Nuclear power

[Merrill]

Reuters: Japan to help build Bill Gates' high-tech nuclear reactor in Wyoming -Yomiuri.

Japan to help build Bill Gates' high-tech nuclear reactor in Wyoming -Yomiuri

The Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd are set to cooperate with the United States and Bill Gates' venture company to build a high-tech nuclear reactor in Wyoming, the daily Yomiuri reported on Saturday.

www.reuters.com

TerraPower, an advanced nuclear power venture founded by Gates, is set to open its Natrium plant in Wyoming in 2028. The U.S. government will provide funding to cover half of the $4 billion project. read more

What a waste of money, it seems to me he could donate that 2 billion to people in need.

 

[mspohr]

What a waste of money, it seems to me he could donate that 2 billion to people in need.

He's getting the government (your tax dollars) to pay half.

 

[RSpanner]

I get where you are coming from Merrill. I think both are needed in a big way. I do believe that Nuclear energy could be the way to go for the future...only if it is a new type that is safe. The question is, how safe is the advanced TerraPower nuc? And shouldn't the quest be for smaller safe power plants>mixed with solar power/wind/etc? Yes, I am a dreamer.

 

[RSpanner]

He's getting the government (your tax dollars) to pay half.

I heard that a large portion of the 2022 Military Budget (about $750 Billion for one year ) was cut to help pay for it? No, just kidding and wishing.
In all, "the 2022 defense budget allots $768.2 billion for national defense programs – that’s about a 2% increase – or $25 billion –"

 

[nwdiver]

Reuters: Japan to help build Bill Gates' high-tech nuclear reactor in Wyoming -Yomiuri.

Japan to help build Bill Gates' high-tech nuclear reactor in Wyoming -Yomiuri

The Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd are set to cooperate with the United States and Bill Gates' venture company to build a high-tech nuclear reactor in Wyoming, the daily Yomiuri reported on Saturday.

www.reuters.com

TerraPower, an advanced nuclear power venture founded by Gates, is set to open its Natrium plant in Wyoming in 2028. The U.S. government will provide funding to cover half of the $4 billion project. read more

Translation: Project will open in 2040 and cost $12 Billion or be canceled in ~2030 after going over budget to ~$6 Billion.

 

[Merrill]

He's getting the government (your tax dollars) to pay half.

That even makes me madder

 

[RSpanner]

Translation: Project will open in 2040 and cost $12 Billion or be canceled in ~2030 after going over budget to ~$6 Billion.

What is that "translation" based on? It is a new type of reactor. ON the other hand, I did find some very negative information about the project...maybe true.https://www.dw.com/en/scientists-pour-cold-water-on-bill-gates-nuclear-plans/a-59751405

 

[RSpanner]

and this>Expert confident in safety of newly announced Wyoming nuclear plant

 

[mspohr]

and this>Expert confident in safety of newly announced Wyoming nuclear plant

It's 100% safe if it never starts operating.
(Paywall prevents me from reading...)

 

[mspohr]

What is that "translation" based on? It is a new type of reactor. ON the other hand, I did find some very negative information about the project...maybe true.https://www.dw.com/en/scientists-pour-cold-water-on-bill-gates-nuclear-plans/a-59751405

That translation to real world timetable and costs is based on the historical record of US nuclear projects. However, since this is a new design, I think we need to add an additional factor or 2x or 5x cost and time before cancellation.

 

[nwdiver]

What is that "translation" based on? It is a new type of reactor. ON the other hand, I did find some very negative information about the project...maybe true.https://www.dw.com/en/scientists-pour-cold-water-on-bill-gates-nuclear-plans/a-59751405

Based on ~every nuclear plant attempted in the US for the past ~40 years. Every 'new' design was 'special'. Every 'new' design was going to be better, cheaper and faster to build.

List of cancelled nuclear reactors in the United States​

And... on top of that... even IF nuclear was magic. LITERALLY magic. For a cost of $0 and it was 100% safe you get an infinite heat source. Solar and wind would STILL be a cheaper source of electricity because it's cheaper to convert wind or photons into electricity than heat.

 

[RSpanner]

I do agree with Solar power...There are places were many sq. miles could be covered in panels...some push back I am sure, but out west in Nevada Utah even eastern Oregon, I can imagine those acres full of panels.
I have never like Nuc power...just thought it had reached the point were it was safe, but what the F do I know...

 

[iPlug]

Might be able to make a case if nuclear were dispatchable/peaker power - what is needed to fill in renewable generation and demand gaps. But no need for this "baseload" power even if costs were not a major issue.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Might be able to make a case if nuclear were dispatchable/peaker power - what is needed to fill in renewable generation and demand gaps. But no need for this "baseload" power even if costs were not a major issue.

