Nuclear power

[nwdiver]

There are thousands of reasons not to care about climate change. Carbon-free sources putting the hate, or neglect, on one another achieves it here on TMC. A friend recently leaving solar, told me the culture was too gung ho.

The point is that the nuclear industry has evolved on to a scam. They tout 'carbon-free' on their front page while >95% of the nuclear industry believes AGW is just a 'Chinese Hoax'. They want to greenwash ratepayers into spending $30B on a nuclear plant to reduce CO2 emissions by ~16B tons/yr with nuclear instead of >50B tons/yr with wind or solar. Climate Change is just a pawn in their con not an issue they actually care about resolving.

If I thought nuclear could meaningfully contribute to CO2 reduction I would support it. But best case is maintaining current levels. The point is the nuclear industry could not care less whether it does or doesn't.

LOL... they're so apathetic that they can't even be bothered to use US stock footage of an EV on their website (NEI is a US lobbying group)

 

[nwdiver]

Here's testimony filed by my former employer a nuclear fuel enrichment company attempting to keep a coal plant from closing.... pathetic.

 

[3mp_kwh]

"The point is" that which preserves lower emissions should stay. Your point seems more a product of the nuclear industry's culture, or your beef with them?

Another way climate change loses, is the jobs argument or any of others that I know Pollux has also run into. These interests line up to get their beaks wet when policy needs a vote. We have people up in Maine seriously concerned CO2 rich power will backfill the hydro, that HQ is to bring down for us through their state. Despite a mountain of evidence, organizations that aren't so "environmental", like Sierra Club, fail to clear up that it's hydro, and for instance the Romaine River, that will backfill the hydro Canada sends the US. In the end, it's MA solar jobs they suggest would be better, as they stand by and witness the equivalent of nearly every PV panel in MA being thrown away by Pilgrim's closure (~680MW, at a potential of 90%CF, rather than 3GW of PV @~20% before batts, etc).

These are more people who are either ignorant, don't care, want their beak wet or they take issue with just how we solve an "all hands on deck" problem. They don't count CO2. High school math they neglect.

 

[nwdiver]

"The point is" that which preserves lower emissions should stay.

Which is wind and solar. Even the nuclear plants that are closing are closing because of economics. Over a ~10 year period the emissions reduction would be better if we spend $$$ on building more wind solar and storage instead of dumping it into an uneconomic nuclear plant. We can spend $500M/yr to maintain 1GW of nuclear with generation that increasingly isn't needed during peaks in wind and solar OR we can add ~500MW of wind or solar every year.... after 10 years that's 5GW of wind or solar generating more clean energy than 1GW of nuclear.

 

[3mp_kwh]

Which is wind and solar. Even the nuclear plants that are closing are closing because of economics.

I know you'll get the last post in, but are arguing from a class of one. Theorizing doesn't reduce CO2. PJM didn't generate ~20% more power from solar, across its multi-state ISO, because nwdiver was correct. They expanded use of natural gas. Nuclear was among what was replaced. I'm not saying you are wrong about cost, or trying to belittle. I'm expressing reality. Nuclear has predominantly been replaced by natural gas. The CO2 that leaves behind is real.

 

[SmartElectric]

Nuclear has predominantly been replaced by natural gas. The CO2 that leaves behind is real.

My point : Nuclear is not the solution. Neither is gas. Getting a mix of technologies right is challenging. This is not a solved problem.

Reference:
Power Data

Ontario has excess Nuclear power (some would say that's not a problem).
At night, we sell the excess to NY state for pennies on the dollar or boil water and vent steam (ie. poor mans "flexible nuke")

Our supply mix was predominantly Coal, Hydro and Nuclear.
Coal is now zero. Gas replaced Coal as the flexible power option.

Natural Gas, Wind and Solar were put on the grid by capitalist methodologies, namely, for-profit.
Ontario government passed laws to prevent our public-owned utility to compete for the new renewable built-out.

