Nuclear power

[nwdiver]

"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.

Yeah... it's a bit of a pro nuclear piece but I found it striking that even nuclear proponents see that it can't possibly be a solution anytime soon. Essentially their argument is 'We need nuclear... but we can't have it for ~20-50 years'.....

 

[Merrill]

I do not understand the pro nuclear argument, it is really expensive, takes a long time to build and has negative environmental clean up issues. All that money could be spent on clean energy without the issues of containment, plus you need lots of water to run it.

 

[nwdiver]

I do not understand the pro nuclear argument, it is really expensive, takes a long time to build and has negative environmental clean up issues. All that money could be spent on clean energy without the issues of containment, plus you need lots of water to run it.

They're convinced that wind, solar and storage cannot possibly provide the energy and reliability needed. I've asked how much of a price disparity is too much and they usually don't think there is one. For many proponents no expense is to be spared; Nuclear is currently ~4x more per kWh and ~10x more per kW compared to wind and solar.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

And aren't expensive and slow to build.

To add to this: this year, the USA will install 16.4GW of wind and utility-scale solar PV.
1.5GW of nuclear will close.
By the end of 2019 there will be more nameplate capacity in wind than in nuclear.

OK, I know, capacity factor.
It's telling that nuclear is already at 92.6% capacity factor yet struggles to compete.

(Wind power capacity factor in 2018 was 37.4%, the highest yet. Solar PV capacity factor increased to a record 26.1%, as a result of gradually increasing efficiencies.)

It's a lot of electricity to replace.
But, over the past 10 years, natural gas and non-hydro renewables have together increased (814,240GWh) by more than the total amount of nuclear power generation in 2018 (807,078GWh). The increase has come at the expense of coal, rather than nuclear power.

In 2018 CCGT overtook coal as the highest capacity type, with 263.8GW.
There is over 2 1/2 times the amount of CCGT capacity compared to nuclear (99.4GW).
CCGT capacity factors rose to 57.6%, the highest yet, but nowhere near the capacity factor of nuclear. With no additional capacity, an increase in average CCGT capacity factor to 92.6% (the same as nuclear) would allow nuclear to be eliminated. We wouldn't really want capacity factors that high, for reasons of resilience, but new CCGT capacity is being added as coal and nuclear units are retired.

In 2019 almost all net new capacity will be in wind and solar, and wind will overtake hydro as the 4th largest source of electricity in the USA. The prices of new wind and solar are low and falling. By the time a new nuclear power plant could be built, the geographical competitiveness of wind and solar, is likely to be much wider, with more areas where the two highly complementary technologies are the two cheapest sources of power. Add in the expected fall in the price of batteries and the potential for the expansion of non-hydro renewables to begin to eat away at natural gas use for electricity generation, and it seems that there will be no place for nuclear to go but out.

 

[nwdiver]

In 2019 almost all net new capacity will be in wind and solar, and wind will overtake hydro as the 4th largest source of electricity in the USA.

And it's idiotic how critics will say 'look! they added ~10GW of gas generation because of all the wind and solar!' Sure... but that generation will have a CF of ~10%... because of all the wind and solar. GW doesn't cause CO2 emissions... GWh does... GW going up is fine so long as GWh is going down.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

And it's idiotic how critics will say 'look! they added ~10GW of gas generation because of all the wind and solar!' Sure... but that generation will have a CF of ~10%... because of all the wind and solar. GW doesn't cause CO2 emissions... GWh does... GW going up is fine so long as GWh is going down.

Electric Power Monthly - U.S. Energy Information Administration
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/xls/table_6_07_a.xlsx
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/xls/table_6_07_b.xlsx

Gas peaker capacity factors were historically high in 2018 (Combustion Turbine 11.8%, Steam turbine 13.7%), but that's a lot lower than wind (37.4%) and PV (26.1%). It's possible that increasing renewables are increasing relative use of peakers, but it might simply have been a year in which conditions demanded relatively greater use of peak electricity.

It seems that it wasn't a particularly remarkable year for either wind or sunshine. It was quite windy early in the year, but not so windy at the end of the year. It was sunny early in the year, but not sunny at the end of the year.

