, and my understanding is that the long-shot hope is for existing "re-licensed" nuclear plants, as they come up to their 2036, 2040, expirations, will finally be counted in the denominator of rate-based intensity.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Brattle-Group-study-shows-value-of-US-nuclear-industry-1007157.html

 

[Bangor Bob]

I haven't read every page of this thread.

Bear in mind that a 1GW reactor is likely to be the largest single power source in an ISO's service area. Which means they now need 1GW of backup spinning for when it unexpectedly has to be shut down (and that happens occasionally). That backup won't be solar, or wind, or even completely hydro, it'll be (several?) gas turbines, burning fuel 24/7, but accomplishing nothing 92% of the time...

(Simplification, reality is undoubtedly more complicated.)

 

[nwdiver]

Former Sen. Bayh hits it, at the end of the article:

"Bayh said that reducing carbon emissions was one of the USA's top priorities, yet existing nuclear plants received "no value" for their ability to generate carbon-free reliable electricity. "

EPA did this, and my understanding is that the long-shot hope is for existing "re-licensed" nuclear plants, as they come up to their 2036, 2040, expirations, will finally be counted in the denominator of rate-based intensity.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Brattle-Group-study-shows-value-of-US-nuclear-industry-1007157.html

The solution is clear.... revenue neutral carbon tax.... let the market sort it out. Repeal Price-Anderson; Repeal the Solar ITC; Stop loan guarantees. $20/ton in 2016, $40/ton in 2021; $80/ton in 2026; $160/ton in 2031. No favorites... no exceptions.... let the market work.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Yes, because solar cost is directly tied to climate. In the northern climates solar cannot replace coal base load generators at any price. When you got a month without sun even battery storage will not save you.

I'd be interested in seeing what percentage of people actually live in such climates because Germans have very little sunshine, but had no problem getting to 8% solar in just a few years and they're the earliest of the early adopters.

I'd have to say at least 90% of the world's population live in "solar conditions" on par with DE or better, 75% much better.

- - - Updated - - -

The solution is clear.... revenue neutral carbon tax.... let the market sort it out. Repeal Price-Anderson; Repeal the Solar ITC; Stop loan guarantees. $20/ton in 2016, $40/ton in 2021; $80/ton in 2026; $160/ton in 2031. No favorites... no exceptions.... let the market work.

Who the hell wants to measure all that carbon? What about when the oil market immediately bottoms out, the entire Middle East flips the bird to your taxes and offers zero-carbon-tax manufacturing hubs in the dessert?

I mean I like the idea on paper, but there's simply no way to implement it.

 

[nwdiver]

I'd be interested in seeing what percentage of people actually live in such climates because Germans have very little sunshine, but had no problem getting to 8% solar in just a few years and they're the earliest of the early adopters.

I'd have to say at least 90% of the world's population live in "solar conditions" on par with DE or better, 75% much better.

- - - Updated - - -



Who the hell wants to measure all that carbon? What about when the oil market immediately bottoms out, the entire Middle East flips the bird to your taxes and offers zero-carbon-tax manufacturing hubs in the dessert?

I mean I like the idea on paper, but there's simply no way to implement it.

Any carbon tax would be paired with a carbon tariff; It's not hard to 'count' we already know how much coal comes out of a mine, and how much oil/gas comes out of a well... we would just collect a tax on it and re-dispurse it to every SSN.

 

[Robert.Boston]

I haven't read every page of this thread.

Bear in mind that a 1GW reactor is likely to be the largest single power source in an ISO's service area. Which means they now need 1GW of backup spinning for when it unexpectedly has to be shut down (and that happens occasionally). That backup won't be solar, or wind, or even completely hydro, it'll be (several?) gas turbines, burning fuel 24/7, but accomplishing nothing 92% of the time...

(Simplification, reality is undoubtedly more complicated.)

Pretty close to right. NERC only requires that 50% of the largest contingency be covered with spinning reserves, the rest with 10-minute quick-start; all those reserves have to be replaced within 30 minutes. So the ~1200 MW Seabrook station requires ~600 MW of spinning reserves. In New England and PJM, the large pumped storage facilities can carry a lot of that spin, so it's not necessarily having a big climate impact.

 

[3mp_kwh]

I haven't read every page of this thread.

Bear in mind that a 1GW reactor is likely to be the largest single power source in an ISO's service area.

(Simplification, reality is undoubtedly more complicated.)

For some more perspective, those spinning reserves come from a 30GW+ power pool. All plants go down, from time to time, for one reason or another. Not all forms of generation can be considered base load.

The solution is clear.... revenue neutral carbon tax.... let the market sort it out. Repeal Price-Anderson; Repeal the Solar ITC; Stop loan guarantees. $20/ton in 2016, $40/ton in 2021; $80/ton in 2026; $160/ton in 2031. No favorites... no exceptions.... let the market work.

Amen, but nationally, there is too much contrast between coastal incomes, per capita carbon emissions, and the pie slices of state ‘GSP’ that are fossil related (meaning jobs), in the heartland. The market effect of a carbon price, though desirable, gets horribly bogged in federal policy. Germany doesn’t have anywhere near the disparity of affected parties.

 

[nwdiver]

Pretty succinct article about how nuclear energy is going away... probably sooner than most people think.

• In 2014, China, which has more nuclear power plants in development than any other country, spent about $9 billion on nuclear, while it spent $83 billion on wind and solar.

• Despite China being the biggest builder of nuclear power in the world, its non-hydro renewable energy fleet already produces more energy than its nuclear capacity.

