Nuclear power

[transpondster]

Because they have no sun? And no wind? and no tidal/hydroelectric? And can't have wires going to it (islands are tricky).

If you worry about imported electricity from a geopolitical standpoint, that is fairly reasonable. But so is importing natural gas or coal.

The fact is that there are very few countries with NG (or coal/oil) and very few countries without sun.

But look at NG. Hard to transport. Maybe 30 countries have enough to make a dent in their need for energy. That leaves 140 or so that don't. The numbers are roughly the same for coal and oil. Uranium is even more concentrated - Kazakhstan is 40-50% of the worlds total production.

Sun and wind are available to more countries than anything else. So what are you talking about?

How about 2 weeks with almost no wind and 3 month with useless capacity of sun? Hydro, yeah we got it 25MW steady most of the year and 100+ peak in spring. Tidal... really? Fusion have more revelance probably...

Seems lot of you don't realize how next to nothing of sun is available in North Europe and how it's production is opposite in peak demand in winter.

 

[nwdiver]

View attachment 883009

How about 2 weeks with almost no wind and 3 month with useless capacity of sun? Hydro, yeah we got it 25MW steady most of the year and 100+ peak in spring. Tidal... really? Fusion have more revelance probably...

Seems lot of you don't realize how next to nothing of sun is available in North Europe and how it's production is opposite in peak demand in winter.

The long-term solution is HVDC and Hydrogen. Short term solution is LNG. Any country is going to get a better return investing ~$30B in ~10GW of HVDC that will allow them to import cheap renewable energy when needed and export surplus when it exists then to add ~2GW of nuclear.

Building more nuclear power takes too long to be a viable short term solution and it's far too expensive to be a viable long-term solution. The only problem building more nuclear is a viable solution for is getting rid of a budget surplus.

 

[ReddyLeaf]

Had a conversation with a friend recently who said that EV owners were being asked to not charge in Switzerland. I don’t know where he got that, but pretty certain it’s FUD from his brand of brainwashing NEWS. So, that got me thinking to look at why electricity might be in tight supply and found this article about French nuclear offline:
France’s nuclear reactors will not work as normal any time soon
Looks like even existing nuclear is having problems, at an especially bad time. Capacity factors this low won’t help the financials (as NWDiver has said many times before).

 

[mspohr]

How about 2 weeks with almost no wind and 3 month with useless capacity of sun? Hydro, yeah we got it 25MW steady most of the year and 100+ peak in spring. Tidal... really? Fusion have more revelance probably...

Seems lot of you don't realize how next to nothing of sun is available in North Europe and how it's production is opposite in peak demand in winter.

How about when your supply of oil and gas (and uranium) gets permanently shut off?

 

[mspohr]

Had a conversation with a friend recently who said that EV owners were being asked to not charge in Switzerland. I don’t know where he got that, but pretty certain it’s FUD from his brand of brainwashing NEWS. So, that got me thinking to look at why electricity might be in tight supply and found this article about French nuclear offline:
France’s nuclear reactors will not work as normal any time soon
Looks like even existing nuclear is having problems, at an especially bad time. Capacity factors this low won’t help the financials (as NWDiver has said many times before).

Switzerland is planning for the possibility of power shortages this winter due to Russia disruption of fossil fuels and problems with nuclear power.
They have announced a variety of measures that they might take if electricity supply is low. These measures include asking EV owners to limit non-essential driving.

 

[SageBrush]

Musk opposes building new nuclear power plants but said safe ones should keep operating.

I bet that it a reasonable stance, if the refurb is not too expensive. The tricky part is deciding what is "safe."

 

[nwdiver]

I bet that it a reasonable stance, if the refurb is not too expensive. The tricky part is deciding what is "safe."

Agreed. I don't even have a problem with subsidizing existing nuclear. It also adds to the insanity of spending so much to build more nuclear when we can't even maintain what we have. Why spend $30B to add 2GW when they could have instead spent it to keep ~10GW from closing?

 

[mspohr]

I bet that it a reasonable stance, if the refurb is not too expensive. The tricky part is deciding what is "safe."

$1.1 Billion from Feds, $1.4 Billion from California to keep Diablo Canyon nuclear plant open from 2025 to 2030.
How much solar or wind with a lifetime to 20 or 30 years would $2.5 Billion buy? (Of course, this is in addition to the "normal" operating cost of the plant which is about $96/MWh.)
(Solar and wind $40/MWh) 62,500 GWh... plus we get to pay twice as much for the power from nuclear.

 

[SageBrush]

$1.1 Billion from Feds, $1.4 Billion from California to keep Diablo Canyon nuclear plant open from 2025 to 2030.
How much solar or wind with a lifetime to 20 or 30 years would $2.5 Billion buy? (Of course, this is in addition to the "normal" operating cost of the plant which is about $96/MWh.)

Yes ... but what about the 'value' of pushing the costs of closing the plant down the road ?