 

[nwdiver]

Gas peaker capacity factors were historically high in 2018 (Combustion Turbine 11.8%, Steam turbine 13.7%), but that's a lot lower than wind (37.4%) and PV (26.1%). It's possible that increasing renewables are increasing relative use of peakers, but it might simply have been a year in which conditions demanded relatively greater use of peak electricity.

It's likely displacing coal.

 

[SmartElectric]

And it's idiotic how critics will say 'look! they added ~10GW of gas generation because of all the wind and solar!' Sure... but that generation will have a CF of ~10%... because of all the wind and solar. GW doesn't cause CO2 emissions... GWh does... GW going up is fine so long as GWh is going down.

True.

Ontario added 7GW (note GW) of gas generation to back up the $20B Nuclear power refit where 5GW of generating capacity will be variously offline over the next 10 years.

Meanwhile, Ontario added 4GW of wind and 3GW of solar in the same time period.

The data is clear, the gas power is rarely used:
Market Summaries Archive

Wind peaks in winter, during the time when electricity usage peaks.
Solar peaks in summer, when wind is lower, and electricity use spikes on sunny hot days.

Who'd thunk!?

 

[nwdiver]

To anyone that thinks we need to lighten regulations to make nuclear cheaper.... well... we had a saying in the Navy. NJNBFN.

If it costs $15/w to build a safe nuclear plant then it costs $15/w. If $15/w isn't economically viable then nuclear isn't economically viable.

 

[S'toon]

he first pictures have emerged of cracking in the graphite bricks which make up the core of nuclear reactors at Hunterston B Power Station in Ayrshire.

Reactor three has not produced electricity since cracks were found to be forming quicker than expected.

About 370 hairline fractures have been discovered which equates to about one in every 10 bricks in the reactor core.

Owner EDF Energy says it does intend to seek permission from the Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR) to restart.

It first has to prove it can still shut down the North Ayrshire reactor, which has not produced electricity for a year, in all circumstances.

Tests and modelling have been undertaken to ensure that an earthquake would not distort the control channels and prevent the power station being shut down.


Station Director Colin Weir told BBC Scotland: "Nuclear safety is our overriding priority and reactor three has been off for the year so that we can do further inspections.

"We've carried out one of our biggest ever inspection campaigns on reactor three, we've renewed our modelling, we've done experiments and tests and we've analysed all the data from this to produce our safety case that we will submit to the ONR.

"We have to demonstrate that the reactor will always shut down and that it will shut down in an extreme seismic event."

The operational limit for the latest period of operation was 350 cracks but an inspection found that allowance had been exceeded.

<snip>

Full article at:
Pictures show cracks in nuclear reactor

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Oh, I hadn't checked it before, but February 1st 2019 EIA published their 2019 Electricity Generation outlook:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
This has Levelized Costs of Electricity and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation for 2023.

It suggest several things:
- Nuclear (and coal) and will be replaced by CCGT (and perhaps renewables). They have high LCoE, and LACEs are nowhere near LCoE, so no new capacity would be expected to be built.
- LCoE for wind and solar are falling fast: the best wind and solar beat and match the averages for CCGT, and are much better than peaker gas.
- Wind and solar still have significant dependency on tax credits for competitivity (LACE/unsubsidized LCoE is still less than 1), but with unsubsidized LCoE falling fast (42.8 and 48.8 2023 from 48.8 and 52.2 2021), renewables are not expensive, and will just get cheaper.
- Geothermal has excellent potential for growth: it's very competitive with low LCoE and value ratio greater than 1.

 

[nwdiver]

Oh, I hadn't checked it before, but February 1st 2019 EIA published their 2019 Electricity Generation outlook:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
This has Levelized Costs of Electricity and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation for 2023.