Result : The power cost secured for 4GW of wind was 17c/kWh with 3GW of solar at 30c/kWh. Very little was added after the initial 5 year roll out when technology costs for these two were much higher than today. Ontario put out a request for new power a few years ago, and wind 6c and solar 8c bids came back, but the new political party cancelled those immediately, so there is no way to "average down" the cost of renewable power in Ontario.

Sadly, while wind and solar are competitive today, Ontario is saddled with GW of gas that goes unused (15% marginal usage rate of the gas plants) and nuclear that is inflexible and must be sold at a loss overnight when power needs are low.

I hope EV adoption kicks into gear and overnight electricity use increases over time...

 

[nwdiver]

They expanded use of natural gas. Nuclear was among what was replaced. I'm not saying you are wrong about cost, or trying to belittle. I'm expressing reality. Nuclear has predominantly been replaced by natural gas. The CO2 that leaves behind is real.

Hence my qualification;

Over a ~10 year period the emissions reduction would be better if we spend $$$ on building more wind solar and storage instead of dumping it into an uneconomic nuclear plant.

You need ~2-3GW of wind or 3-4GW of solar to replace 1GW of nuclear. That generation doesn't spring up overnight. Even if you wait until there is curtailment due to surplus renewables there's still going to be a slight stutter-step back before wind and solar fill in the gap.

CAISO is almost certainly going to be cleaner in 2026 AFTER diablo canyon closes than it is today because of the expansion of wind and solar. Yes, there will be more GWh of gas generation on the after Diablo Canyon closes than the day before but the Hundreds of millions saved per year by closing that plant will be significantly more effective spent on more wind, solar and storage than attempting to keep it afloat.

Within ~10 years we should see ISOs like CAISO and maybe SPP that can cover demand with wind, solar and storage alone for weeks at a time.... what are we supposed to do with a nuclear plant we don't need for 3 weeks? With a gas turbine you can literally lock the doors and send everyone home. Can't do that with a nuclear plant. A nuclear plant costs just as much running as it does shutdown.

 

[nwdiver]

Here's another reason LFTR is a pipe-dream... it doesn't have the performance required for submarines.

Nuclear: Energy bills used to subsidise submarines

 

[WannabeOwner]

Nuclear: Energy bills used to subsidise submarines

I read that in the UK press from time to time ... but the people I know in the military tell me that they absolutely do not need Nuclear Power Plants in order to carry on developing Military Nukes

no idea who is right of course ...

 

[nwdiver]

I read that in the UK press from time to time ... but the people I know in the military tell me that they absolutely do not need Nuclear Power Plants in order to carry on developing Military Nukes

no idea who is right of course ...

I agree it's probably not 'needed'... the nuclear sub fleet would likely be significantly more expensive. Coming from the Navy and working in commercial nuclear power they do share significant resources.

 

[mspohr]

I read that in the UK press from time to time ... but the people I know in the military tell me that they absolutely do not need Nuclear Power Plants in order to carry on developing Military Nukes

no idea who is right of course ...

The article seemed to point to civilian reactor programs as a source of training and R&D for nuclear materials

 

[WannabeOwner]

a source of training and R&D for nuclear materials

We are paying an arm and a leg, guaranteed purchase price, over decades for the latest Nuclear reactor.

if the Navy etc. need training and R&D I think it would be better to take that from Tax, rather than hijack the price of electricity - including to elderly, poor, etc. of course ...

Government (and everyone else too of course ...) didn't expect such a dramatic fall in cost of rollout of renewables (Wind in North See principally, but PV too)

And I suspect they were in too deep to cancel at the final hurdle (probably some eye watering penalty/cancellation clauses in the contract by that time )

My grandchildren being lumbered with that cost is going to be a bugger though

 

[3mp_kwh]

My point : Nuclear is not the solution. Neither is gas. Getting a mix of technologies right is challenging. .... I hope EV adoption kicks into gear and overnight electricity use increases over time...

