The Nuclear Power Thread

In summary, the author opposes Germany's plan to phase out nuclear power and argues that the arguements against nuclear power are based primarily on ignorance and emotion. He also argues that nuclear power is a good solution to a number of issues, including air pollution, the waste situation, and the lack of an available alternative fuel. He also notes that the research into nuclear power has been done in the past, and that there are potential solutions to the waste problem.
  • #736
mheslep said:
Then based on utility comments about the closure, it is fair to assume that this cost, well after the capital cost has been retired, is still considerably higher than that of the several coal plants in the region for some reason, requiring delivery from 100 car coal trains every day. Why this is so is escapes me.

3 GW of coal generation in Illinois is also retiring right now. Some have must run orders from MISO.

The cost of both coal and nuclear most parts of southern Illinois is higher than out of state energy from the other portions of zone 4. The fact that southern illinois is the only deregulated market in that zone of MISO has made it difficult to make money.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #737
Hiddencamper said:
The fact that southern illinois is the only deregulated market in that zone of MISO has made it difficult to make money.
Difficult for nuclear and coal, but if closures are an indicator of financial soundness, not for gas and wind.
Looking at Illinois electric capacity, coal (34%), nuclear (26%) remained nearly constant 2003-2014, gas capacity actually declined by 2 or 3 GW to 30% in 2014. Wind increased from ~nothing to 3.5 GW nameplate over the same period.

Electric generation over the period shows a different story. Nuclear and coal generation were the same within 3 or 4%, but gas generation was up 38% over 2003. That is, in 2003 gas was 2% of total generation and wind insignificant. In 2014, wind was 5% and gas was 3% of total Illinois generation. Indeed, in 2012 when some coal went temporarily offline gas spiked up to 5% of generation. Total consumption in Illinois has been relatively flat since 2010, and 2014 was actually down 0.5% from 2013.

Unfortunately, given the status quo something had to go. The continuing federal Production Tax Credit of http://energy.gov/savings/renewable-electricity-production-tax-credit-ptc going into wind, and the Illinois RPS that excludes nuclear power are, IMO, unwise for long term clean power outcomes.
 
  • #738
jim hardy said:
Nuke is a great way to make electricity ...
Great way to make clean electricity. In the US, nuclear is also currently an expensive and decades long way to make electricity. It was not so in the US under the AEC, and is not so in China, S. Korea.
 
  • #739
Australian Nuclear Association

Past Presentations - http://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/pastpresentations/
Papers on nuclear technology - http://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/nuclearreactors/

UNSW Nuclear Engineering - Presentation by Prof. John Fletcher
http://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Fletcher20160504.pdf

Australian challenges for nuclear energy (Australian perspective)
The Grid
• Integration of large scale nuclear plant may require a rethink of the way the grid is operated e.g. contingencies. This presents opportunities for small, modular reactors.

The Investment Environment
• Who would invest $1-10B in an energy generation station in the current investment climate? Small, modular is an alternative with a lower capital cost.

The Community
• Is there support? Does the community understand the alternatives and their pros/cons?

The Government
• Will there be a government capable of making such a bold decision?

The questions on investment and community are questions that any utility would be asking. Modern day grids were built around central power stations and have evolved over time as population increases. There is typically a base load and peak loads that require part-time operation. Large nuclear plants are more or less designed for baseload (continuous) operation, in order to payoff the high capital costs for construction.

The problem for economic plants like Clinton is that they are effectively prevented from selling their power to markets outside their territory. Meanwhile, with government incentives and subsidies, wind power has been added to the region. When there is excess capacity, some of the established have to reduce power to accommodate the excess generation on the grid.
 
  • #740
More on Illinois and Exelon's Clinton and Quad Cities plants
http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/07/02/illinois-doesnt-value-exelons-nuclear-power-and-th.aspx
Code:
Metric                      Clinton and QC  All Wind and Solar
Capacity                              3 GW           3.8 GW
Net generation               24,600,000 MWh   10,800,000 MWh
% of total state generation        12.2 %            5.6 %

Note that the MWh for the two plants is more than twice the generation for Wind and Solar.

