Nuclear power

[nwdiver]

The NRC did !

I didn't realize the NRC has jurisdiction outside the US...

Estimated cost of Hinkley Point C nuclear plant rises to £37bn

The NRC saved the US nuclear industry. Without them it may have simply evaporated like it has in Japan. If the Japanese NRA was as proficient as the NRC Japan might actually have a few nuclear plants still operating...

 

[SmartElectric]

Ontario Canada doesn't want to spend new money on Nuclear, we're doing a massive $20B "refurbish" (repipe, etc) and that is going to raise the price of electricity 40% from these updated plants, the price will be greater than the solar and wind power via a purchase agreement signed last year. Nuclear is over priced and inflexible. Ontario spends hundreds of millions of $ every year selling excess Nuclear energy at a loss during low overnight usage!

 

[macpacheco]

I didn't realize the NRC has jurisdiction outside the US...

Estimated cost of Hinkley Point C nuclear plant rises to £37bn

The NRC saved the US nuclear industry. Without them it may have simply evaporated like it has in Japan. If the Japanese NRA was as proficient as the NRC Japan might actually have a few nuclear plants still operating...

Yep, every other Gen III+ reactor tried really, really, really hard to reduce its bill of materials, to make it as simple as possible to build, also reducing its power production. Areva in all of its infinite wisdom decided to make an uber complex reactor, often doing the same thing in two different ways, because it was a merge of French and Germany's approach to nuclear and they never managed to keep only the best solution each one had to offer for each sub system.
EPR is a 1.7GW electric monster. AP1000 is 1.1GW for instance.
There's always room for incompetence in the market, until they go out of business.

But I'll just say, I don't hold any warmth for any water cooled designs anyhow. None of the are great designs.

 

[nwdiver]

But I'll just say, I don't hold any warmth for any water cooled designs anyhow. None of the are great designs.

I agree it is much easier to see perfection in a fantasy...

A lot of people saw 'perfection' in light water reactors too 60 years ago... until we got some experience operating them and costs began to rise to ensure 'impossible' accidents didn't happen. Do you really think we won't find similar flaws with fluoride cooled reactors?

Solar, Wind, Storage and Demand Response aren't perfect... but they do exist... we're pretty familiar with their 'flaws' and we know how to work around them.

 

[macpacheco]

nwdiver, it took over a decade to certify the AP1000.
The NRC is a big part of the problem.
ESBWR the same.
In the meantime, how much did solar and wind technology evolve ?

People that saw perfection on LWR no matter how long ago certainly didn't spoke with the Manhattan Project top scientists which didn't believe water cooled reactors were the right solution.
That's why I am putting a lot of focus on IMSR because it will be the first to go through the grinding machine a nuclear regulator and we'll see if they can find a big show stopper in the design. I hope not.
But I'm sure if it were left to you, you would kill them all, so I'd rather hear from the CNSC instead.
I really don't understand why you post on nuclear discussions, since you're so certain nuclear power has no chance to succeed.

 

[nwdiver]

In the meantime, how much did solar and wind technology evolve ?

LOL... Really?

I really don't understand why you post on nuclear discussions, since you're so certain nuclear power has no chance to succeed.

Because I've spent 15 years in the nuclear industry... I understand it. Because I've spent ~8 years installing solar... I understand it. Do you want this thread to be an echo chamber of pro-nuclear fanboys or do you want facts and understanding?

 

[ReddyLeaf]

Disturbing news regarding nuclear facilities:

The Most Toxic Nuclear Facility in the US Is in Lockdown

While "interesting" and news worthy, this event is NOT related to nuclear power. This is a remnant from 1940s weapons production and not even remotely related to power.

 

[macpacheco]

LOL... Really?
Because I've spent 15 years in the nuclear industry... I understand it. Because I've spent ~8 years installing solar... I understand it. Do you want this thread to be an echo chamber of pro-nuclear fanboys or do you want facts and understanding?

