Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

[davebytbay]

British carbon tax leads to 93% drop in coal-fired electricity

A tax on carbon dioxide emissions in Great Britain, introduced in 2013, has led to the proportion of electricity generated from coal falling from 40% to 3% over six years, according to research led by UCL.

Look up "molten salt reactor." Can use existing spent fuel. Cheaper than coal. Walk away safety. Less expensive to make. Can be manufactured in modules similar to ship building methods, no need for regional grids that can be more easily hacked. Solves a lot of problems. Biggest negative is it takes existing spent fuel with 150k year half life and reduces the waste to 200 year half life. Still more manageable waste that is much less weaponizable. Ok, actually the biggest negative is it will not be deployed at such a scale so as to impact the end of our planet.

 

[nwdiver]

Cheaper than coal.

Well... that's impossible to say until someone actually builds one commercially. The AP1000 was supposed to cost $3/w... 15 years later and they can't build them for $15/w.

The 'salt' in MSRs is Flourine. Flourine is 'fun' it can burn things that most people wouldn't think of as flammable. Here's a video of it burning a brick.... steel burns even better. I think we're still trying to decide what we want to build MSRs out of

 

[dgpcolorado]

First the tailings are not waste they can be processed but at this time it is not cost effective to do so. As to the comment on the water usage at the nuclear plants in Arizona, what do you think the fossil plants use for cooling? (by the way the Arizona plant uses mostly grey water, The power plant evaporates the water from the treated sewage from several nearby cities and towns to provide the cooling of the steam that it produces. This water woudl not be used but would just be dumped into a river). A nuclear plant used the heat generated by fission to convert water to steam to run the turbine/generator. You need a HEAT SINK for the turbine/generator to condense the steam that passes through the turbine to reuse the water. So it does not matter if it is a nuclear plant or fossil plant you still need the WATER. While a fossil plant may be a little more efficient in the conversion process (heat to electricity), nuclear plants have NO CO2 of any other noxious emissions. So having worked in the commercial nuclear industry for 34 years AND seen the environmental impact of the fossile electric generating stations (coal fly ash. etc.) I think it woudl be more beneficial for one to thoroughly research an issue rather than rely on an obliviously anti-nuclear media article.

That "obliviously anti-nuclear media article" from HCN, a respected journal covering the West, was just pointing out that there is more to nuclear waste than the high level waste most of us tend to think of. As someone who lives in the uranium mining district I am keenly aware of this, even if you are not. So, I thought it was interesting to think about.

My personal concern with regard to the high level waste stored at nuclear plants is that they make for near-ideal terrorist targets. If one of those cooling ponds was blown up, or otherwise scattered (a 9/11 style jet crash?), it would make for a very bad time for the neighborhood. We really need to get that high level waste properly stored IMO.

As for no "other noxious emissions" I think that the people around the Chernobyl and Fukushima power plants might differ on that, although that's another issue entirely. (There's a LOT more radioactive emissions from coal power plants than from properly functioning nuclear plants, of course.)

 

[dazizmor]

This is all correct - the NRC requires that all nuclear plants have a decommissioning trust fund that ratepayers pay into during the life of the nuclear plant. As such, there are billions of dollars in the trust funds for SONGS, Palo Verde, Diablo Canyon, etc. waiting to be spent on decommissioning activities. The NRC requires that that money is spent to restore the plant site to a condition that presents no risk to public health and safety or the environment.

That said, utilities and state energy commissions have tended to UNDERestimate the long-term decommissioning costs of nuclear plants which means that even with billions sitting in their decommissioning trust funds, they often start decommissioning only to realize that, say, $4 billion still isn't enough. The utilities then go back to the energy commissions to ask ratepayers to pay more. I don't know what it's called in other states, but in California, if you see a charge on your bill for NDAM, i.e. Nuclear Decommissioning Adjustment Mechanism, that means you're contributing to a nuclear decommissioning trust fund.

That is partially true and a bit deceiving. But to start with, of course consumers will pay, who else is there?
As energy was produced a small decommissioning fee was added to bills, in the past. The company invested those funds in a dedicated trust.

