Nuclear power

[nwdiver]

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.

??? Why?

The 'perfect' companion to renewables would be a source that is VERY cheap to build but EXPENSIVE to operate... a source that you can economically run for a few months then idle the rest of the year. A fusion/fission reactor is unlikely to fit that bill....

IMO the perfect companion to renewables would be a biofuel or H2 powered simple cycle turbine... ~$1/w... there when you need it... cheap enough that you're not going to go broke letting it sit for a few months when you don't.

That's the trick... as renewable penetration increases the need for dispatchable generation will decrease. A power plant that costs >$7/w NEEDS to be operating ~90% of the time to pay for its construction. Any power plant you pair with renewable must cost <$2/w.

 

[rolosrevenge]

as renewable penetration increases the need for dispatchable generation will decrease

Umm, no. Adding more variability to the system doesn't decrease the need for control, but increases it. The more renewables you have, the more flexibility, hence dispatchability, you need.

 

[dsm363]

Umm, no. Adding more variability to the system doesn't decrease the need for control, but increases it. The more renewables you have, the more flexibility, hence dispatchability, you need.

Next slide!

 

[rolosrevenge]

Next slide!

Still waiting for a picture on the forum of me with my left hand up...

 

[SmartElectric]

best fusion reactor we could ask for - the sun.

• no construction costs
• no maintenance/supply costs
• no regulatory costs or mid-life retrofits

• is fully operational today
• collector can be located directly at the location where the energy is used, reducing transmissions costs/risks
• collector has no moving parts
• operational window of 9AM-5PM daily and intensity is highly predictable days in advance

etc

All the engineering problems of remotely capturing fusion generated power are already figured out, it's called "solar panels".

 

[rolosrevenge]

• is fully operational today
• collector can be located directly at the location where the energy is used, reducing transmissions costs/risks
• collector has no moving parts
• operational window of 9AM-5PM daily and intensity is highly predictable days in advance

etc

All the engineering problems of remotely capturing fusion generated power are already figured out, it's called "solar panels".

• can accurately follow the load?
• can operate with greater than 95% availability and reliabiliy?

Nope, still missing some very important things. Though with storage in the mix it's possible.

 

[beeeerock]

• can accurately follow the load?
• can operate with greater than 95% availability and reliabiliy?

Nope, still missing some very important things. Though with storage in the mix it's possible.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that solar/wind/tidal/hydro generation would be shut down if we managed to make Fusion a reality. Solar is just a piece of puzzle, but a potentially large piece. With storage, as you suggest, it's possible. And note that 'storage' doesn't have to be batteries only. There's nothing to stop us from pumping water UP into a reservoir behind a dam when the sun is shining and generate hydro power when it's cloudy or dark... (one example only).

Point is, fusion is an idea that is a long way from being a reality. It might never be a reality (although I don't think so myself). Solar and all the other green sources work today. We can't wait around for fusion. There would be no reason it couldn't be added to the mix when technically and fiscally possible.

 

[artsci]

let the market work.

This is naive as it gets. The market is responsible for the mess we're in. Only in economists dreams are there "free markets." In the market we're forced to live with no one pays the social and environmental costs of cheap energy. If the market took these real costs into account a gallon of gas would cost ten times as much.

 

[nwdiver]

Umm, no. Adding more variability to the system doesn't decrease the need for control, but increases it. The more renewables you have, the more flexibility, hence dispatchability, you need.

You're right. I misspoke... that could have been phrased better... I should have stated , 'We'll need it MORE but USE it LESS'... point is that you need plants you can operated cost effectively with a lower CF. We may actually need MORE generation... yet generate LESS with it.

This is naive as it gets. The market is responsible for the mess we're in. Only in economists dreams are there "free markets." In the market we're forced to live with no one pays the social and environmental costs of cheap energy. If the market took these real costs into account a gallon of gas would cost ten times as much.

LOL.... ok... let's try that IN CONTEXT....

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.

With a revenue neutral carbon tax a gallon of gas WOULD cost significantly more.... the market DOES work... sometimes it just needs a little help taking external factors into account.

