Nuclear power

[mspohr]

Looks like Westinghouse is going down.
Exclusive: Toshiba's Westinghouse seeks U.S. bankruptcy financing - sources
Nuclear is too expensive to matter.

 

[RubberToe]

Anybody out there familiar enough with bankruptcy law care to speculate on whether there is any chance that ongoing work may be temporarily halted, or even that the units do not get finished?

"A spokeswoman for Scana said that "with approximately 5,700 contractor and subcontractor personnel on site today, we continue to make progress with construction of these new units."

"In a potential Westinghouse bankruptcy, the utility companies would be among the largest creditors of the developer, owed the work that has yet to be completed and potential penalties, according to the sources."

 

[Ampster]

Anybody out there familiar enough with bankruptcy law care to speculate on whether there is any chance that ongoing work may be temporarily halted, or even that the units do not get finished?

Yes that is always a risk. It all depends on what the Trustee decides. That decision will be informed by financial and cost estimate details beyond the scope of this forum.

 

[nwdiver]

Anybody out there familiar enough with bankruptcy law care to speculate on whether there is any chance that ongoing work may be temporarily halted, or even that the units do not get finished?

There is a critical difference between Vogtle and Summer. Apparently Summer didn't take any DOE money while Vogtle did. Not sure about the fine print but I think the investors at Vogtle stand to lose a lot less if they walk away. It would probably be more cost effective to try to finish Summer with another contractor. Might be good news for Bechtel, I imagine they would be next on a very short list of companies with the talent to finish a project like this...

It's sad... really... society has a battered wife relationship with nuclear power, 'Com'on baby... it's gonna be different this time... you know I love you'

No... it's never different... same crap, different day... we just keep falling for it. Again and again and again.. we never learn.

 

[Skotty]

Nuclear is good science and potentially good technology. Problem is the craptastic execution. For nuclear to take off, it would take an Elon Musk of nuclear. EVs were crap too before Elon came along.

 

[nwdiver]

Nuclear is good science and potentially good technology. Problem is the craptastic execution. For nuclear to take off, it would take an Elon Musk of nuclear. EVs were crap too before Elon came along.

Physics favors EVs. Physics does not favor nuclear power. Nuclear power is the fool cell of electricity generation. Even Elon couldn't fix that.

 

[mspohr]

Interesting article about ramifications of Westinghouse bankruptcy on India planned reactors.
Toshiba’s nuclear sector pullout & Westinghouse financial crisis: Amid clouds of uncertainty comes ‘willingness’

 

[derekt75]

Physics favors EVs. Physics does not favor nuclear power. Nuclear power is the fool cell of electricity generation. Even Elon couldn't fix that.

Somewhat disagree.
Fuel cell vehicles are uniquely bad in that even if you could make them cheap and safe, their CO2 emissions would be comparable to a Prius, their performance would be comparable to a Prius, but their fueling convenience would be much worse than a Prius.

If you could make nuclear cheap and safe, there's nothing really limiting it from being viable. The amount of energy you get for a dollar of fissile material is very attractive. I think the problem with nuclear is more "engineering" than "physics". How do you engineer a cheap nuclear plant that can be safely operated on the cheap? With today's knowledge, we can't. but it doesn't mean it's impossible. yeah, I know there is a litany of extremely difficult engineering challenges to nuclear, but if someone time traveled from 2100 and told me he could build a fission plant that was economically feasible, I'd say, "tell me more". If someone time traveled from 2100 and told me he could make fuel cells twice as efficient, I'd ask if the physics of the future were different.

 

[nwdiver]

Somewhat disagree.
Fuel cell vehicles are uniquely bad in that even if you could make them cheap and safe, their CO2 emissions would be comparable to a Prius, their performance would be comparable to a Prius, but their fueling convenience would be much worse than a Prius.

If you electrolyze hydrogen from water using solar and wind there are no CO2 emissions and the fueling convenience is much better than an EV. It's just a Rube Goldberg way to use electricity from solar and wind to drive a car. Nuclear power is similarly a Rube Goldberg way to generate electricity.

From a First Principles approach fuel cells and nuclear power are both losers. Fuel cells are a really really inefficient battery and nuclear power is a ridiculously expensive way to boil water... AND boiling water is an incredibly archaic and inefficient method of generating electricity...

 

[Saghost]

If you electrolyze hydrogen from water using solar and wind there are no CO2 emissions and the fueling convenience is much better than an EV. It's just a Rube Goldberg way to use electricity from solar and wind to drive a car.