Quote below from this link: Coastal Commission OKs permit to dismantle the San Onofre nuclear plant

The decommissioning will be paid for by $4.4 billion in existing trust funds, The money has been collected from SONGS customers and invested in dedicated trusts. According to Edison, customers have contributed about one-third of the trust funds while remaining two-thirds has come from investments by the company.

 

[Bill25cycle]

I agree on nuclear.... We have one of the world's largest plants in Phoenix... It is not near any body of water and uses 140,000 gallons of water a minute to cool the reactors... In the desert. It's a travesty. The cost is too high. But what people don't factor into the cost is the cost to decommission the plant which is coming soon... $120B. Who pays for that?

Supposedly your plant doesn't use any fresh water, but uses reclaimed 'Grey Water' from reconstituted sewage. I'm not an all a fan of Nuclear, but an existing plant is semi-tolerable - as long as you don't live within a few miles of the thing since all Nukes have 'Routine Releases' that are ignored; and as long as the thing doesn't blow up. As far as decommissioning, they will probably try to extend the life of the '40 year plant' to 80 years. So hopefully it isn't too much of an economic burden.

 

[Mikedrives]

A nuclear plant used the heat generated by fission to convert water to steam to run the turbine/generator.

I always find it amazing that, for all the challenges inherent in nuclear power, in the end it's just a really complicated way to boil water.

 

[nwdiver]

I always find it amazing that, for all the challenges inherent in nuclear power, in the end it's just a really complicated way to boil water.

Yep. Complicated = Expensive. Also inherently inefficient. Inefficient = Expensive. And it needs a failure rate of ~0. Uber-Reliability = Expensive³. So nuclear is $$^5. That's just math

 

[mspohr]

I always find it amazing that, for all the challenges inherent in nuclear power, in the end it's just a really complicated way to boil water.

And boiling water is not that useful. It needs to be converted to electricity which is another inefficient step.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

I always find it amazing that, for all the challenges inherent in nuclear power, in the end it's just a really complicated way to boil water.

Damn! Sometimes it's the simply observations that clears everything up!

How about having a large array ($3Billion worth - less than the price of a full nuclear power plant) of these: Radioisotope thermoelectric generator - Wikipedia

 

[SageBrush]

That said, utilities and state energy commissions have tended to UNDERestimate the long-term decommissioning costs of nuclear plants

I'm under the impression that the decommissioning trusts are way underfunded overall, but perhaps someone has data ?

 

[nwdiver]

I'm under the impression that the decommissioning trusts are way underfunded overall, but perhaps someone has data ?

It's pretty well funded worth ~$70B. IIRC this has actually lead to some nuclear plants being decommissioned 'early'. Utilities can start pulling from the fund when the plant is shutdown. If you have a 40 year old plant it could be worth more dead than alive even if it's still profitable to operate.

 

[SageBrush]

It's pretty well funded worth ~$70B. IIRC this has actually lead to some nuclear plants being decommissioned 'early'. Utilities can start pulling from the fund when the plant is shutdown. If you have a 40 year old plant it could be worth more dead than alive even if it's still profitable to operate.

Thanks for the link.

Looks like $70B in the trust fund(s) after the Trump fueled easy and cheap credit stock market growth of 2019. We can expect either a credit bubble pop or a reversion to mean growth in the future.

Beyond that, there are 109 nuclear plants that will require decommissioning, so up until 2019 the fund would cover some 0.55B per plant. I don't know if San Onofre was typical but that closure and clean-up was pegged at $4.4B (and cost over-runs would not exactly be uncommon for the nuclear industry.)

The only mitigating aspect of this cost estimate is that as the current operating plants stay open the trust fund increases in value. An optimist might come up with double ($1.1B) per plant by the time they are plowed under.

 

[A.N. Gineer]

In most “nuke weapons club” countries, a “nuclear power plant” is really nothing more than a plutonium making factory whose byproduct is electricity.

So any argument on cost, spent fuel, etc falls on deaf ears.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Thanks for the link.

Looks like $70B in the trust fund(s) after the Trump fueled easy and cheap credit stock market growth of 2019. We can expect either a credit bubble pop or a reversion to mean growth in the future.