According to the article, "taking Quad Cities and Clinton offline will remove more carbon-free energy from the grid than the total renewable energy generation from Illinois, Colorado, and Washington combined -- all because Illinois didn't think it was a good idea to approve a fee of $0.25 per monthly electric bill to keep its nuclear power plants operational."
 
  • Like
Likes jim hardy
  • #741
Expanded Materials Degradation Assessment (EMDA) (NUREG/CR-7153, Volume 1 - 5)
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr7153/

I recently attended a meeting on this subject. It is relevant as plants continue beyond their initial 40 year lifetime to 60 years. There is now consideration for a second license renewal with life extension to 80 years for some plants.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #742
https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-could-show-way-rescue-u-nuclear-plants-194556685--finance.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New York state and nuclear power have never been best friends, but the state is expected to decide as soon as Monday on a proposed subsidy plan that could furnish the rest of the country with a model for saving a struggling industry while reducing carbon emissions.

Power company Exelon Corp has said that if the CES is not approved, it will close two upstate New York nuclear plants, Nine Mile Point and Ginna. Most of the power they generate would probably be replaced by natural gas plants, making it harder for New York state to meet targets to slash carbon emissions.

Nuclear power generates nearly 20 percent of U.S. electricity, and about 60 percent of the country's emissions-free power.

But the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, estimates that 15 to 20 of the country's 100 nuclear reactors are at risk of shutting in states such as Illinois, Pennsylvania and Michigan, and more could shut if the economy sours.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #743
I know I'm probably switching topics a little, but making generalities ( I understand its bad manner's in a physics forum) nuclear power as a whole can be summed up into three major categories/questions:
1. Is is safe in the area that it is produced: Yes, mostly. If one discounts the major meltdowns/nuclear incidents that have occurred in the first 50 years of major power plant operations, nuclear reactors are very safe in the localities that they reside. Naval nuclear power ( I'm a bit biased since I'm a navy nuke) has never had an incident and routinely operates in at least 10 countries ports that I'm aware of, including Spain, Greece and the UK.
2. Can we deal with the waste: Yes. Not disclosing classified information, but the US alone has enough facilities to deal with the next century of nuclear power generation waste for the entire world alone. I personally believe that we should be accept the waste from a menagerie of countries and make a boat load of cash doing it. To my knowledge, and from what I have experienced and been able to find through research, there has never been any significant incident from nuclear waste disposal.
3. Is it economically viable to build and maintain the facilities: For the third time yes. If we provide what I like to call a "Front end first" method to nuclear plant design and building the overall costs to produce energy could be greatly reduced. We need (and the power companies) to accept the front end costs of building large scale, safe and efficient power plant designs. If we can do that, then it is possible, for the foreseeable future, to produce essentially clean energy until we have mastered the technical and physics based issues of fusion energy.

Just my two cents, i know we've covered some of these topics before but i felt like this was a good cap to get those reading to ask the important questions. If you can say yes to these three questions, then why not use nuclear power to its utmost extent until more advanced and "green" energy comes along.
 
  • #744
schmikah said:
I know I'm probably switching topics a little, but making generalities ( I understand its bad manner's in a physics forum) nuclear power as a whole can be summed up into three major categories/questions:
1. Is is safe in the area that it is produced: Yes, mostly. If one discounts the major meltdowns/nuclear incidents that have occurred in the first 50 years of major power plant operations, nuclear reactors are very safe in the localities that they reside. Naval nuclear power ( I'm a bit biased since I'm a navy nuke) has never had an incident and routinely operates in at least 10 countries ports that I'm aware of, including Spain, Greece and the UK.
2. Can we deal with the waste: Yes. Not disclosing classified information, but the US alone has enough facilities to deal with the next century of nuclear power generation waste for the entire world alone. I personally believe that we should be accept the waste from a menagerie of countries and make a boat load of cash doing it. To my knowledge, and from what I have experienced and been able to find through research, there has never been any significant incident from nuclear waste disposal.
3. Is it economically viable to build and maintain the facilities: For the third time yes. If we provide what I like to call a "Front end first" method to nuclear plant design and building the overall costs to produce energy could be greatly reduced. We need (and the power companies) to accept the front end costs of building large scale, safe and efficient power plant designs. If we can do that, then it is possible, for the foreseeable future, to produce essentially clean energy until we have mastered the technical and physics based issues of fusion energy.