One of the key points of the design is that it's not just baseload.

https://natriumpower.com/#locations

345 MWe reactor
Gigawatt-hour-scale energy storage (capacity of 500 MWe output for 5.5+ hours)

PS
Dispatchable power is separate to peaking. It just means that it can reliably be turned on or off to generate as required. Current coal, nuclear and CGTT are all dispatchable, but they can't ramp fast enough to act as peakers, The EIA only considers sources dispatchable if they have essentially continuous fuel supply, so hydro and solar hybrid are not classified as dispatchable, even though they are able to be dispatched some or most of the time.

Baseload plant is a rather arbitrary term. It really just means too inflexible to handle load-following and peaking, but it's misused to imply reliable.

 

[iPlug]

One of the key points of the design is that it's not just baseload.

Sorry for the confusion, understood - was referring mostly to nuclear plants in service to this point and partially to the maybe-future SFR.

With regard to the SFR, they tout what amounts to a 45% increase in power from their "baseload" mode for that 5.5+ hours "as early as the late 2020's". But as nwdiver pointed out, that is probably~2040 given strong past precedent and the generation market will look a lot different then. Still, that could be useful for daily peak demand. But the plant would be running at other times of the day when wind and/or solar PV is plentiful. Current nuclear plants get sweetheart deals that end up curtailing renewables and this problem will likely worsen in the future as renewables grow. This SFR would spend at least 75% of the day in "baseload" mode it would appear as a matter of operational needs and attempts to recapture costs at the expense of renewables.

Once the capital/install cost of solar PV and wind is sunk, maintenance and safety ongoing costs are minimal. There is no fuel requirement nor depleted radioactive waste and contaminants to have to contend with. A natural gas peaker plant as it exists today, which hopefully is replaced with renewable H2 in the not-too-distant future), only needs to operate for peak demand and seasonal/edge case use. Maybe not even needed if battery technology continues to improve. Someone can correct me if wrong, but my understanding is when not operating, no more than a skeleton crews is needed for NG peaker plants.

 

[OzarkEV]

Simple cycle gas turbines can run with two operators on staff, and in a pinch, it only takes one to watch the control board after a remote start.

 

[nwdiver]

Someone can correct me if wrong, but my understanding is when not operating, no more than a skeleton crews is needed for NG peaker plants.

I bet you can have a gas turbine ordered, shipped, setup and online exporting to the grid in less time than it takes for a nuclear plant to go from cold steel to critical and online. In a pinch.

 

[mblakele]

The Kazakh crisis is only one threat hanging over the uranium market
from The Economist

Beyond the near term, supply may not be able to rise quickly enough to satisfy greater appetite for the metal, supporting prices further. New mines are planned in Africa and the Americas, but they require a price of at least $50-60 per pound of uranium to be profitable. If a rise in demand of 2% a year between now and 2030—a conservative estimate—is to be satisfied, then all of those projects will need to be up and running, says Tim Bergin of Calderwood Capital, a hedge fund. That may not be realistic.​

​

Is it at all straightforward to translate $/lb for uranium into $/MWh of electricity?

 

[nwdiver]

The Kazakh crisis is only one threat hanging over the uranium market
from The Economist

Beyond the near term, supply may not be able to rise quickly enough to satisfy greater appetite for the metal, supporting prices further. New mines are planned in Africa and the Americas, but they require a price of at least $50-60 per pound of uranium to be profitable. If a rise in demand of 2% a year between now and 2030—a conservative estimate—is to be satisfied, then all of those projects will need to be up and running, says Tim Bergin of Calderwood Capital, a hedge fund. That may not be realistic.​

​

Is it at all straightforward to translate $/lb for uranium into $/MWh of electricity?

That's just dumb. It's a lot of overblown hype. Nuclear power has a lot of problems but fuel supply isn't one of them. I happened to come across a DOE memo from 2011 about the 700,000 tons of Uranium owned by the DOE. With modern enrichment technology that's enough fuel to last nearly a century.

The Uranium market is complicated. Enrichment plants are incredibly capital intensive to build but cost almost nothing to operate. The owners want to keep them fed and online 24/7/365 even if they have years of product ready to ship. So the supply of feed material is often much less elastic than the supply of the actual fuel.

 

[nwdiver]

Pretty interesting documentary on the history of nuclear power. It's easy to forget how dependent the world was on oil even for electricity ~50 years ago.