Nuclear power

[nwdiver]

The hits keep on coming...

For first time since poll started in 1994 most Americans are opposed to nuclear power.

 

[nwdiver]

Interesting read from the NRDC...

Does Nuclear Power have a future in America

 

[SmartElectric]

Interesting chart here:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...ar-be-cheaper-than-the-grid-here-s-a-map.html

 

[nwdiver]

More bad news for the nuclear industry... and the climate

Exelon to shutdown 3GW over then next 2 years...

I would have more sympathy for the industry if it was so infested with AGW deniers. Ironic that the one thing that could save their jobs is largely opposed by nuclear workers out of ignorance.

 

[3mp_kwh]

More bad news for the nuclear industry... and the climate

Exelon to shutdown 3GW over then next 2 years...

I would have more sympathy for the industry if it was so infested with AGW deniers. Ironic that the one thing that could save their jobs is largely opposed by nuclear workers out of ignorance.

I'm sure NRDC, EPA and a few others are happy. They have an author, Brian Palmer, who's trashed people, like James Hansen for objectively looking at temperatures, and Gt emissions rates. What you need to know about the James Hansen sea-level rise controversy They basically believe we can't go too slow at eliminating CO2, if nuclear doesn't go first. Exelon is shutting those two reactors over about a $.004/kwh deficit to plants they are leaving open. Subtract that from a PTC-normalized $.05 wind PPA, and you have the price NRDC would have you pay to swap nuclear risk, and PAY for CO2 instead. Not funny, because it's true. And they hold the keys to the EPA. Fort Calhoun's announcement two weeks ago, same thing. Nebraska's "SPP" power pool is 55% coal, which they will use until they get the natural gas up and running. http://www.oppdlistens.com/files/6814/6305/8130/May_news_release_FINAL_SECURED.pdf

People get high on the "clean" renewables, NRDC stuff, enough that they don't seem to be looking at CO2. It's too bad, because I don't think this would have been the public's choice: Carbon emissions rising at New England power plants - The Boston Globe

 

[AntronX]

TVA's Watts Bar 2 is coming up online this summer with 1.4 GWe. And its directly replacing coal.

 

[nwdiver]

TVA's Watts Bar 2 is coming up online this summer with 1.4 GWe. And its directly replacing coal.

About time! They started building it in 1973!

Probably would have been smarter to spend the $4.7B they spent finishing a 1GW nuclear plant on keeping the ~4GW we're going to lose in the next 2 years open.

That's the crazy bit... we're spending >$20B on ~5GW but ~20GW is at risk of closing due to insufficient revenue... I bet $20B would really help the plants at risk of closure stay solvent.

 

[SmartElectric]

Ontario Power Generation defends:
Ontario Power Generation and the Power Workers’ Union defend Pickering Nuclear | Toronto Star

The electricity from the six operating units provides about 13 per cent of Ontario’s annual demand, is free of greenhouse gas emissions and comes at a cost lower than almost all other sources of energy.

Unfortunately, the same day they also requested higher rates for their power, greater than the cost of brand new Wind power:
OPG applies for increase that would add $5.25 a month to bills after five years

The Ontario Clean Air Alliance says OPG's application shows it wants nine cents a kilowatt hour for the power produced from Darlington, which is more expensive than the 8.6 cents a kwh it pays for wind power.

Nuclear was claimed to be cheaper power, not including the massive debt left to Ontario residents following the build out, but is getting more expensive than other options once the rates increase to pay to keep it running.

 

[nwdiver]

The NEI Nuclear Energy Institute... the trade group for the nuclear industry went on a renewables twitter rant today... this really isn't going to help them win any allies. And it's kinda sad really.

My favorite was;

Q: T/F Energy produced from solar can be stored when the sun isn't shining.

A: FALSE! .... there is no efficient way to store electricity produced by wind or solar.

Weird... I bet wk057 would be surprised to hear this...

 

[3mp_kwh]

Nuclear was claimed to be cheaper power, not including the massive debt left to Ontario residents following the build out, but is getting more expensive than other options once the rates increase to pay to keep it running.

There's what it costs, and then there's the boondoggle factor of any power source. Spending 12.8 billion, to get 30 years from 3.5GW is playing with massive numbers, and, frankly, sounds closer to a new build proposition, than preservation. Pilgrim's CEO cited recent NRC compliance update costs, at 45-60 million (not billion), and suggested that its 640MW unit was behind the market by about 40mm per year. Those are much smaller preservation numbers. I don't know OPG's numbers, as a domestic analyst, but they approach Vogtle's 15 billion, on 2.2GW of new power. That's what stands out at first blush.