We have several lengthy discussions and you wrote it all of as a fantasy. So, I'm a fanboy.
You also ignore the over a dozen times when I explained you only really understand that exact type of reactor you worked with. In your mind a nuclear reactor has only of type of electricity generation turbine, that turbine required by a 250C temperature outlet reactor. When there has been several reactors that produced heat at 600C or higher. Which lead to a much simpler turbine. In your mind every accident scenario for old water cooled reactors apply to all of them.
You most certainly are fully self assured of your beliefs. Like I said before, there's no point in discussing here, since those with an open mind don't post, only those with a 100% closed mind to what nuclear power can and will be.
Before I go, and this time I'll try to stay of nuclear discussions until 2022, I'll say this again, if you are SERIOUS about dealing with climate change we need nuclear. Most of all we need nuclear for industry that requires process heat 500C and hotter. To make fertilizers, to make hydrogen, to free up gas burning from oil refining (which will stay with us for as long as there's oil, at least for to make the feeds for petrochemical industry).
Finally, if climate change hits really hard and large scale desal is required, high temperature nuclear is perfect cause the cooling requirements for a large nuclear site can boil seawater by the billion gallons / day.

nwdiver your knowledge of nuclear power is of little use for discussion here, cause your mind is closed about nuclear.
I on the other hand am interested in all non fossil fuel energy sources. Hydro, solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal and more.
I'm not one cent more of a fanboi about Gen IV MSR nuclear than we all were about Gigafactory when the first plans about it were broken out.

 

[nwdiver]

nwdiver your knowledge of nuclear power is of little use for discussion here, cause your mind is closed about nuclear.

My mind is always open. As mentioned many times I was very pro-nuclear until Solar was half the cost of nuclear and the disparity was obviously widening. Maybe there will be a miracle and LFTR or IMSR will work. I KNOW solar, wind and storage will work. We're awash in those resources. There's absolutely no physical reason they can't work. If you have commercial evidence as to the viability of other reactor technology then please post it... it's all conjecture as far as I'm aware. NOTHING has been built and operated commercially... probably a reason for that...

How cheap does solar and wind have to get before you accept them as the future? $0.80/w? $0.50/w? $0.20/w? At what point? Energy is Energy you can make it do what you need. Why pay $0.10/kWh for energy from nuclear when energy from wind is $0.02/kWh and energy from solar is $0.03/kWh? How many more years will you keep hoping for a miracle from nuclear before you accept it for the boondoggle that it likely is?

I say let the market decide... put a price on carbon and strip all the subsides... including the Price-Anderson act. Thermal generators wouldn't last a year...

I on the other hand am interested in all non fossil fuel energy sources. Hydro, solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal and more.

The hard truth is that with low capital sources like wind and solar rapidly expanding nuclear simply isn't economically feasible >2x the cost per watt of solar and wind. So $2/w is the price to beat. That's the hallmark of an 'open mind'. A $2/w nuclear plant I would wholly support

How much is too much for nuclear to your 'open mind'?

 

[Ampster]

How cheap does solar and wind have to get before you accept them as the future?

I agree. I am a retired financial executive with very little knowledge of the specifics of the nuclear industry. To me, economics are the fundamental drivers of whether a technology is viable. I think that is relevant to a discussion in a thread whose title is "Nuclear Power", just as it would be relevant for any discussion under the topic "Energy, Environment and Policy".

 

[Cosmacelf]

Nuclear could still be cheaper in the long run than solar and still lose. Huge up front capital costs, regulatory uncertainty, likelihood of cost overruns, and decreasing value of baseline load. Versus solar with near cost certainty, and benign regulation.

 

[AndreN]

Two bits of not-so-good nuclear news I ran into this week.

1. Three Mile Island is shutting down. They couldn't sell their future power at a profit.

2. Broadcom is bidding on Toshiba's NAND flash business. How is this related to nuclear power? Toshiba is essentially being forced to sell a hugely profitable business in order to pay off a $9 billion loss in its subsidiary that owns nuclear plants. Buried in the above article on Broadcom:
"This has raised the question of why Toshiba is selling such a hot business. The company is currently on the cusp of being delisted. It faced a loss of $9 billion due to huge losses in its US nuclear power station business, which filed for bankruptcy. Toshiba has to raise cash to pay for these losses by March 2018 or else it will be delisted.
"

 

[S'toon]

No, Virginia, There Is No Nuclear Santa Claus

 

[RubberToe]

Deal reached for Toshiba to guarantee $3.7 billion to complete Vogtle. Anything above that and the Utility has to pick up the remainder of the new cost overruns:

Southern, Westinghouse strike $3.7B deal to complete Vogtle nuclear plant

The "touch of gray" in this silver lining of the cloud is that a consultant hired by the project concluded that "continued development of the Vogtle expansion is not economic and should be halted".

