The Nuclear Power Thread


by russ_watters
Tags: nuclear, power
wizwom
wizwom is offline
#433
Feb27-12, 11:44 PM
P: 71
Quote Quote by zapperzero View Post
That's just wishful thinking coached in numbers and salesman speak. "It's not 15k EUR for this 7.5k EUR car, sir! It's just 5 EUR/day for the next 15 years!".

Where is the cost of final storage? Indeed, where will final storage be?

By the way, you all should be very very scared by this, from the intro to the fine article:


The EROEI of France has dipped below 1, while no-one was looking.
"disposing of radioactive wastes are estimated to be 79.4 billion ($103.8 billion)" - t doesn't mention where. This is mainly effluent from the reprocessing, the very long half-life fissile material is being actively reprocessed and reused.
As to where - just off the top of my head from a discussion with a French Nuclear engineer last year (which may be VERY off) I believe they were planning a bedrock mine site for sequestering.
wizwom
wizwom is offline
#434
Mar19-12, 08:10 PM
P: 71
Quote Quote by zapperzero View Post
That's just wishful thinking coached in numbers and salesman speak. "It's not 15k EUR for this 7.5k EUR car, sir! It's just 5 EUR/day for the next 15 years!".
No - its like saying the car is 7.5K euros, and its paid for with a loan, and costs another 7.5k Euros to run. You are being disingenuous.

Quote Quote by zapperzero View Post
Where is the cost of final storage? Indeed, where will final storage be?
You seem to have missed it:
The future costs for decommissioning all of France's nuclear facilities (including reactors, research facilities and fuel cycle plants )and disposing of radioactive wastes are estimated to be 79.4 billion ($103.8 billion). The cost of demolishing facilities totals 31.9 billion ($41.7 billion), including 18.4 billion ($24.1 billion) for dismantling EDF's 58 currently operating reactors, the court estimates. The costs of managing used fuel are put at 14.8 billion ($19.3 billion), while waste disposal will cost 28.4 billion ($37.1 billion).
These costs do not include the decommissioning costs already paid, for 8 power plants and the prototype. For the purposes of the article, the construction and decommissioning costs were lumped together for all of these, which worked out to 18 billion ($24 billion).
zapperzero
zapperzero is offline
#435
Mar20-12, 02:50 AM
P: 1,030
Quote Quote by wizwom View Post
No - its like saying the car is 7.5K euros, and its paid for with a loan, and costs another 7.5k Euros to run. You are being disingenuous.


You seem to have missed it:


These costs do not include the decommissioning costs already paid, for 8 power plants and the prototype. For the purposes of the article, the construction and decommissioning costs were lumped together for all of these, which worked out to 18 billion ($24 billion).
Yes, I missed the part where there is a permanent storage facility in France. Is there? I am only aware of the research facility in Meuse/Haute-Marne, which is due to transition to actual operation as a storage facility, if all goes well, in 2025
zapperzero
zapperzero is offline
#436
Mar23-12, 12:47 PM
P: 1,030
It seems those funds that are set aside to pay for decommissioning US NPPs, really aren't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/sc...ewanted=1&_r=1
wizwom
wizwom is offline
#437
Mar23-12, 04:14 PM
P: 71
Quote Quote by zapperzero View Post
It seems those funds that are set aside to pay for decommissioning US NPPs, really aren't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/sc...ewanted=1&_r=1
The hurdle is not financial so much as regulatory. For example, Zion, which now has been closed 14 years, is still only defueled.
http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decom...units-1-2.html
zapperzero
zapperzero is offline
#438
Mar24-12, 01:53 AM
P: 1,030
Quote Quote by wizwom View Post
The hurdle is not financial so much as regulatory. For example, Zion, which now has been closed 14 years, is still only defueled.
http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decom...units-1-2.html
Did you at least read the article?
Astronuc
Astronuc is offline
#439
May4-12, 08:14 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,634
It looks like Gen-IV is quietly disappearing, or actually is being subsumed by the SMR program.
https://smr.inl.gov/ (at the moment, the image on the opening page is that of an SMR (sodium-cooled fast reactor) taken from Gen-IV).

The next big thing is accident tolerant fuel (ATF) in LWRs and other systems.


Meanwhile - "Is Thorium A Magic Bullet For Our Energy Problems?"
http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201205044
wizwom
wizwom is offline
#440
May5-12, 08:55 PM
P: 71
We've had quite a few guest lecturers on Gen-IV reactor concepts come to MS&T. And at least one professor has modified his classes to try to prepare us for working with HTGR or molten metal cooling and power systems.
pm35
pm35 is offline
#441
May13-12, 09:02 AM
P: 4
With nuclear there is always a low probability of a major disaster of which we have now had 2 in the last 30 years.

