Nuclear power

[nwdiver]

Seen this one, claiming to be “walk away safe” yet “no new technology”?
Thorcon Power | The Do-able Molten Salt Reactor

Probably not accurate to say 'no new technology' about something that isn't operating yet. There are probably dozens of problems that will only become apparent AFTER they try to actually make it work. Fluorine is an unforgiving element. We used Fluorine in the form of UF6. No problems for decades until one day there was an unlikely reaction in one of our processes causing an explosion. To prevent future explosions we had to develop 'new technology'. Almost impossible to predict, sometimes you just have to learn by doing.

Which is one of the reasons nuclear has a negative learning curve. The more they operate the more they find that can go wrong. The more expensive nuclear gets

 

[mspohr]

Gates is lobbying Congress to bail him out of his failing nuclear project.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...d9c030-1445-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html

But many nuclear experts say that Gates’s company is pursuing a flawed technology and that any new nuclear design is likely to come at a prohibitive economic cost and take decades to perfect, market and construct in any significant numbers.

“We think the vendors of advanced nuclear power designs are saying they can commercially deploy them in a few years and all over the world,” Lyman said. “We think that is counterproductive because it is misleading the public on how fast and effective these could be.”

 

[nwdiver]

“We think the vendors of advanced nuclear power designs are saying they can commercially deploy them in a few years and all over the world,” Lyman said. “We think that is counterproductive because it is misleading the public on how fast and effective these could be.”

.... if nuclear investors are looking for a return on their investment I can forward them some emails I received from a Nigerian prince. Cheaper and a higher probability of success.

 

[VValleyEV]

Interesting paper with references to a collection of studies, arguing that variable energy resources (chiefly wind and solar), augmented by energy storage, alone are much less likely to do the job of deep de-carbonization (80%-100%), than in combination with continued development of low-carbon “firm” power, ie not variable. They argue that we need technologies to add carbon capture and storage to existing “firm” power generation methods. There is an interesting section with a heading “Inefficient Utilization Requires Very-Low-Cost Wind and Solar to Make Overcapacity Economical”. Of course nuclear is in their mix of power technologies not to abandon but to keep working on.

Doesn’t look like an industry-sponsored paper.

https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30562-2

 

[mspohr]

Hundreds of Pennsylvania jobs on the line as bailout deadline looms for struggling nuclear plants
Infamous Three Mile Island nuclear plant to be shut unless they get a subsidy. The usual arguments

 

[nwdiver]

Interesting paper with references to a collection of studies, arguing that variable energy resources (chiefly wind and solar), augmented by energy storage, alone are much less likely to do the job of deep de-carbonization (80%-100%), than in combination with continued development of low-carbon “firm” power, ie not variable. They argue that we need technologies to add carbon capture and storage to existing “firm” power generation methods. There is an interesting section with a heading “Inefficient Utilization Requires Very-Low-Cost Wind and Solar to Make Overcapacity Economical”. Of course nuclear is in their mix of power technologies not to abandon but to keep working on.

Doesn’t look like an industry-sponsored paper.

https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30562-2

Unless I missed it they ignore the fact that nuclear will have the same problem decarbonizing beyond ~80%. Why the double standard? Just because something has as flat production profile doesn't mean it's a good fit for the grid... have you seen the typical demand profile?

SPP needs >50GW of capacity to meet summer demand. If you have 50GW of nuclear... you're seriously suppressing the capacity factor of a generator that cannot afford a low CF. If you have 30GW of nuclear what will fill the 20GW gap? Storage? If you have a ton of storage anyway why not just use wind and solar since they're ~1/3 the cost per kWh and ~1/10th the cost per kW?

Even 'IF' the transition from 80% => 100% was easier with nuclear (It's not). Are we supposed to spend >3x as much per kWh to decarbonize to 80%? Economics matters. Was it wise for SC and GA to burn ~$40B to reduce fossil fuel use by ~16TWh/yr with nuclear starting in 2022 (maybe) when they could have already been reducing fossil fuel use by >30TWh/yr with offshore wind???? That math don't work in our favor.