Beyond that, there are 109 nuclear plants that will require decommissioning, so up until 2019 the fund would cover some 0.55B per plant. I don't know if San Onofre was typical but that closure and clean-up was pegged at $4.4B (and cost over-runs would not exactly be uncommon for the nuclear industry.)

The only mitigating aspect of this cost estimate is that as the current operating plants stay open the trust fund increases in value. An optimist might come up with double ($1.1B) per plant by the time they are plowed under.

https://www.reformer.com/stories/doubts-persist-about-vt-yankee-decommissioning-money,593576

That an interesting article about the decommisioning of Vermont Yankee. Vermont Yankee was closed as soon as the owners had built up the minimum amount in a separate fund. It was then purchased by a construction company, partnering with a French nuclear business.

It's possible that there is a business opportunity in efficient decommissioning, although some are concerned that the company involved is just eating through the fund.

 

[dazizmor]

I work at the CPUC on this particular issue. What I was trying to say about the decommissioning trust funds is that while they certainly have a lot of money in them, the amounts originally approved for those funds tend to be on the low side. Those estimates increase once everyone looks at the actual problems they will face. For example, Diablo Canyon in California is owned by PG&E and currently has an approved decommissioning cost estimate of around $2.7 billion. However, PG&E and other parties recently looked more deeply at decommissioning now that the plant is scheduled to close by 2025 and proposed a new settlement agreement that would increase that estimate to around $3.8 billion - ratepayers will help pay for that $1.1B difference. Since the trust funds currently have around $2.7B in them, right now it looks like Diablo's trusts are properly funded, but the new proposal clearly shows they're not.

That's a running theme at nuclear plants - when decommissioning crews actually get to doing the work, they find that the sites are dirtier and more contaminated than originally thought and the overall cleanup and remediation costs go up. That report about the $70B overall is nice, but there's a natural regulatory lag between what's currently authorized for any trust fund and what's actually needed at the end of the day to clean everything up.

Thanks for the link.

Looks like $70B in the trust fund(s) after the Trump fueled easy and cheap credit stock market growth of 2019. We can expect either a credit bubble pop or a reversion to mean growth in the future.

Beyond that, there are 109 nuclear plants that will require decommissioning, so up until 2019 the fund would cover some 0.55B per plant. I don't know if San Onofre was typical but that closure and clean-up was pegged at $4.4B (and cost over-runs would not exactly be uncommon for the nuclear industry.)

The only mitigating aspect of this cost estimate is that as the current operating plants stay open the trust fund increases in value. An optimist might come up with double ($1.1B) per plant by the time they are plowed under.

 

[mspohr]

Canada Oil-Sands Plan Collapses Over Politics and Economics

A major effort to expand development of Canada’s oil sands has collapsed shortly before a deadline for government approval, undone by investor concerns over oil’s future and the political fault lines between economic and environmental priorities.

Nine years in the planning, the project would have increased Canada’s oil production by roughly 5 percent. But it would have also slashed through 24,000 acres of boreal forest and released millions of tons of climate-warming carbon dioxide every year.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Isn't $2.7B enough money to clean up anything?

 

[dazizmor]

Isn't $2.7B enough money to clean up anything?

The problem is that you can only estimate so much - at a certain point, there's just no way to know the full extent of any contamination until they get down into the dirt. It costs a LOT to clean up nuclear sites because the precautions the workers have to take are extensive and extreme, even more so in earthquake prone areas like California, and there are a limited number of people who can do this type of work as well. So we end up with $2.7B being not enough.

 

[mspohr]

Bernie Sanders says he'll make fossil fuel industry pay $3 trillion for their pollution to fund green new deal

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont's campaign shared how the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate plans on funding the programs of his platform Monday evening—including making the fossil fuel industry pay over $3 trillion for the "Green New Deal."

 

[nwdiver]

Bernie Sanders says he'll make fossil fuel industry pay $3 trillion for their pollution to fund green new deal

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont's campaign shared how the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate plans on funding the programs of his platform Monday evening—including making the fossil fuel industry pay over $3 trillion for the "Green New Deal."

They're getting off light....