I hate the debate decent into nuclear versus renewables, because of my earlier demonstration that CO2 is ultimately the winner, here. They all become cheap, if you believe in a carbon price somewhere north of maybe $20/ton, or $.02-.03/kwh, to displace coal and natural gas. In New England, we are effectively making a conscious decision whether to install 1.2-2.0GW of off-shore wind to replace Pilgrim, or keep it open. I think we should do the 1.2-2.0GW of off-shore, AND keep Pilgrim open (with a "ZEC", like NY's). We'll still be darn close to 50% natural gas electricity, and all the CO2 and methane that comes with it (the growing enemy?). Warren Buffet's MidAmerican just proposed 2GW of wind, in Iowa, for 3.6 billion, and off-shore wind is typically ~twice as expensive. So, I'm thinking...~7 billion for offshore wind, if we replace Pilgrim and we'll be marking time on CO2, with up to 1,000 new windmills in the ocean (it takes >twice the name plate wind capacity, to replace power that can be left on almost all the time). The thought we'd go ahead with a "replacement" strategy, at those relative costs, is staggering to me, but it isn't far from what the environmental community is effectively asking (of many of my friends, unwittingly).
MidAmerican Energy To Invest $3.6 Billion In 2 GW Wind Project

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

There's what it costs, and then there's the boondoggle factor of any power source. Spending 12.8 billion, to get 30 years from 3.5GW is playing with massive numbers, and, frankly, sounds closer to a new build proposition, than preservation. Pilgrim's CEO cited recent NRC compliance update costs, at 45-60 million (not billion), and suggested that its 640MW unit was behind the market by about 40mm per year. Those are much smaller preservation numbers. I don't know OPG's numbers, as a domestic analyst, but they approach Vogtle's 15 billion, on 2.2GW of new power. That's what stands out at first blush.

I hate the debate decent into nuclear versus renewables, because of my earlier demonstration that CO2 is ultimately the winner, here. They all become cheap, if you believe in a carbon price somewhere north of maybe $20/ton, or $.02-.03/kwh, to displace coal and natural gas. In New England, we are effectively making a conscious decision whether to install 1.2-2.0GW of off-shore wind to replace Pilgrim, or keep it open. I think we should do the 1.2-2.0GW of off-shore, AND keep Pilgrim open (with a "ZEC", like NY's). We'll still be darn close to 50% natural gas electricity, and all the CO2 and methane that comes with it (the growing enemy?). Warren Buffet's MidAmerican just proposed 2GW of wind, in Iowa, for 3.6 billion, and off-shore wind is typically ~twice as expensive. So, I'm thinking...~7 billion for offshore wind, if we replace Pilgrim and we'll be marking time on CO2, with up to 1,000 new windmills in the ocean (it takes >twice the name plate wind capacity, to replace power that can be left on almost all the time). The thought we'd go ahead with a "replacement" strategy, at those relative costs, is staggering to me, but it isn't far from what the environmental community is effectively asking (of many of my friends, unwittingly).
MidAmerican Energy To Invest $3.6 Billion In 2 GW Wind Project

Before loading up on expensive offshore wind I think it'd be better to ramp up HVDC connections to Quebec as much as possible. Quebec has hydro, and every bit of dispatchable hydro needs to be exploited to help load up on non-dispatchable renewables.

 

[RDoc]

Before loading up on expensive offshore wind I think it'd be better to ramp up HVDC connections to Quebec as much as possible. Quebec has hydro, and every bit of dispatchable hydro needs to be exploited to help load up on non-dispatchable renewables.

Totally agree, but there are a lot of people in New England who strongly oppose the power lines and a lot of politicians who listen to them.

 

[nexsuperne101]

Nuclear is great, well in theory anyway.

The problem is still what to do with the waste? Radiation poisoning of the planet and its inhabitants is the single greatest problem for nuclear after all these years.

I'm glad my solar panels, wind turbine and lithium battery storage system don't have the same issues.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The NEI Nuclear Energy Institute... the trade group for the nuclear industry went on a renewables twitter rant today... this really isn't going to help them win any allies. And it's kinda sad really.

My favorite was;

Q: T/F Energy produced from solar can be stored when the sun isn't shining.

A: FALSE! .... there is no efficient way to store electricity produced by wind or solar.

Weird... I bet wk057 would be surprised to hear this...