Then there's the issue that nuclear is thermal power. SPS is shutting down their last thermal generator in 2030 because they don't have enough water. As we deplete aquifers and climate change makes weather patterns less predictable there are large swaths of the interior away from oceans that simply cannot support thermal generation. A thermal generator needs ~7gal of water per kWh, it's crazy.

Nuclear faces so many insurmountable challenges that success is impossible.

 

[mspohr]

Toxic legacy: what to do with Britain's nuclear waste – Science Weekly podcast

One of the persistent unsolved, expensive problems of nuclear is what to do with the waste. Nobody has a good solution. It's hard to consider nuclear a "clean" and safe technology when it leaves an eternal legacy of toxic waste.

 

[nwdiver]

Toxic legacy: what to do with Britain's nuclear waste – Science Weekly podcast

One of the persistent unsolved, expensive problems of nuclear is what to do with the waste. Nobody has a good solution. It's hard to consider nuclear a "clean" and safe technology when it leaves an eternal legacy of toxic waste.

I guess 'good' might be somewhat a matter of opinion. I'm personally 100% ok with dry cask storage. It's just unfortunate that nuclear is so ridiculously expensive or it might be a viable option. IMO.

I'd need to run the numbers on shielding but I'd be willing to live with a cask buried near my house and scavenge the decay heat in the winter

 

[mspohr]

I guess 'good' might be somewhat a matter of opinion. I'm personally 100% ok with dry cask storage. It's just unfortunate that nuclear is so ridiculously expensive or it might be a viable option. IMO.

I'd need to run the numbers on shielding but I'd be willing to live with a cask buried near my house and scavenge the decay heat in the winter

A neighbor's daughter graduated with a degree in nuclear engineering. She's working at Hanford on the cleanup with her husband. The goal is to put the waste in dry casks. It's going slowly and expensive. They need to build an automated plant that will run without maintenance. A tough problem.
I agree that it's a "good" solution in the short term and it would be nice to have a warm bottle in the house. The problem is that it needs to be safe on a geologic time scale and it's impossible to predict earth movements and ground water on that scale.

 

[mspohr]

Storage of nuclear waste a 'global crisis' as stockpile reaches 250,000 tons, Greenpeace warns | The Japan Times

“More than 65 years after the start of the civil use of nuclear power, not a single country can claim that it has the solution to manage the most dangerous radioactive wastes,” Shaun Burnie, a nuclear expert at Greenpeace Germany and coordinator of the report, said in a statement.

In particular, storing waste material from nuclear power reactors deep in the ground — the most researched long-term storage technology — “has shown major flaws which exclude it for now as a credible option,” he said.

Currently, there is a global stockpile of around 250,000 tons of highly radioactive spent fuel distributed across 14 countries.

 

[nwdiver]

Currently, there is a global stockpile of around 250,000 tons of highly radioactive spent fuel distributed across 14 countries.

>98% of that is 'filler'. If you have a 10kg fuel rod that contains 10g of waste do you have 10kg of waste or 10g of waste?

 

[miimura]

>98% of that is 'filler'. If you have a 10kg fuel rod that contains 10g of waste do you have 10kg of waste or 10g of waste?

Until you separate the 10g from the 9.99kg, you still have 10kg of waste.

 

[nwdiver]

Until you separate the 10g from the 9.99kg, you still have 10kg of waste.

... kinda but the impression the average reader would get is that there's 250,000 ton of waste not that there's <5000 tons mingled in with ~245,000 tons of relatively benign metal. Another factor is the sheer density. 250,000 tons sounds like a lot... but there's >400,000 tons of UF6 in Paducah Kentucky. A dry cask weighs in at 150 tons so that's ~2000 casks for all the waste without any processing.

The misinformation feeds into the nuclear industrys narrative that their problem is public perception not economics. It's economics.

Fun Fact:

A 48Y is the name of the cylinder used to transport natural UF6 feed for enrichment. These cylinders are actually MORE radioactive when they're empty than when they're full.