Just my two cents, i know we've covered some of these topics before but i felt like this was a good cap to get those reading to ask the important questions. If you can say yes to these three questions, then why not use nuclear power to its utmost extent until more advanced and "green" energy comes along.
All of these assertions should be qualified imho.
The safety of the operations appear to be about 1 disaster with substantial local impact every 5-10,000 reactor years, counting Fukushima as a single event.
Also, while US nuclear vessels may have a great safety record, the performance elsewhere is less clear
The waste management may be all that is asserted, but the WIPP incident was not insignificant and showed really crass negligence by both the waste producer as well as the site operator. In Germany, the Asse waste disposal effort shows similar industry behavior.
I agree that nuclear design should be front loaded, but in our economic system, power companies must earn a return. Even at todays rock bottom interest rates, nuclear plants are financially very challenging to build. Plants using cheap gas from fracking to feed combined cycle gas turbines are tough competition.
 
  • #745
etudiant said:
but the WIPP incident was not insignificant and showed really crass negligence by both the waste producer as well as the site operator.
Indeed.

Nuclear accident in New Mexico ranks among the costliest in U.S. history
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/af105bc8-0a83-3f0e-a29c-243f6df319aa/ss_nuclear-accident-in-new.html

As I understand it, organic material was improperly added to a drum. In the repository, with enough heat, the organic material reacted and the drum exploded.

From LA Times article:
The problem was traced to material — actual kitty litter — used to blot up liquids in sealed drums. Lab officials had decided to substitute an organic material for a mineral one. But the new material caused a complex chemical reaction that blew the lid off a drum, sending mounds of white, radioactive foam into the air and contaminating 35% of the underground area.
. . .
Though the error at the Los Alamos lab caused the accident, a federal investigation found more than two dozen safety lapses at the dump. The dump’s filtration system was supposed to prevent any radioactive releases, but it malfunctioned.
 
  • #746
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #747
Astronuc said:
Indeed.

Nuclear accident in New Mexico ranks among the costliest in U.S. history
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/af105bc8-0a83-3f0e-a29c-243f6df319aa/ss_nuclear-accident-in-new.html

As I understand it, organic material was improperly added to a drum. In the repository, with enough heat, the organic material reacted and the drum exploded.

From LA Times article:

The cost of the cleanup for this incident, if correct, is outrageous. *One* drum exploded at WIPP. No personnel injuries. Yes the drum contained radioactive waste, not lawnmower parts, so some extensive cleanup might be expected. But $640M, as inferred by the LA Times? That's a large fraction of the Three Mile Island accident costs.

From the same LA Times story.
... James Conca, a consultant who has advised the Energy Department on nuclear waste issues, described the accident as a comedy of errors and said that federal officials are being “overly cautious” about the cleanup. “It got contaminated, but a new exhaust shaft is kind of ridiculous,” he said.

I can imagine US power utilities observing this incident. They perhaps weigh investment in a new nuclear plant. The planf incurs a contained accident of 40 gallons of nuclear waste where nobody gets hurt, yet in come federal regulators and the cleanup cost is 3/4 of a $billion. Perhaps the otherwise completely operational plant is shuttered for years.

Against that, they observe, say, a new gas plant which suffered a major explosion in Connecticut several years ago, actually killing people on site and demolishing much of the plant. Outcome: a few dozen $million in damages and compensation costs and the plant can be rebuilt in months. A new gas plant is easily the better choice.
 
Last edited:
  • #748
mheslep said:
yet in come federal regulators and the cleanup cost is
Vote libertarian :wink:
 
  • #749
anorlunda said:
Vote libertarian :wink:
Aye, or for whoever can make regulation transparent, streamlined as in Korea, China.
 
  • #750
mheslep said:
The cost of the cleanup for this incident, if correct, is outrageous. *One* drum exploded at WIPP. No personnel injuries. Yes the drum contained radioactive waste, not lawnmower parts, so some extensive cleanup might be expected. But $640M, as inferred by the LA Times? That's a large fraction of the Three Mile Island accident costs.