I'm not opposed to giving technology a running start... nuclear, solar and EVs ALL got a helping hand in their infancy. In the end they all need to be able to compete and yes... absolutely in a market where environmental impact IS taken into account.

Point is, fusion is an idea that is a long way from being a reality. It might never be a reality (although I don't think so myself). Solar and all the other green sources work today. We can't wait around for fusion. There would be no reason it couldn't be added to the mix when technically and fiscally possible.

+1000

Fusion is like power ball... it's sexy, fun to think about and if it pays off it's gonna pay off BIG... but the probability is REALLY low. Wind, Solar and storage are your 401k... kinda dull but it works. For every $1 you spend on power ball you should REALLY be putting ~$1000 in your 401k; Our investment in fusion research needs to be a similar ratio.

 

[Saghost]

Though with storage in the mix it's possible.

Exactly. As both Solar and Lithium cell prices continue to drop, I'm expecting to see a more interconnected grid develop that's mostly renewable (largely solar,) and backed by a bunch of grid storage (with attached inverters, of course) instead of conventional spinning reserves. You don't have to waste energy while it's in reserve, and it's much more flexible than any conventional power plant.
Walter

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Umm, no. Adding more variability to the system doesn't decrease the need for control, but increases it. The more renewables you have, the more flexibility, hence dispatchability, you need.

That really depends on the specifics of the renewable generation. In a sufficiently large geographic area, some percentage of renewables like wind power can behave like a baseload generator. I imagine the same applies to solar as load following.

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdf
Blowing away myths: Study says wind energy could be even more reliable than baseload power | Midwest Energy News

It also depends on existing the regional generators. If there's a lot of baseload (nuclear/coal) that can't ramp quickly, then yes, more load-following/peaking generation will be needed if renewables generation isn't sufficiently distributed. On the other hand, if there's a lot of gas that's already dispatchable load following, or even plants that can feasibly be converted, it isn't an issue. In that case, adding renewables would increase available reserves.

 

[nwdiver]

This seems a tad excessive...

Edison is suing Mitsubishi $7.57B for what happened at SONGS.

 

[mspohr]

This seems a tad excessive...

Edison is suing Mitsubishi $7.57B for what happened at SONGS.

That's what happens at large power plants. The costs to build are huge and when things go wrong, the costs are huge.
One advantage of small distributed power plants like solar and wind is that the costs are much less and the "ecosystem" is diverse so that when there is a problem, it is relatively low cost and low impact.

 

[nwdiver]

I think this is probably a 70th anniversary deal for the Trinity test but PBS is running a whole slew of nuclear segments this week.

Uranium twisting the Dragons tail...

NOVA Fukushima minute-by-minute...

The Bomb...

Kinda amusing and disappointing that even science shows that should and probably do know better use radiation and contamination interchangeably.... IMO they've probably given up on the public knowing or caring that there's a BIG difference.

 

[mspohr]

Interesting article today about Fukushima. The Japanese have spent an enormous amount of money trying to decontaminate the area (even to the point of scraping the moss off of rocks) but the real problem is the wooded area which is essentially impossible to decontaminate. It looks like much of the surrounding area of Fukushima will still expose anyone living in the area about 10x the limit of radiation annually. Probably be a "no-go" zone like Chernobyl.

 

[3mp_kwh]

I think this is probably a 70th anniversary deal for the Trinity test but PBS is running a whole slew of nuclear segments this week.

Uranium twisting the Dragons tail...

NOVA Fukushima minute-by-minute...

The Bomb...

I think PBS is just laying ground cover for the final carbon (excuse me, "Clean") rule, that is now only days away. My impression, those pieces were net negative on nukes. Too much on-site gloom. To be rounded, they should have added Pandora's Promise. There, I think the debate evens out a bit better:
pandoras promise part 1/3 - YouTube
Hansen had a piece, earlier this week, on "Scientific Reticence", which postulates a much higher glacial melt feedback, than the IPCC's .97meter, year 2100 upper bound:
Disastrous Sea Level Rise Is an Issue for Today's Public -- Not Next Millennium'sDr. James Hansen
If he's right, we might reconsider how aggressive we need to be as we watch the multiple PBS tours of Chernobyl.