Imagine a worse disaster than the tsunami: How about a massive solar event knocking out off-site power to hundreds of reactors - all cooking off and relying on those diesel generators which may or may not be available. Very low probability, but very high consequences.

.....but the fatal blow to nuclear is really the price tag of new plants - which increases every time a new flaw is exposed. A couple of new plants will be built in the US using massive government subsidies form the 2005 energy act, after that it's dead in the US.
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#442
May13-12, 02:28 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Such a solar event would have no effect on the reactors itself.
gmax137
gmax137 is offline
#443
May14-12, 09:12 AM
P: 819
Quote Quote by pm35 View Post
... A couple of new plants will be built in the US using massive government subsidies form the 2005 energy act...
What exactly are these subsidies? What did they cost the government?
Spinalcold
Spinalcold is offline
#444
Jun4-12, 10:14 PM
P: 17
Quote Quote by pm35 View Post
With nuclear there is always a low probability of a major disaster of which we have now had 2 in the last 30 years.

Imagine a worse disaster than the tsunami: How about a massive solar event knocking out off-site power to hundreds of reactors - all cooking off and relying on those diesel generators which may or may not be available. Very low probability, but very high consequences.

.....but the fatal blow to nuclear is really the price tag of new plants - which increases every time a new flaw is exposed. A couple of new plants will be built in the US using massive government subsidies form the 2005 energy act, after that it's dead in the US.
I just would like to point out that the earthquake near Japan was the biggest it has had in recorded history. wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Japan (I can't link until after 10 posts...) Mining coal, oil, etc kills more under normal working circumstances.

The problem I find with this debate is that there don't seem to be number that can accurately sum all the costs of each individual energy industry so that we can compare them. In the case of Oil and Coal there are health costs, environmental costs (oil sands, CO2 emissions, etc), but everyones ignores that the fossil fuels get massive subsidies: (sorry, I have to type it, W W W dot bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-09/fossil-fuels-got-more-aid-than-clean-energy-iea.html) So I find it extremely disingenuous to say nuclear power can only compete because of subsidies.

If all costs WERE taken into account it might make renewable slightly more competitive (if you balance across all subsidies), but I don't think they're quite there yet. Personally, I'd like to see a little more work in tidal energy.

Also, I read a few pages back someone citing research and development as an additional cost to nuclear power. This makes no sense to me, especially here. Isn't that what we're here for? And isn't all knowledge worth having? R&D is NEVER a waste.

I'm new here, so I may have restated old things, but...well, hello :-D
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#445
Jun5-12, 10:29 AM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Nevertheless, along with the value created by R&D there is also waste and malfeasance and cronyism *in* R&D as in everything else. Since R&D has a cost those that pay for it have every right to trade those costs off against other priorities as they see fit.
zapperzero
zapperzero is offline
#446
Jun5-12, 10:38 AM
P: 1,030
Quote Quote by Spinalcold View Post
The problem I find with this debate is that there don't seem to be number that can accurately sum all the costs of each individual energy industry so that we can compare them.
The price per kilowatt-hour is known. Nuclear is just a bit more expensive than wind, while combined cycle gas is the cheapest and solar is hugely expensive (3x the others), probably reflecting a tech still in its infancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of...ergy_estimates
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#447
Jun5-12, 11:05 AM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by zapperzero View Post
The price per kilowatt-hour is known....
... or estimated in some cases. There's one and only one data point appearing for *new* US advanced nuclear as EIA describes it - the AP1000 reactors at Vogtle, coming online for ~$14 billion per 2.2 GW, and that price is not yet final.
zapperzero
zapperzero is offline
#448
Jun5-12, 01:48 PM
P: 1,030
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
... or estimated in some cases. There's one and only one data point appearing for *new* US advanced nuclear as EIA describes it - the AP1000 reactors at Vogtle, coming online for ~$14 billion per 2.2 GW, and that price is not yet final.
I was being charitable.
Astronuc
Astronuc is offline
#449
Jun5-12, 03:18 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,634
Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities:
Phase I
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13388
wizwom
wizwom is offline
#450
Jun6-12, 08:02 AM
P: 71
Quote Quote by zapperzero View Post
The price per kilowatt-hour is known. Nuclear is just a bit more expensive than wind, while combined cycle gas is the cheapest and solar is hugely expensive (3x the others), probably reflecting a tech still in its infancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of...ergy_estimates
You will notice they use a capacity factor of 34 for wind. Actual capacity factors are much lower - more on the order of 25.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor

That correction puts wind at 132.0, not 97.0; right up where we expect it, in the most expensive ways to generate electricity.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
How do I become a Nuclear Engineer? (Split from Canadian Engineering Thread) Nuclear Engineering 16
What is the link between nuclear weapons and nuclear power stations? Nuclear Engineering 19
oil,nuclear power General Discussion 21
Law against nuclear power? Nuclear Engineering 47
nuclear engineers thread Nuclear Engineering 15