From the same LA Times story.I can imagine US power utilities observing this incident. They perhaps weigh investment in a new nuclear plant. The planf incurs a contained accident of 40 gallons of nuclear waste where nobody gets hurt, yet in come federal regulators and the cleanup cost is 3/4 of a $billion. Perhaps the otherwise completely operational plant is shuttered for years.

Against that, they observe, say, a new gas plant which suffered a major explosion in Connecticut several years ago, actually killing people on site and demolishing much of the plant. Outcome: a few dozen $million in damages and compensation costs and the plant can be rebuilt in months. A new gas plant is easily the better choice.
The reporting on the event was very limited, because secrecy is very much the norm for government nuclear related operations. Any disclosure was very uneven and really driven by responses to local community fears, rather than any coherent plan.
Afaik, the contamination originated in just one drum containing nitric acid wastes from Los Alamos that had been soaked up with organic kitty litter rather than diatomaceous earth. The excursion damaged other barrels that also contributed to the damage. I believe that the ceiling in one affected chamber collapsed, which is apparently the expected outcome in the salt mine environment. The smoke from the fire spread widely because the fire doors had been wired open after the automatic opening system proved too unreliable. The ventilation/filtration system also fell short, so radioactive contamination spread well beyond the plant, although apparently in relatively limited amounts. No full accounting has been published that I've seen.
My guess is that the $640MM clean up cost includes the bill for putting a lot of other deficiencies to right. However, as mheslep correctly observes, no sensible management would want to get involved with a business that generates this kind of unexpected cost with so little explanation or serious lessons learned publication. When no one knows exactly what went wrong or what was fixed, the same mistakes will happen again.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #751
Waste, Families Left Behind As Nuclear Plants Close
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/24/498842677/waste-families-left-behind-as-nuclear-plants-close

Fort Calhoun Station's reactor, Unit 1, began in May 1973. Although licensed to 2033, the plant is shutting down Monday.
It's a relatively small reactor Licensed MWt: 1,500 with 133 assemblies of a 14x14 design.

http://www.omaha.com/money/today-fo...cle_0ff3a902-5cd6-52d8-a720-b2b9bc6ec0de.html

In 2016 alone, six nuke plants including Fort Calhoun have announced plans to shut down. All but one are closing years before their licensing terms expire.

A World-Herald analysis pegged Calhoun’s costs per megawatt-hour at about $71. The industry average for nuclear power operators is $35.50, and the natural gas oversupply has depressed the wholesale price for a megawatt-hour of electricity to as low as $20.
 
  • #752
From Astronuc's link:

“Unfortunately for the 700 people that are associated with the plant

Calhoun was a single reactor plant, 485 MWe, the smallest in the US. Run by the experienced Exelon. Why did it require a staff of 700? NRC has at least four people there full time.

Edit: IIRC, there are some dual reactor plants, 2 GWe, with staffs of ~500.

Newly completed https://www.dom.com/corporate/what-we-do/electricity/generation/fossil-fueled-power-stations/brunswick-county-power-station [Broken] (capital cost <$1/W). Staffing: 43 people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #753
The industry average for nuclear power operators is $35.50, and the natural gas oversupply has depressed the wholesale price for a megawatt-hour of electricity to as low as $20.

Imagine yourself as an investor in a power plant. If the expected lifetime is 40 years, then you necessarily make assumptions about future costs and prices. Disrupting technologies like fracking are impossible to forecast in the far future.

In a rapidly changing world, low capital costs and rapid ROI appeal greatly to investors. That is the main threat to the future of the nuclear industry. To compete, nuclear needs designs that can be built, licensed, and put in operation in 12 months and with a planned retirement in 7 years.

BTW, even fusion power when it becomes feasible, must deal with the same capital/ROI issues.

BTW, looking forward 50 years, it is a real possibility that the business model of electric utilities and the central power grid will be in decline. In the 1970s, nobody could imagine the dissapearance of land line phones; Ma Bell seemed immortal.

No wonder that investors quake in their boots.
 