 

[nwdiver]

I think PBS is just laying ground cover for the final carbon (excuse me, "Clean") rule, that is now only days away. My impression, those pieces were net negative on nukes. Too much on-site gloom. To be rounded, they should have added Pandora's Promise. There, I think the debate evens out a bit better:
pandoras promise part 1/3 - YouTube
Hansen had a piece, earlier this week, on "Scientific Reticence", which postulates a much higher glacial melt feedback, than the IPCC's .97meter, year 2100 upper bound:
Disastrous Sea Level Rise Is an Issue for Today's Public -- Not Next Millennium'sDr. James Hansen
If he's right, we might reconsider how aggressive we need to be as we watch the multiple PBS tours of Chernobyl.

I agree that the PBS segments weren't exactly 'pro-nuclear' but they also never touched on cost... neither does Pandoras Promise. Not sure why that is... possible that the editors don't think John Q public can conceptualize $Billions$... even then you need some basis for comparison...

What IS made clear is the need for some form of regulation... putting your backup generators or associated critical equipment in the basement... probably not the best idea.

Again... for the record... I'm 110% comfortable living next to Voglte (if it wasn't in Georgia)... I just think it's silly to pay $14B to build the darn thing... and removing the quality requirements to make it cheap? That I DO NOT want to live near...

I don't want to beat a dead horse but....

I am curious though... at what point do you agree it is no longer economically viable to build more nuclear plants? When you're convinced that the cost ratio of nuclear:solar really is 2:1? If not then... when? When the power pack proves it really can store energy for ~$0.02/kWh?

where's the line?

 

[beeeerock]

I don't want to beat a dead horse but....



where's the line?

While it's possible to apply costs to construction, operation and disposal of the waste, there is always the intangible of long term safety. If something goes bad on a solar farm... what's the worst thing that happens? A herd of cows grazing underneath gets flattened? How about a nuclear plant, or the disposal site? That's a little more difficult to deal with. Actually, a LOT more difficult to deal with.

While I don't have any huge concerns about competently-run reactors, there is always the 'what if' that hangs over them. Because it's a real 'what if'. Probabilities can be calculated and assigned - but they still exist.

For that reason, nuclear would have to be significantly cheaper than solar before I'd say, yeah, let's pour some concrete. And maybe not even then, because solar is still pretty cheap and at some point, we have to accept that electricity costs money. If it's affordable, why take on the nuclear risks if we don't have to? The ultimate form of sophistication is simplicity after all. Why make it complicated?

 

[cwerdna]

NOVA Fukushima minute-by-minute...

If you don't have a DVR, you can watch it online at the above link.

It was pretty decent. I didn't know about the big problems developing nearby at Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which they were able to get under control, after laying ~5 miles of cable to get cooling pumps running.

 

[3mp_kwh]

I don't want to beat a dead horse but....
where's the line?

The title of the thread is 'Nuclear Power'. Some of us read that as a cost subject, such as the with most of the solar comparisons you've managed to make inside of it. Some of us see it as an environmental subject. I would be more practical and not dream that every nuclear plant that closes, or does not get built, has thousands and thousands of solar or renewable acres behind it. They don't, and they won't. I don't know what your motivations are in the vacuum of specifically solar and nuclear, but can say there are fossil replacements happening that make it moot how few pennies/kwh they may be apart. This is without indulging a cost debate about the role land, labor, intermittency, and storage play. People love to avoid thinking about the way power is actually made in this country. If CA can't get much past 1% solar generation (not some crazy momentary peak stat), it'll be another 10+ years before the rest of the country does the same. All states don't think, or have sun, or have load profiles, or "winter", like CA but we are witnessing ourselves federally go ahead and knee-cap nuclear as though "tomorrow will be different". Not a smart move. Not with the 30% coal, and the 30% natural gas targets EPA has already been leaked as delaying.

Is being 20 years through a 40 year hour glass, by 2030, worth aiming at solar -or- nuclear for a few cents? That'll be about 500 gigatons from the point "1,000Gt" began being expressed as baking in the kind of global effects that will require adaptation. So, again, not to beat a dead horse, but I don't see the point of getting people to draw lines in all of the cost snow, if it contributes to distraction from the CO2 problem.