It suggest several things:
- Nuclear (and coal) and will be replaced by CCGT (and perhaps renewables). They have high LCoE, and LACEs are nowhere near LCoE, so no new capacity would be expected to be built.
- LCoE for wind and solar are falling fast: the best wind and solar beat and match the averages for CCGT, and are much better than peaker gas.
- Wind and solar still have significant dependency on tax credits for competitivity (LACE/unsubsidized LCoE is still less than 1), but with unsubsidized LCoE falling fast (42.8 and 48.8 2023 from 48.8 and 52.2 2021), renewables are not expensive, and will just get cheaper.
- Geothermal has excellent potential for growth: it's very competitive with low LCoE and value ratio greater than 1.

EIA and IEA prediction have historically been worse than useless. GTM and SEIA are generally much more accurate.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

EIA and IEA prediction have historically been worse than useless. GTM and SEIA are generally much more accurate.

I take their longer-term forecasts with a pinch of salt, so just look at the nearer term. We haven't even had the standard hype cycle yet, with renewable and battery pricing still ahead of past optimistic forecasts.

 

[RubberToe]

Vogtle gets a $3.7 billion Federal loan to help finish construction...

Trump Administration Set to Guarantee $3.7 Billion to Finish Vogtle Nuclear Expansion

Story says the "top" was put on. I assume they mean the unit 3 containment vessel. I'll post a pic if I find it.

Also mentions 7,000 workers on site.

RT

 

[Gen3]

True.

Ontario added 7GW (note GW) of gas generation to back up the $20B Nuclear power refit where 5GW of generating capacity will be variously offline over the next 10 years.

Meanwhile, Ontario added 4GW of wind and 3GW of solar in the same time period.

The data is clear, the gas power is rarely used:
Market Summaries Archive

Wind peaks in winter, during the time when electricity usage peaks.
Solar peaks in summer, when wind is lower, and electricity use spikes on sunny hot days.

Who'd thunk!?

The price of power in Ontario has gone up dramatically too and was a big factor in the election, resulting in new government

 

[SmartElectric]

The price of power in Ontario has gone up dramatically too and was a big factor in the election, resulting in new government

The government entered into private+public partnerships to roll out the new generation.

Worse, they restricted the new generation contracts such that our publicly owned utility was not allowed to compete. This artificially raised prices.

The public utility was also squeezed of capital by shutting down the coal plants being operated by it, so it was spending money to shut them down while private companies were raking in profits from the new contracts.

 

[S'toon]

The government entered into private+public partnerships to roll out the new generation.

Worse, they restricted the new generation contracts such that our publicly owned utility was not allowed to compete. This artificially raised prices.

The public utility was also squeezed of capital by shutting down the coal plants being operated by it, so it was spending money to shut them down while private companies were raking in profits from the new contracts.

Public Private Partnerships never deliver the promised cost benefits. They always cost more than if the government did the project themselves. Always.

Even worse, the public loses control of the infrastructure. The Saskatchewan Party government in Saskatchewan contracted out a bunch of new schools as a PPP venture. The teachers at the newly built schools were astonished when they were told that they couldn't tack anything to the walls of the classrooms without the express written permission of the private company that held the lease of the schools.

 

[Mader Levap]

Public Private Partnerships never deliver the promised cost benefits. They always cost more than if the government did the project themselves. Always.

Not always. SpaceX+NASA worked out quite well. On other hand, gov space project SLS is extremely costly white elephant that seems to be destined to be axed with few, if any, flights. (this is just example, I do not intend to discuss off-topic about merits and demerits of each program)

There are things where gov is good and where private sector is good. With mix-matching, like public-private partnerships, you have to handle it case by case.

 

[S'toon]

Not always. SpaceX+NASA worked out quite well. On other hand, gov space project SLS is extremely costly white elephant that seems to be destined to be axed with few, if any, flights. (this is just example, I do not intend to discuss off-topic about merits and demerits of each program)

There are things where gov is good and where private sector is good. With mix-matching, like public-private partnerships, you have to handle it case by case.

Space-X and NASA aren't a PPP.

NASA offered a partnership, but Space-X refused.

 

[nwdiver]

Space-X and NASA aren't a PPP.

NASA offered a partnership, but Space-X refused.

What's your definition of a 'PPP'? Wouldn't the government outsourcing something to a private firm qualify as a 'PPP'?