  • Like
Likes Jon Richfield
  • #754
anorlunda said:
Imagine yourself as an investor in a power plant. If the expected lifetime is 40 years, then you necessarily make assumptions about future costs and prices. Disrupting technologies like fracking are impossible to forecast in the far future.
In the US and Europe, I imagine the possible disruption from Gen IV (.i.e new cheap nuclear) is the most serious threat to existing big nuclear. Given its emissions, gas can replace coal and the oldest most expensive nuclear plants, but I doubt gas poses much threat to the majority of the US fleet with the pressure to reduce overall emissions. As big existing nuclear and the NRC have an interchange of people, the NRC has incentive to block new cheap nuclear

In a rapidly changing world, low capital costs and rapid ROI appeal greatly to investors. That is the main threat to the future of the nuclear industry.
...A threat to the the *US* nuclear industry where nuclear has capital costs to 5 or 6 times that of gas plants and have ~10 year build times. Not so much of a threat in China, S. Korea, where nuclear goes in in ~5 years with capital cost 2 times gas.

To compete, nuclear needs designs that can be built, licensed, and put in operation in 12 months and with a planned retirement in 7 years.
Nuclear need not be at exact par with gas build times and capital cost as even cheap US gas ($3 or $4/mmbtu) is several times more expensive per kwh than nuclear fuel. Planned retirement time can be many decades, a century, *if* the initial investment is low so investors get their money back early in the case of disruption via innovation.
 
  • #755
mheslep said:
Planned retirement time can be many decades, a century, *if*

Yeah sure. What corporation or agency in this world can be trusted to exist a century from now? What country is certain to exist in a century? (Other than Switzerland :wink:)

Having a nuke owner go bankrupt is a public risk. Posting bonds and insurance only mitigate some of the cases.
 
  • #756
anorlunda said:
Yeah sure. What corporation or agency in this world can be trusted to exist a century from now? What country is certain to exist in a century? (Other than Switzerland :wink:)
What difference does it make to the initial investor if they get there money back early? That is, how does the cheap plant differ from a building that lasts a hundred years, from the perspective of the investor? Buildings don't require 7 year closures.

Having a nuke owner go bankrupt is a public risk. Posting bonds and insurance only mitigate some of the cases.
If so it would be for existing nuke tech, not necessarily gen IV. Nuclear owners have gone bankrupt. Where did the follow up fall on the public?
 
  • #757
mheslep said:
Where did the follow up fall on the public?
Washington Public Power System

Besides, long term viability of the licensee is more an issue for the regulator than the investors. If someone walked in the door claiming a century design life, I don't think he would be seen as serious.
 
  • #758
anorlunda said:
Washington Public Power System
WPPSS was a case where the government issued municipal bonds for a plant that was never completed in the wake of TMI, not an operating nuclear plant where the owner failed and the government had to decommission and clean up. Govt risks capital anytime it finances a big project, sports stadium, bridge, etc. The nuclear industry pays into a fund to handle cleanup.

Besides, long term viability of the licensee is more an issue for the regulator than the investors. If someone walked in the door claiming a century design life, I don't think he would be seen as serious.
Theres already been a license granted for 60 years (60 + 20 more): Oyster Creek. I doubt 100 yrs is unthinkable for a plant with low overhead.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyster_Creek_Nuclear_Generating_Station#Design
 
  • #759
mheslep said:
Calhoun was a single reactor plant, 485 MWe, the smallest in the US. Run by the experienced Exelon. Why did it require a staff of 700? NRC has at least four people there full time.
Ft. Calhoun had a number of problems before the flood and fire. The flood and fire just added to the list of things to be corrected. The article mentions that one of the workers, Brock Lindau, who has spent most of his career at the Fort Calhoun, helped install almost $700 million worth of upgrades that got the plant through a flood and a fire, and helped get it licensed to operate until 2033. I suspect many of the workers were there in order to complete the upgrades.

