Nuclear power

[nwdiver]

The situation in Illinois was the topic for the recent episode of 'The Energy Gang'

 

[Bangor Bob]

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.

Mostly it's getting killed off by economics. When even plants purchased out of bankruptcy are uneconomic to operate, it's just too expensive.

 

[Bangor Bob]

BTW, if US renewables (incl small solar) keep growing at their recent rate - GWh/year passes coal in 2017 (accounting for planned retirements), and nuclear in 2018.

 

[ReddyLeaf]

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.

Agreed! If the conservatives in congress really wanted to save the nuclear industry, they would pass a carbon tax. However, such a thing will probably never happen.

 

[nwdiver]

Really starting to love this guy...

 

[Craig9080]

Just want to point out that hammers will kill more people in 5 years than all nuclear reactor failures ever.

 

[S'toon]

The many-sided battle over nuclear power continues with a clear break over politics in Illinois. The company and the government are dancing around the issues currently, with the industry essentially taking the position that government (read: the people) should subsidize the waning years of nuclear installations, or else. That state’s legislature adjourned its spring session last week without extending subsidies for nuclear power (the Next Generation Energy Plan advocated by the nuclear industry).

In return, Exelon Corporation—the nation’s largest nuclear power supplier—announced that it would have to close two of the state’s best-performing plants. It has said that the Clinton Power Station will close next June, and the Quad Cities Generating Station will close a year later. Despite their high scores, they have apparently lost $800 million over the past seven years. Exit papers are in preparation.

Joe Dominguez, executive vice president for governmental and regulatory affairs and public policy at Exelon, describes his company’s bottom line:

“We think that the costs of new nuclear right now are not competitive with other zero-carbon technologies, renewables, and storage that we see in the marketplace…. Right now we just don’t have any plans on the board to build any new reactors.” (bolding mine)

<snip>

Full article at:
Illinois Power Plant Closings Reveal Worldwide Nuclear Issues

 

[nwdiver]

Just want to point out that hammers will kill more people in 5 years than all nuclear reactor failures ever.

Nuclear is very safe; Also very expensive.

Full article at:
Illinois Power Plant Closings Reveal Worldwide Nuclear Issues

wow.... 89 units slated for shutdown by 2025... that's ~20% of the global fleet...

 

[neroden]

And news that I've personally been hoping for for a long time:

Exelon Threatens to Close Nine Mile Point 1 | RTO Insider

Nine Mile Point 1 has a history of reckless mismanagement and leaks:
Study Says A-Plant's Handling of Waste Left Costly Mess

(This is why I don't consider nuclear power safe. It's the people running it. The tail risk of mismanagement is massively devastating, as we know from Fukushima and Chernobyl. And the reactors are managed by people who do *not* have "Navy" levels of discipline. The only reactor design which was designed to be "foolproof", to be operated by fools, was the TRIGA, designed to be operated by college students. I wouldn't have a problem with having a TRIGA nearby. But a GE BWR? Yeech, those things are badly designed and fragile.)

 

[AntronX]

Cost to Replace California Nuclear With Solar: $15 Billion

 

[nwdiver]

Cost to Replace California Nuclear With Solar: $15 Billion

Diablo Canyon isn't going away tomorrow; Though I predict it will actually be shutdown earlier than 2025.

By 2020 utility scale solar will be <$1/w. Diablo Canyon generates ~18TWh/yr... you can generate that with 10GW of solar for ~$10B in capital costs and much less than the ~$0.03/kWh that Diablo Canyon costs in O&M. Wind is even cheaper.

 

[AntronX]

Spending money to replace one clean energy source with another - enviros eating their own tail...

 

[mspohr]

Spending money to replace one clean energy source with another - enviros eating their own tail...

Spending money to replace old, obsolete, crumbling, probably not so clean (radioactive waste) energy with truly clean energy.
It would cost more to build a new nuclear reactor and clean up the old ($5 billion just for the cleanup plus $15-20 billion for a new reactor).
Looks like a good decision.

 

[nwdiver]

Spending money to replace one clean energy source with another - enviros eating their own tail...

Why spend ~$0.045/kWh for nuclear (What Diablo Canyon Sells Power for) When you can buy solar for $0.036/kWh?

By 2020 the disparity between Solar and Nuclear will be even wider; Wider Still by 2025.

It's simple economics.

 

[beeeerock]

Every time I come back to this thread I'm again struck by the irony of spending billions and billions of dollars on a complex, delicate and potentially deadly means of generating power from nuclear energy... when we could have spent a fraction of that to 'perfect' solar panels and build out arrays all over the place. Still enjoying the benefits of nuclear power, but we wouldn't be saddled with the day to day operational complexities of a nuclear reaction.

Still doesn't sort out overnight load, but jeez, we could have been using pumped storage, or heavy rail...or something.

It just seems like we spent decades doing things the hard way, all the while congratulating ourselves on how brilliant we were...

 

[mspohr]

Every time I come back to this thread I'm again struck by the irony of spending billions and billions of dollars on a complex, delicate and potentially deadly means of generating power from nuclear energy... when we could have spent a fraction of that to 'perfect' solar panels and build out arrays all over the place. Still enjoying the benefits of nuclear power, but we wouldn't be saddled with the day to day operational complexities of a nuclear reaction.

Still doesn't sort out overnight load, but jeez, we could have been using pumped storage, or heavy rail...or something.

It just seems like we spent decades doing things the hard way, all the while congratulating ourselves on how brilliant we were...

A lot of the impetus for nuclear came from government (pushed by utilities) which provided generous subsidies and indemnification. Military industrial government axis at work.

 

[AntronX]

Congrats Californians, you all been duped:
Environmental Group Could Benefit Financially From Closure of Diablo Canyon

 

[mspohr]

Congrats Californians, you all been duped:
Environmental Group Could Benefit Financially From Closure of Diablo Canyon

OMG! Thank you for this negative feedback.
I guess it's not too surprising that a pro nuclear astroturf "think tank" would be against closing a nuclear plant (even though it's at the end of its design life and would require $ billions to bring to some semblance of safety - if only there wasn't that pesky earthquake problem like Fukushima).
So, the scandal here is that the NRDC has investments in clean energy and they work to promote clean energy. I kind of thought that was their stated purpose.
You'll have to do better...

 

[S'toon]

Congrats Californians, you all been duped:
Environmental Group Could Benefit Financially From Closure of Diablo Canyon

From that organization's about page:

We seek first to stop the premature closure of nuclear plants, restart shuttered plants, and increase the rate at which nations build new nuclear plants, whether Generation III or Gen IV. Second, we seek to motivate policymakers, private banks and public financial institutions to significantly reduce the cost and increase the availability of credit for inexpensive baseload electricity in nations where people still rely on wood and dung as their primary energy.

Methinks that article itself is a conflict of interest.
Why, What & How

 

[nwdiver]

LOL... that organization should be called nuclear progress. That's all they care about.

Funny... AWEA will praise SEIA when they hit milestones and vice versa but NEI has nothing but venom for wind and solar... wonder why that is... it's almost like they only care about clean energy if it's coming from a nuclear plant.

Nuclear Power can rot in hell... along with their AGW denying executives. Climate Change advocates are being used by the pro-nuclear groups. If nuclear power wants to survive they need to start promoting EVs like the rest of the renewable industry. Work WITH wind and solar... not against them and speak out about the dangers of climate change... not just the fact that nuclear power is carbon free.