Flowing costs through, regardless of resource, is something I'd argue isn't getting enough attention. The scrums over solar leaving behind net metering get more than their fair share, but to your point there isn't enough of a reception going on for variable demand resources that might load shift for nuclear, or solar oversupply. Rate design is being used as a weapon, as utilities pit rate-payers upon each other. They are getting away with more, not less, 24/7 flat electric rates, fixed rates and demand charges.

The market would figure a lot of this out, if for instance wholesale Independent System Operator rates were remotely passed on to the consumer. Instead, in areas like the coasts wholesale supply charges can be more than double what quoted wholesale rates are. This gets complicated as we come to realize how much less wholesale ISO markets set price, as more "attribute" power goes under contract (ZEC, RPS, etc). If you don't buy a commodity from "the exchange" and get it elsewhere, its exchange price is no longer a valid reflection of value.

 

[mspohr]

Trump Admin Moves to Lower Threat Level on Dangerous Waste

The Trump administration’s Department of Energy on Wednesday announced plans to reclassify dangerous, high-level radioactive waste as low-level in a move that has sparked alarm among environmental advocates. The plan would shift authority over toxic waste disposal to the federal government, making it easier to transfer the high-level radioactive waste to new sites. The change would effect more than 100 million gallons of high-level waste currently stored in South Carolina, Washington, and Idaho, allowing it to be shipped to low-level nuclear waste disposal sites in the deserts of Utah and Texas, according to the National Resource Defense Council. The DOE says the move would also save $40 billion in cleanup costs. The reclassification would only occur after a thorough analysis and environmental studies, according to the DOE.

 

[nwdiver]

Scott Manly does a pretty good analysis of how a RBMK reactor works. I didn't really appreciate the role that graphite plays in moderating the core. Aside from the instability of the reactor it's actually somewhat of a genius design. Canada does something similar with their CANDU reactors except using heavy water is far more stable than using graphite.

 

[WannabeOwner]

I didn't really appreciate the role that graphite plays in moderating the core

Have you seen there recent 5-part HBO docudrama on Chernobyl? Thoroughly enjoyed that, was impressed by their realising and avoiding much greater disaster that the water under the reactor turning to steam would have caused, and the ability of the Russians to be able to handle a request like "I need all the liquid Nitrogen in Russian immediately" ... but the "We covered up an issue, chosen because it was cheap, but know to be a ticking bomb" culture in terms of when the graphite-tipped control rods are lowered to shut the reactor down quickly.

Chernobyl: Starring Jared Harris, Stellan Skarsgård, Emily Watson, & More | HBO

 

[nwdiver]

SCE&G customers to get between $121M and $146M after judge finalizes settlement

'The five powerful law firms are now expected to take home $51 million of the total settlement.'
​

At least someone is making money on nuclear

 

[nwdiver]

Too soon?

 

[nwdiver]

Saw this posted on FB....

 

[mspohr]

Latest on the high costs of UK new nuclear plants.
Despite Hinkley, the new plan for nuclear is hardly better than the old one

EDF Energy’s deal to build Hinkley Point C, Britain’s first new nuclear power plant in a generation, has been dubbed the world’s most expensive power plant of all time, a “white elephant” in a changing energy landscape, and a risky and expensive gamble with taxpayers’ money.

The £20bn Hinkley Point C project will cost energy bill payers £92.50 for every megawatt-hour of electricity it produces for 35 years. It is a price well above both the UK’s wholesale energy price of around £55 a megawatt-hour, and the new breed of offshore wind farms

First, by paying upfront for the reactors through energy bills to help fund their construction. Second, by taking on the cost of any overruns or construction delays through a taxpayer guarantee. The public purse would also compensate nuclear investors if the project were scrapped.

In addition, the sums hold true only if the project remains on schedule and on budget for the decade it takes to construct a nuclear plant. There are worryingly few examples where this has been the case; EDF Energy’s forerunner to the Hinkley project, at Flamanville in Normandy, is expected to cost four times original estimates. It was expected to begin generating electricity in 2012, but is now expected to start up in 2022.