The benefit of dual or triple unit plants is that the same workers can rotate among the units. If a utility has the same reactor technology at multiple sites, then that saves on workers who can rotate among the different plants. When plants do reloads and heavy maintenance, or upgrades and plant modifications, the a contingent of contract workers participates for a limited time, e.g., a month or so. Many of the oldest plants, like Ft. Calhoun, were single units, and they are less economical to operate than a twin unit plant.
mheslep said:
Nuclear owners have gone bankrupt. Where did the follow up fall on the public?
WPPSS defaulted on bonds. I think LILCO was close to bankruptcy over Shoreham, but the state intervened. I don't recall the involvement of LIPA and the state with LILCO, but taxpayers and LILCO customers bore a significant burden.

Interestingly, in 1988, the Public Service of New Hampshire declared bankruptcy due to lack of revenue to cover the costs of Seabrook. One of two units was completed and is operating at Seabrook.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/29/b...led-by-leading-utility-in-seabrook-plant.html

In 2014, Energy Future Holdings Corp. declared bankruptcy. EFH is the parent company of Luminant, which operates the Comanche Peak nuclear plant and TXU, which is the retail group. TXU may have to raise prices to consumers to offset the loss off revenue from reduced wholesale prices.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/bus...uptcy-prompts-consumer-worries-in-5440041.php

I'm not sure how Luminant and Comanche Peak are affected.
 
  • #760
Astronuc said:
The benefit of dual or triple unit plants is that the same workers can rotate among the units
That's a legitimate argument. Or, one can argue that it should also be possible to scale down the workforce at single reactor plants. If not, I would like to know how much of the staff is required by the NRC on a per plant basis. If the NRC requires, say, an unjustifiable couple dozen NRC employees at every plant, and requires a similar number of counterparts from the operator, then the ~300 MW SMR projects under development are not feasible.
 
Last edited:
  • #761
Astronuc said:
WPPSS defaulted on bonds...

Interestingly, in 1988, the Public Service of New Hampshire declared bankruptcy due to lack of revenue ...

In 2014, Energy Future Holdings Corp. declared bankruptcy...

Yes I am aware there were several well know failures of nuclear owners, and any publicly issued bond finance of the construction would go into default, as it would for any public bankruptcy. The discussion above was whether the decommissioning costs of a retired nuclear plant could fall to the public in event of bankruptcy. I'm unaware of any, and the industry funded NRC Decommssioning Fund is created to prevent this from happening.
 
  • #762
mheslep said:
Newly completed https://www.dom.com/corporate/what-we-do/electricity/generation/fossil-fueled-power-stations/brunswick-county-power-station [Broken] (capital cost <$1/W). Staffing: 43 people.
That may be just operations. There is a previous statement - "Development and construction employs about 380 workers annually and yields about $824 million in economic benefits for the state." I don't know if that applies now that the plant is finished, since is uses present tense indefinite, rather than past as in 'employed'. Otherwise, the utility may use service contractors who would be on call, and don't count as employees.

They will do very well until gas prices start increasing at some point.

mheslep said:
The discussion above was whether the decommissioning costs of a retired nuclear plant could fall to the public in event of bankruptcy. I'm unaware of any, and the industry funded NRC Decommssioning Fund is created to prevent this from happening.
I am unsure as well. As far as I know, the decommissioning fund is fixed and dedicated to decommissioning the plant.

According to NEI - "These nuclear decommissioning trust funds are not the property of the electric utility. They are outside the electric utility’s control. In bankruptcy situations, for example, decommissioning trust funds cannot be used to satisfy creditors’ claims."
http://www.nei.org/Master-Document-...acts-About-Nuclear-Decommissioning-Trust-Fund
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #763
Astronuc said:
That may be just operations.
There's likely a roving, plant to plant, periodic maintenance crew, but after construction is complete, what else is there? No daily reports to the NRC for the staff of a gas plant.

Otherwise, the utility may use service contractors who would be on call, and don't count as employees.

Yes, on call. Calhoun had 700 employees.
 
Last edited:
  • #764
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2016 (HTML)
http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2016-HTML.html [Broken]

The China Effect
• Nuclear power generation in the world increased by 1.3%, entirely due to a 31% increase in China.

• Ten reactors started up in 2015—more than in any other year since 1990—of which eight were in China. Construction on all of them started prior to the Fukushima disaster.

• Eight construction starts in the world in 2015—to which China contributed six—down from 15 in 2010 of which 10 were in China. No construction starts in the world in the first half of 2016.