Disagree. For everyday use, a few seconds to plug and unplug an EV in your garage/carport is far, far more convenient than a hydrogen pump. On a typical road trip, Supercharging is more convenient than a separate stop standing around waiting for hydrogen, too. It's only on an aggressive road trip that you have to wait for the EV.

Electrolysis from renewables may take CO2 out of the equation, but FCEVs will then use twice the power that a BEV does, while being much more dangerous to everyone around them and their filling stations.

 

[nwdiver]

Disagree. For everyday use, a few seconds to plug and unplug an EV in your garage/carport is far, far more convenient than a hydrogen pump.

You have water and electricity readily available at your home... there's no physical reason you can't also generate hydrogen at home and fill up your fuel cell car just like you charge an EV. At home... in your garage. There are A LOT of other reasons this isn't a good idea.

I'm not attempting to advocate fuel cells... I'm pointing out that they can accomplish the same task as EVs... it'll just be more expensive and more complicated. Kinda like nuclear vs wind, solar, storage and demand response

 

[Saghost]

You have water and electricity readily available at your home... there's no physical reason you can't also generate hydrogen at home and fill up you fuel cell car just like you charge an EV. At home... in your garage. There are A LOT of other reasons this isn't a good idea.

Even setting aside all of the fundamental issues with this that are presumably in your "not a good idea" section, it still wouldn't be "much more convenient" than charging an EV.

If you accepted the risks and expense in creating a home refueling station, it'd be about as convenient as plugging the EV in.

 

[miimura]

You have water and electricity readily available at your home... there's no physical reason you can't also generate hydrogen at home and fill up your fuel cell car just like you charge an EV. At home... in your garage. There are A LOT of other reasons this isn't a good idea.

I'm not attempting to advocate fuel cells... I'm pointing out that they can accomplish the same task as EVs... it'll just be more expensive and more complicated. Kinda like nuclear vs wind, solar, storage and demand response

I wouldn't want to have a hydrogen vehicle in my unvented attached garage, not to mention a filling appliance. There is a reason that hydrogen filling stations have special canopies that cannot trap light gases.

 

[McRat]

Physics favors EVs. Physics does not favor nuclear power. Nuclear power is the fool cell of electricity generation. Even Elon couldn't fix that.

How do you want to power submarines? I know we can power aircraft carriers with sails and oars, but going under the icepack is really hard on the masts and the oarsmen.

 

[nwdiver]

I wouldn't want to have a hydrogen vehicle in my unvented attached garage, not to mention a filling appliance. There is a reason that hydrogen filling stations have special canopies that cannot trap light gases.

Totally agree... it is a terrible idea. H2 can also cause a lot of problems at nuclear plants as the Japanese discovered...

How do you want to power submarines?

??? Who is talking about Submarines? This is about powering the grid.

 

[mspohr]

How do you want to power submarines? I know we can power aircraft carriers with sails and oars, but going under the icepack is really hard on the masts and the oarsmen.

Batteries

 

[Bangor Bob]

How do you want to power submarines? I know we can power aircraft carriers with sails and oars, but going under the icepack is really hard on the masts and the oarsmen.

Well, the icepack is a lot smaller than it used to be...

Ideally, we get to a place where neither submarines or aircraft carriers are needed. Yeah, not happening anytime soon.

That said, marine autonomous drones exist, they're incredibly low power (low speed as well, naturally), and enough of them with good enough sensor packages could theoretically render the missile subs ineffective.

I should probably forget I ever thought of that..

 

[McRat]

Batteries

Hmm... batteries. Think of it. 40,000 HP continuous duty ...
6000 mile range at 30 mph is 200 hours x 30,000kW, 6,000,000 kWh and 10lb per kWh, or 30,000 tons of cells?

Wait, the sub displaces less than 8,000 tons, it will sink. Will it need an extension cord instead?

 

[mspohr]

Hmm... batteries. Think of it. 40,000 HP continuous duty ...
6000 mile range at 30 mph is 200 hours x 30,000kW, 6,000,000 kWh and 10lb per kWh, or 30,000 tons of cells?

Wait, the sub displaces less than 8,000 tons, it will sink. Will it need an extension cord instead?

6000 miles without surfacing?. Set up a straw man and knocked him down. Such brilliance!

 

[S'toon]

Really hate to break it to McRat, but MOST submarines around the world aren't nuclear powered.

There's even air independent non-nuclear submarines, which don't need to surface to recharge their batteries.

The newest air independent submarines use fuel cells.
Air-independent propulsion - Wikipedia