The article said:
So, it's reactor count shrink, but each reactor will apparently produce 77MWe instead of 50MWe.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Nuclear power
- Thread starter eledille
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
So, it's reactor count shrink, but each reactor will apparently produce 77MWe instead of 50MWe.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Ok ...
So instead of 6*50 = 300, the taxpayer will get 3*77 = 231 for it's money.
Machiavelli would be proud.
The reactor count went from 12 to 6, but your point stands.
The recent story linked above did not talk about up-front payments for utilities to participate in the NuScale Idaho installation. That was a major point of contention / cancellation before. But there is this quote:
That incremental energy price seems somewhat reasonable, but doesn't account for any up-front capital cost that a utility may have to pay to play.
That incremental energy price seems somewhat reasonable, but doesn't account for any up-front capital cost that a utility may have to pay to play.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I was under the impression that participating utilities were still being asked for up-front capital on top of the Gov money.
Edit: Yep. See link in Post #1556
Nuclear power
So, when are they going to put the nuclear power company in jail? From the article: Prosecutors say that while there are no charges yet against Company A, the investigation is ongoing.
teslamotorsclub.com
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Nuclear always looks 'somewhat reasonable' before construction starts. I remember when Vogtle was supposed to cost ~$10B.
If I had more spare time I would probably try to calculate how much it would cost the municipal utility in that small town in Utah to install solar + battery to deliver approximately the amount of energy that they were going to buy from the NuScale plant.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
I think we're still ~20 years away from that being an accurate representation of cost. The priority now is clean kWh not necessarily providing clean kWs 24/7/365. We just need to be using existing FF generators less. 1GW of nuclear at 1GW 24/7/365 is 8.7TWh. So is ~2GW when it's windy but for ~1/5th the cost per TWh.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
This project has 'Vogtle' written all over it. The contract that says "you can walk away anytime you want ... but you forfeit the money you gave us so far" is a dead giveaway.
The crazy thing about the economics is that VRE already is 1 - 2 cents a kWh, and in a place like ID would easily displace nuclear 50% of the time if not a lot more. The 'fixed load' mantra is dead. This plant, if it ever gets built, will be lucky to operate at 50% capacity factory with a lot of stop/starts along the way. Add in 4 hour battery and capacity factor of the nuke plant will be pitiful.
Last edited:
mspohr
Well-Known Member
A Nuclear Power Plant in China Has Damaged Fuel Rods and Is Shutting Down - Interesting Engineering
The energy firm helping run the site says China raised permissible radiation levels to avoid this.
amp.interestingengineering.com
The new Taishan reactor is called an EPR, and anticipates a handful of other similar new reactors forthcoming in other countries, including the U.K., France, and Finland. This shutdown came one month after China's government declared the damage to its new plant's fuel rods, but it assuaged concern by saying this was a "common" issue, not worthy of world-historical concern, according to a BBC report. On Friday, China's General Nuclear Power Group (CGN) said the dysfunctional reactor was already "completely under control." In other words, this is nothing like Chernobyl, and everyone is going to be fine.
The statement from CGN also said engineers are working to find the cause of the damaged fuel rods, which themselves will be replaced. The French energy firm EDF, which assists in the monitoring of the nuclear site, had given warning to the U.S. that China's nuclear regulator had increased its limits on permissible levels of radiation outside the facility, in an attempt to try and avoid shutting it down. But later, the EDF said the fuel-rod problem contributed to a build-up of gases that needed to be released into the atmosphere.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Just think... if you had invested a mere ~$1000 in Fluor (Parent company of NuScale) 20 years ago. Today you'd have an astounding..... ~$1000. 
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
The end of an era: TVA gives up construction permit for Bellefonte nuclear plant after 47 years
Ah Bellefonte... the Milton of Nuclear plants.
For future reference:
Hinkley nuclear power station on track for 2026 opening
The site in Somerset is 49% complete after five years of construction.
www.bbc.co.uk
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
How AWESOME is this?! More jobs! If they ever finish it they should just tear it down and build it back again. Why employ 300 people operating a nuclear plant when you can employ 10,000 building one? Welfare for people that don't know how to entertain themselves.
Welfare for people that don't know how to entertain themselves.Plant Vogtle nuclear projects hits another delay with 'construction quality' issues
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Just think... if you had invested a mere ~$1000 in Fluor (Parent company of NuScale) 20 years ago. Today you'd have an astounding..... ~$1000.
View attachment 695852
Wall Street: 'This SPAC nonsense is a complete dumpster fire'
Nuclear Industry: 'Hold my beer'
NuScale planning to go public using SPAC process: financial adviser
Long term, nuclear with some 99% renewable sources as a buffer is the only realistic solution.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
You kinda hit on the problem with nuclear. The US needs ~1000GW of generation for reliability and uses ~4,000TWh/yr. So what do you mean by ~1% nuclear? 10GW (1% of 1000GW) or 5GW generating 40TWh/yr? Either way nuclear is just redundant generation >95% of the time. If renewables are producing ~3960TWh/yr that remaining 1% isn't 10GW... it's ~800GW when it's cloudy, cold and still. So even 10GW of nuclear isn't gonna do much good.... still need ~790 more GW from somewhere...
You need something cheap... like a gas turbine fueled by H2. 800GW of nuclear would cost ~$12T to build and ~$240B/yr to maintain. 800GW of gas turbines would be ~$800B to build and ~$24B/yr to maintain. Nuclear just makes no sense on any level.
Similar threads