• The number of units under construction is declining for the third year in a row, from 67 reactors at the end of 2013 to 58 by mid-2016, of which 21 are in China.

China spent over US$100 billion on renewables in 2015, while investment decisions for six nuclear reactors amounted to US$18 billion.
Even with an aggressive nuclear energy program, China is investing a lot more in wind, hydro and other renewables.

The down side
Early Closures, Phase-outs and Construction Delays
• Eight early closure decisions taken in Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan and the U.S.

• Nuclear phase-out announcements in the U.S. (California) and Taiwan.

• In nine of the 14 building countries all projects are delayed, mostly by several years. Six projects have been listed for over a decade, of which three for over 30 years. China is no exception here, at least 10 of 21 units under construction are delayed.

Nuclear Giants in Crisis – Renewables Take Over
• AREVA has accumulated US$11 billion in losses over the past five years. French government decides €5.6 billion bailout and breaks up the company. Share value 95 percent below 2007 peak value. State utility EDF struggles with US41.5 billion debt, downgraded by S&P. Chinese utility CGN, EDF partner for Hinkley Point C, loses 60% of its share value since June 2015.

• Globally, wind power output grew by 17%, solar by 33%, nuclear by 1.3%.

• Brazil, China, India, Japan and the Netherlands now all generate more electricity from wind turbines alone than from nuclear power plants.
The crisis with AREVA is old news since 2015.

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2015 (HTML)
http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2015-HTML.html [Broken]

Nebraska Reactor Fort Calhoun Closes Permanently
25 October 2016 - http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Nebraska-Reactor-Fort-Calhoun-Closes-Permanently.html [Broken]

Pacific Gas & Electric has agreed to shutdown Diablo Canyon
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nuclear-power-pacific-gas-20160811-snap-story.html
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-PGE-to-close-Diablo-Canyon-nuclear-plant-by-2025-22061601.html

Japanese Government Pulls the Plug on Fast Breeder Reactor Monju
Friday 23 December 2016 - http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Japanese-Government-Pulls-the-Plug-on-Fast-Breeder-Reactor-Monju.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #765
Astronuc said:
Even with an aggressive nuclear energy program, China is investing a lot more in wind, hydro and other renewables.
As with everywhere else, when very large 'renewable' figures are mentioned, the large majority turns out to be hydro projects with thousand mile transmission lines, or biomass combustion plants, and not so much wind or solar. Chinese hydro is increasingly some 100 TWh per year, wind is a 5th of that. I don't believe there is a great cry for the US to build more hydro projects because China does, nor burn up trees at 8GW because Germany does.
 
  • #766
number of environmental organizations and labor unions joined PG&E in the proposal to close both units at the Diablo Canyon nuclear facility near San Luis Osbispo by 2025.

Confirming that some "environmental organizations" have some other agenda besides clean air. They state that some collection of renewable sources will replace Diablo. Instead, in the aftermath of the SONGS closure:
A new wave of natural gas power plants planned for Southern California has stoked a high-stakes debate about how best to keep the lights on throughout the region...

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...rojects-spark-debate-2016may23-htmlstory.html
.
 
  • #767
  • #768
mheslep said:
As with everywhere else, when very large 'renewable' figures are mentioned, the large majority turns out to be hydro projects with thousand mile transmission lines

What is the problem with a thousand mile transmission line? Losses? They are only around 5% for AC, 3.5% for DC.
 
  • #769
nikkkom said:
What is the problem with a thousand mile transmission line? ...
Neglecting losses, which I think you underestimate, other problems: Cost between one and two million USD per mile, theft of private property under "eminent domain," degraded visual landscape...
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #770
mheslep said:
Astro - I believe this so called industry status report is written by anti-nuclear activists.

http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Who-We-Are.html [Broken]

I read the bios of the people listed on that link. You're absolutely right. They should not be given much trust at all.

However, the raw data on startups and closures posted by @Astronuc are a matter of public record that anyone can verify. Unless they were cherry picked to omit numerous startups/closures, that kind of data is hard to fake.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
0
Views
504
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
26
Views
5K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
52
Views
7K
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
13
Views
3K
Back
Top