Not sure why they are taking up the issue with renewables. What's killing nuclear are cheap fossil fuel plants (mainly natural gas). Making more enemies won't further their cause.

 

[nwdiver]

Hmmm.... they weren't done...

Day 2 of NEI channeling their inner Trump twitter bashing solar and wind

Well... the nuclear industry has made it pretty clear how they feel about renewables... can't we all just get along? I promise to fully support $2/w nuclear if it ever shows up... (unless solar is $0.50/w by then)

 

[neroden]

Unfortunately the nuclear industry has pretty much discredited itself with six decades of lies, and of projections which didn't pan out. Am I surprised that they're continuing to lie to promote their industry? No, because they've been doing so since the 1950s, so why should they change now?

 

[Pollux]

@3mp_kwh, sorry I've been offline and continue to be intermittent; relo from MA to MD has been quite consuming for my little family, since February. (Find/buy/pack/sell/move/close/unpacking-and-unpacking-and-unpacking...)

Reminder: MA SB 1747, putting a price on carbon, could have a serious impact on the discussion of keeping Pilgrim open. But it's stuck in the Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy committee and not yet clear whether it will get reported out before it and other stuck bills die in mid-July. Anyone who wants to write their senator/rep about this should do so! Only *FIVE* letters on a single topic are enough to get a sen/rep's attention!

As for new nukes versus preserving existing ones... while I think the industry as a whole continues to cost-shift and/or delay the day or reckoning w.r.t. true decommissioning costs AND long-term waste disposal costs, IMHO there are two distinct buckets between (1) preservation and (2) new construction. I think new construction is a non-starter until/unless some of the mooted-for-decades cheap, repeatable schemes prove out. Gas is just too cheap, and solar is busily continuing to decline in price at a rapid clip. Add decent batteries to the equation and soon wind and solar will even kill gas.

Putting a price on carbon quite possibly will change the calculus of affordability for preserving existing nukes, though. Especially as we continue to defer recognizing true decommissioning and waste disposal costs.

Alan

 

[Skotty]

Nuclear is good technology. It's sad that it is getting killed off by ignorance, fear, and construction incompetence. I've always been a huge supporter of nuclear, always looking at it from a physics and ground up perspective, but even I have just about thrown in the towel on it in favor of primarily solar with grid storage.

 

[nwdiver]

Nuclear is good technology. It's sad that it is getting killed off by ignorance, fear, and construction incompetence. I've always been a huge supporter of nuclear, always looking at it from a physics and ground up perspective, but even I have just about thrown in the towel on it in favor of primarily solar with grid storage.

Hmmm... nuclear survived all those things for >30 years in no small part to the tremendous support it receives from the surrounding community. There was a lot of heart felt testimony yesterday from workers and other members of the community attempting to save Indian Point. The Economics have turned against nuclear. Coal may have ironically been the canary... coal has seen a ~30% decline in the last year alone. This shows how fast things can turn.

I expect that we'll lose over half of the US nuclear fleet over the next 10 years. There's no way for a nuclear plant to survive in a de-regulated market. Of the nuclear capacity put up for auction in Illinois last month <20% cleared.

What bodes even worse for the future prospects of nuclear power is the fact that all 3 units slated for closure had very high capacity factors... >90%. If nuclear can't compete now how is it going to compete when renewables start pushing curtailment?

 

[neroden]

Unfortunately more than half of the nuclear power plants in the US are *really old and really bad designs* from GE and Westinghouse.

I'd be perfectly comfortable with a TRIGA in the neighborhood (and apparently General Atomics is still making money selling them); they have an awful lot of passive safety features and are really designed to "fail safe".

The CANDUs have a pretty solid safety record. Still not price-competitive for power.

But the more I learn about the GE Boiling Water Reactor designs, which is almost half the power reactors in the US, the less I like them. They're very much "fail dangerous", rather than failsafe. The control rods default to the "let it blow up" position and have to be shoved up to stop the reaction -- an unnecessary design error The spent fuel pool is on an upper floor with no containment, very little structural support, and dependent on pumping water upwards to avoid fire -- another unnecessary design error. And the whole design is full of stuff like this. I'm not a nuclear engineer, but I swear I could make a safer design; it's really disturbing how bad it is.

The Westinghouse Ice Condenser designs are even worse, since their containment system is a joke. Trying to keep these things operating more than 20 years past their design lifespan seems extremely unwise.

The newer nuclear reactor designs, mostly PWRs, are still problematic (and very expensive -- not really affordable) but tend to be much more reliable, while the oldest designs have a hell of a lot of unplanned outages.