 

[RubberToe]

One has to wonder what happens when Southern burns through the $3.7 billion, or when they are well on their way to doing that, and they realize that there are more cost overruns coming down the pipe. I guess the more "sunk funds" that are spent on the plant, the closer they get to being finished. And then, it makes it harder to walk away from the large size of the "sunk funds". I wonder if they will pull the plug like the consultant recommends?

RT

 

[SmartElectric]

Ontario Canada, home of Nuclear power, waste should just be buried under the largest freshwater system in the world ... what could go wrong?!

Nuclear power company feels they just dig a (deep) hole 1 km from the lake and bury the waste:
Burying nuclear waste near Lake Huron still best option, says OPG
Ontario Power Generation insists on burying nuclear waste beside Lake Huron: Walkom | Toronto Star

Environment Minister Catherine McKenna keeps asking OPG to look at other locations. The utility keeps not obliging.

But they already have insufficient planning for disaster:
Ontario unprepared for nuclear emergency on Great Lakes | SaultOnline.com
Canada’s Nuclear Province Isn’t Ready for Its Fukushima, Critics Say

The organizations, including farmers, nurses, and environmental groups, have sent a statement to the Minister of Community Safety, Marie-France Lalonde, laying out expectations for addressing gaps in the province’s current emergency plans.

The 40-plus groups who've signed onto this statement, including Greenpeace and the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, say that current emergency plans don't sufficiently account for evacuations that would be required to get people out of the Toronto area in the event of a major nuclear accident. Nor do they note alternative water sources if our drinking water were affected. (All three of Ontario's nuclear facilities are on the shores of the Great Lakes.)

Nuclear getting a 30% rate hike:
OPG’s rate hike for nuclear power adds burden to Ontarians’ energy bills, critics warn

Ontario signs up for 10 more years of Nuclear power:
Cameco signs 10-year extension with Bruce Power

But the company makes bogus claims:

<CLAIMS> that nuclear power comes at the most favourable kilowatt-hour rate around. At 6.6 cents per KWH, it even beats out solar power (48 cents), wind power (14 cents)

FALSE! They quote the existing Wind price, while using their PREVIOUS Nuclear rate. The most recent Wind procurement came in at 8c/kWh, while Nuclear gets a rate increase to 9c/kWh.

Nuclear industry lies and deceit are constant and troubling here in Ontario.

 

[Pollux]

So... I'm reading along and see a couple of references to carbon pricing and economics. I'm skeptical about building more fission plants but acknowledge the serious need for carbon-free power. (So sad that the industry doesn't really seem to have its collective act together about lobbying on this issue, they just seem to sit around and wait for people to come to them. That's my stereotype based on feedback I hear from national- and state-level carbon pricing organizations.)

You may be interested to learn that there are very active efforts underway to enact carbon pricing fee-and-dividend legislation in Massachusetts. See this TMC thread for details on recent activities. If anyone on this thread is serious about carbon pricing, perhaps you would like the opportunity to help by supporting the MA effort and/or starting or joining one in your own state (see Climate XChange's State Carbon Pricing Network).

Alan

 

[RubberToe]

Hinkley Point C cost estimate increases by a couple billion $:

Cost of Hinkley Point C rises by 8%, EDF says

And we are still a couple years (mid-2019) away from first concrete...

RT

P.S. One of these days the good people in the UK are going to wake up and say WTF?

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

P.S. One of these days the good people in the UK are going to wake up and say WTF?

They're getting accustomed to it.

 

[WannabeOwner]

One of these days the good people in the UK are going to wake up and say WTF?

We have done, but whoever we vote for the Government always gets in