 

[mspohr]

Bill Gates-backed reactor delayed on worries about fuel from Russia

A nuclear energy project in Wyoming, backed by Bill Gates and the U.S. Energy Department, is delayed by at least two years amid worries about supplies of a special fuel currently made in Russia, the head of TerraPower, the company building it said on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

A nuclear energy project in Wyoming, backed by Bill Gates and the U.S. Energy Department, is delayed by at least two years amid worries about supplies of a special fuel currently made in Russia, the head of TerraPower, the company building it said on Wednesday.

(Good old reliable nuclear?)

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

$1.1 Billion from Feds, $1.4 Billion from California to keep Diablo Canyon nuclear plant open from 2025 to 2030.
How much solar or wind with a lifetime to 20 or 30 years would $2.5 Billion buy? (Of course, this is in addition to the "normal" operating cost of the plant which is about $96/MWh.)
(Solar and wind $40/MWh) 62,500 GWh... plus we get to pay twice as much for the power from nuclear.

Nice idea, although the problem with wind power in California is that California is apparently not interested in building onshore wind.
There's about 310MW of wind planned and 9GW of solar. Diablo Canyon is about 2.24GW.

 

[mspohr]

Nice idea, although the problem with wind power in California is that California is apparently not interested in building onshore wind.
There's about 310MW of wind planned and 9GW of solar. Diablo Canyon is about 2.24GW.

In 2021, wind energy generated within California totaled 15,173 gigawatt-hours (GWh) or 7.8 percent of California's in-state generation portfolio. Wind energy power plants generating in California during at least part of the year had a total capacity of 6,281 megawatts.

 

[STS-134]

How about when your supply of oil and gas (and uranium) gets permanently shut off?

More than 99% of natural uranium is U-238. We should be using breeder reactors to convert all of that to fissile Pu-239 both to reduce uranium fuel requirements and amount of nuclear waste generated.

 

[nwdiver]

More than 99% of natural uranium is U-238. We should be using breeder reactors to convert all of that to fissile Pu-239 both to reduce uranium fuel requirements and amount of nuclear waste generated.

There are several ways to use fission to produce electricity. We aren't using Thorium because it's more expensive than breeder reactors. We aren't using breeder reactors because they're more expensive than heavy water reactors. Heavy water reactors fell out of favor because they're more expensive than light water reactors. Light waters are failing because even the cheapest nuclear reactors are still FAR too expensive.

Economics matters. Nuclear doesn't have a fuel supply problem it has a cost problem. We were dependent on Ruzzia for fuel because enriching Uranium is expensive. Breeder reactors are even more expensive than enrichment. You don't make something cheaper by making it more expensive...

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

In 2021, wind energy generated within California totaled 15,173 gigawatt-hours (GWh) or 7.8 percent of California's in-state generation portfolio. Wind energy power plants generating in California during at least part of the year had a total capacity of 6,281 megawatts.

And they don't seem to be interested in building more. If they are only going to build an additional 310MW every 3 years, that's a bit over 2GW on a 20 year cycle, and that's not enough to replace just Diablo Canyon, let only other current night-time natural gas generation. They seem to be crossing their fingers on floating turbine technology, which won't be in anybody's BY.

 

[mspohr]

And they don't seem to be interested in building more. If they are only going to build an additional 310MW every 3 years, that's a bit over 2GW on a 20 year cycle, and that's not enough to replace just Diablo Canyon, let only other current night-time natural gas generation. They seem to be crossing their fingers on floating turbine technology, which won't be in anybody's BY.

Don't know why you have your shorts all bunched up about California. If you would bother to spend a few minutes with the Google, you could find out they have plans for 25 GW wind over 20 years.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Don't know why you have your shorts all bunched up about California. If you would bother to spend a few minutes with the Google, you could find out they have plans for 25 GW wind over 20 years.

That's 25GW of _offshore_ wind by _2045_, 22 years. But it's only 2 to 5GW by 2030.
And their ability to deploy offshore wind is going to depend on how fast floating turbines can be fully commercialized, which is still uncertain, and the cost is also uncertain.

Meanwhile, California wants to be more aggressive in electrifying transportation, which adds a lot of natural nighttime energy demand.

But sure, just turn the lights out so you can't see the elephant.

 

[mspohr]

That's 25GW of _offshore_ wind by _2045_, 22 years. But it's only 2 to 5GW by 2030.
And their ability to deploy offshore wind is going to depend on how fast floating turbines can be fully commercialized, which is still uncertain, and the cost is also uncertain.

Meanwhile, California wants to be more aggressive in electrifying transportation, which adds a lot of natural nighttime energy demand.

But sure, just turn the lights out so you can't see the elephant.

Mark Twain

 

[RubberToe]

Georgia Power Reports Vibrations With Nuclear Plant Vogtle Unit 3 Startup

By Stephen Nakrosis Georgia Power Co. said Wednesday vibrations associated with some piping within the cooling system during the start-up and pre-operational...

www.marketwatch.com

 

[ReddyLeaf]

Vogtle 3 is now starting up. Looks like it might actually get on-line.
A new nuclear reactor in the U.S. starts up. It's the first in nearly seven years

Unfortunately, looks like it cost almost $35B. What is that, $30/W?
Georgia nuclear plant's cost now forecast to top $30 billion