 

[mspohr]

Your nuclear power subsidies at work (not):
https://www.ocregister.com/2019/02/...no-permanent-storage-solution-on-the-horizon/

Nuclear waste burial fund grows to $43 billion, but DOE has not buried an ounce of spent fuel
Radioactive waste still stuck at San Onofre and other reactors across the nation

 

[nwdiver]

Nukes can have small role in Green New Deal, backers say

This is the more pragmatic approach. Keep existing nukes as long as possible but we need to acknowledge they are not long for this world. The math simply works against them. Keep existing nuclear? Sure, for now. Build more? Not just no but @&#$ no.

Nuclear energy and other non-renewable resources can play a role in the Green New Deal, key backers of the environmental movement told reporters Thursday, but their contributions are likely to be short-lived in a rapidly decarbonizing economy.​

 

[mspohr]

Nukes can have small role in Green New Deal, backers say

This is the more pragmatic approach. Keep existing nukes as long as possible but we need to acknowledge they are not long for this world. The math simply works against them. Keep existing nuclear? Sure, for now. Build more? Not just no but @&#$ no.

Nuclear energy and other non-renewable resources can play a role in the Green New Deal, key backers of the environmental movement told reporters Thursday, but their contributions are likely to be short-lived in a rapidly decarbonizing economy.​

Existing nukes have already incurred the full cost of building, embodied carbon and nuclear waste. Makes sense to keep them running if it can be done safely (but maybe not economically).

 

[nwdiver]

This is my shocked face...

US Could Achieve 3X As Much CO2 Savings With Renewables Instead Of Nuclear For Less Money

 

[nwdiver]

This was published last summer but I just came across it today. Pretty damning...

US nuclear power: The vanishing low-carbon wedge

Abstract
Nuclear power holds the potential to make a significant contribution to decarbonizing the US energy system. Whether it could do so in its current form is a critical question: Existing large light water reactors in the United States are under economic pressure from low natural gas prices, and some have already closed. Moreover, because of their great cost and complexity, it appears most unlikely that any new large plants will be built over the next several decades. While advanced reactor designs are sometimes held up as a potential solution to nuclear power’s challenges, our assessment of the advanced fission enterprise suggests that no US design will be commercialized before midcentury. That leaves factory-manufactured, light water small modular reactors (SMRs) as the only option that might be deployed at significant scale in the climate-critical period of the next several decades. We have systematically investigated how a domestic market could develop to support that industry over the next several decades and, in the absence of a dramatic change in the policy environment, have been unable to make a convincing case. Achieving deep decarbonization of the energy system will require a portfolio of every available technology and strategy we can muster. It should be a source of profound concern for all who care about climate change that, for entirely predictable and resolvable reasons, the United States appears set to virtually lose nuclear power, and thus a wedge of reliable and low-carbon energy, over the next few decades.

 

[mspohr]

This was published last summer but I just came across it today. Pretty damning...

US nuclear power: The vanishing low-carbon wedge

Abstract
Nuclear power holds the potential to make a significant contribution to decarbonizing the US energy system. Whether it could do so in its current form is a critical question: Existing large light water reactors in the United States are under economic pressure from low natural gas prices, and some have already closed. Moreover, because of their great cost and complexity, it appears most unlikely that any new large plants will be built over the next several decades. While advanced reactor designs are sometimes held up as a potential solution to nuclear power’s challenges, our assessment of the advanced fission enterprise suggests that no US design will be commercialized before midcentury. That leaves factory-manufactured, light water small modular reactors (SMRs) as the only option that might be deployed at significant scale in the climate-critical period of the next several decades. We have systematically investigated how a domestic market could develop to support that industry over the next several decades and, in the absence of a dramatic change in the policy environment, have been unable to make a convincing case. Achieving deep decarbonization of the energy system will require a portfolio of every available technology and strategy we can muster. It should be a source of profound concern for all who care about climate change that, for entirely predictable and resolvable reasons, the United States appears set to virtually lose nuclear power, and thus a wedge of reliable and low-carbon energy, over the next few decades.

"Achieving deep decarbonization of the energy system will require a portfolio of every available technology and strategy we can muster"

No, it doesn't require every technology, just the ones that work.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

"Achieving deep decarbonization of the energy system will require a portfolio of every available technology and strategy we can muster"

No, it doesn't require every technology, just the ones that work.

And aren't expensive and slow to build.