• China, Germany, Japan, Brazil, India, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Spain all generate more electricity from non-hydro renewables than from nuclear. These eight countries represent about 45% of the world’s population.

• Because the cost of maintaining nuclear power plants is so burdensome, EDF, the largest nuclear operator in the world, now needs a tariff increase to cover its operating costs.

• In Sweden, four nuclear units are being shut down because of lower-than-expected income from electricity sales and higher investment needs.

• In the U.S., utilities are trying to negotiate with state authorities for support schemes for reactors that they say are no longer competitive in current market conditions.

• The French state-controlled integrated nuclear company AREVA, which was once the gold standard for nuclear, is now technically bankrupt after a cumulated four-year loss of $7.37 billion.

• No single Generation III reactor has come into service in the past 20 years, as most have been delayed by three to nine years. As well, all have gone over budget.

• In the absence of major new build programs, aside from China, the unit weighted average age of the world operating nuclear reactor fleet continues to rise and today stands at about 28.8 years. About 200 of these units have operated for more than 30 years, including 54 that have run for over 40 years. One-third of U.S. reactors have operated for more than 40 years — with no replacements in sight.

 

[tonybelding]

A major reason why nuclear power is having trouble competing is because of the heavy burden regulators have placed on them. They've forced the addition of redundant safety systems on top of redundant safety systems, but the result has been a lot more equipment to maintain and a lot more equipment to fail. Any actual improvement in plant safety has been questionable, but the costs have been high.

For this reason the newer generation of "walk-away safe" reactors should be a lot cheaper to build and operate -- if any of them can ever be approved for construction. Very few companies have the deep resources and staying power to navigate the many years long review and approval processes for a new reactor design. The smaller, innovative, startup companies don't have a chance.

These problems are of our own making. None of them are inherent to the nuclear technology itself.

Finally, I'd remind everyone that all fission power is a stopgap technology until nuclear fusion plants are up and running. That's been a much longer struggle than anybody expected, but we're getting near the time when everyone will have to start figuring fusion power into their plans.

P.S.: The "+ Reply to Thread" button needs to be killed with fire!

 

[EdA]

P.S.: The "+ Reply to Thread" button needs to be killed with fire!

+1!

 

[nwdiver]

These problems are of our own making. None of them are inherent to the nuclear technology itself.

1) Even with tough regulations we still get the occasional release event.... 1 meltdown is too many. We need regulations to keep nuclear acceptable. Those regulation exist due to the inherent nature of nuclear power.

2) Regulations 'might' explain the west... not why china is investing ~10x more on Solar/Wind than Nuclear.

 

[mspohr]

A major reason why nuclear power is having trouble competing is because of the heavy burden regulators have placed on them. They've forced the addition of redundant safety systems on top of redundant safety systems, but the result has been a lot more equipment to maintain and a lot more equipment to fail. Any actual improvement in plant safety has been questionable, but the costs have been high.

For this reason the newer generation of "walk-away safe" reactors should be a lot cheaper to build and operate -- if any of them can ever be approved for construction. Very few companies have the deep resources and staying power to navigate the many years long review and approval processes for a new reactor design. The smaller, innovative, startup companies don't have a chance.

These problems are of our own making. None of them are inherent to the nuclear technology itself.

Finally, I'd remind everyone that all fission power is a stopgap technology until nuclear fusion plants are up and running. That's been a much longer struggle than anybody expected, but we're getting near the time when everyone will have to start figuring fusion power into their plans.

P.S.: The "+ Reply to Thread" button needs to be killed with fire!

So you are saying that Fukushima needed less regulation?

 

[Skotty]

A truly advanced civilization will have mastery of nuclear energy. Regardless of whether one thinks current nuclear power plants should be in operation, there should be a will to continue research and advancement on nuclear energy. Even if we abandon it for power plants on Earth, it will still be needed for space exploration. It also remains an excellent candidate for large ships, including civilian ones, if we can master it's safety (I personally doubt you could get something like a container ship to run on batteries).

With any luck, the ITER project and followup DEMO plans will lead us into a new era of fusion power. It would be a great companion to classic renewables.

 

[beeeerock]

Finally, I'd remind everyone that all fission power is a stopgap technology until nuclear fusion plants are up and running. That's been a much longer struggle than anybody expected, but we're getting near the time when everyone will have to start figuring fusion power into their plans.

Luckily, nature has taken responsibility for providing the best fusion reactor we could ask for - the sun.

• no construction costs
• no maintenance/supply costs
• no regulatory costs or mid-life retrofits
• expected to be fully operational beyond appreciable time

If we want to build our own hobby-scale fusion reactors to prove how smart we are, that's fine. But not necessarily necessary. It may be some time before we can run ships and aircraft without hydrocarbon fuels, but that isn't a big concern IF we can produce fuel for them from carbon sources already IN the carbon cycle (i.e., sources not buried/sequestered in the ground).

 

[Johan]

A truly advanced civilization will have mastery of nuclear energy. Regardless of whether one thinks current nuclear power plants should be in operation, there should be a will to continue research and advancement on nuclear energy. Even if we abandon it for power plants on Earth, it will still be needed for space exploration. It also remains an excellent candidate for large ships, including civilian ones, if we can master it's safety (I personally doubt you could get something like a container ship to run on batteries).

With any luck, the ITER project and followup DEMO plans will lead us into a new era of fusion power. It would be a great companion to classic renewables.

Nice to see someone thinking nuclear = not only fission but also fusion. I agree. I think Tokamaks and ITER is a cul decsac though. Dense Focus Plasma fusion is more likely to be a successful route eventually.