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.
  • #456
wizwom said:
Wind is much smaller scale; you can reasonable do one 10 KW rated wind turbine and expect they same payback and profitability as a farm of 100 MW.
Nuclear, because you need licensing and staffing, is decidedly NOT entirely scalable.
Since these costs are fairly constant, there is no reason to go small.

But total lifecycle cost for nuclear is around 6 cents a KWh; for wind it is more like 17.

That is not realistic, the small wind turbine will certainly cost more per kWh produced, just like a 200 MW farm will produce more cheaply than a 100 MW farm. Last time I looked, 1 million Euro would buy about 1 MW capacity (looking for a current commercial wind turbine in the ~2 MW size) Typically such a machine would be designed/sited to maximize energy yield per Euro invested at a capacity factor of about 0.25-0.40, so that over an expected life time of 20 years it would produce 45-70 million kWh per installed MW. Even assuming the project price would mount to as much as double the price of the wind turbine, that would still be only about 3-4 cents a kWh. To be sure there are different estimates out there, but I don't know how you get it to be 17 cents a kWh, it doesn't look like anything I've seen elsewhere.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #457
A quick survey shows a 100kW turbine at $35,000 & a 10kW at $7,000; s expected, prices are all over. The IEA report from 2011 http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/53510.pdf puts the total cost at $1500-$2000 per installed rated kW
Capacity factors are in the 25-30% range; the 40% was never seen anywhere, even 35% was anomalous. This means that the cost per usable kW is now $5000-$7400.

That report shows the cost dropped to near 5 cents in 2007, but then has risen to 7c.
Sorry for the old data.
 
  • #458
russ_watters said:
snip
There may be a thread around here somewhere about it, but a few years ago, I did some calculations about solar and concluded that with good solar panels, we'd nee to cover an area of about 300 miles square - similar to your father's calculation of the entire state of Arizona.
snip

Sorry that my first post will be "off track" where this thread is currently but I simply had to register to point out this unbelievably huge mistake.

FYI- the state of Arizona covers 114,006 square miles. Much, much larger than the 300 square miles needed to power the entire US by your own calculations. Phoenix AZ covers roughly 500 square miles, so in exchange for giving up less land than a single large metro area we could power the US with a truly clean energy.

-hh
 
  • #459
wizwom said:
A quick survey shows a 100kW turbine at $35,000 & a 10kW at $7,000; s expected, prices are all over.
What survey? Yours? This IEA report:
The IEA report from 2011 http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/53510.pdf puts the total cost at $1500-$2000 per installed rated kW
is for the *installed*, up and running cost for utility scale (>1MW) turbines. What source reports an installed cost for a 100kW turbine?
 
Last edited:
  • #460
hill hermit said:
Sorry that my first post will be "off track" where this thread is currently but I simply had to register to point out this unbelievably huge mistake.

FYI- the state of Arizona covers 114,006 square miles. Much, much larger than the 300 square miles needed to power the entire US by your own calculations. Phoenix AZ covers roughly 500 square miles, so in exchange for giving up less land than a single large metro area we could power the US with a truly clean energy.

-hh
Welcome to PF!

I didn't say "300 square miles", I said "300 miles square". As in - a square 300 miles on a side or 90,000 square miles. The reason I worded it that way is that most people can wrap their arms around the size better if you describe the dimensions, not the area.
 
  • #461
wizwom said:
<..>
Capacity factors are in the 25-30% range; the 40% was never seen anywhere, even 35% was anomalous. <..>.

IIRC, the world record for a single commercial wind turbine is a capacity factor of 44 % over a (so far) 9 year operation time. Danish offshore wind farms operate overall well above 35 %. Horns Rev II (a 209 MW farm) has performed best, with a capacity factor of about 47 %. The second best measured by capacity factor is Rødsand II (207 MW), at 42 %.
 
Last edited:
  • #462
Scotland and Denmark seem to be in really good spots for wind energy. Many coastal areas are.

US
http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/
http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps/chap2/2-06m.html

http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp?&print
Canada
http://www.windatlas.ca/en/maps.php

Europe
http://www.windatlas.dk/europe/index.htm
http://www.windatlas.dk/europe/landmap.html

World
http://www.windatlas.dk/World/Index.htm
http://www.windatlas.dk/World/Atlases.html

This is not exactly nuclear power though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #463
Astronuc said:
Scotland and Denmark seem to be in really good spots for wind energy. Many coastal areas are.<..>
This is not exactly nuclear power though.

No that's true, nuclear power tends to become irrelevant such places, unless nuclear load-following power can be produced economically. I don't know if new types of nuclear promise that. As soon as wind power is being viably produced in a region, the need will be for viable absorbers of the variability that is then inherently produced too, rather than for what nuclear traditionally has to offer.
 
  • #464
MadderDoc said:
No that's true, nuclear power tends to become irrelevant such places, unless nuclear load-following power can be produced economically. I don't know if new types of nuclear promise that. As soon as wind power is being viably produced in a region, the need will be for viable absorbers of the variability that is then inherently produced too, rather than for what nuclear traditionally has to offer.
Nuclear energy is generally produced in base load, but the French do a lot of load following and frequency control with their nuclear units.

With wind at 50% availability one would twice the installed capacity on a kW basis to achieve the same kWh as compared to a unit that runs constantly at full power. Many nuclear units achieve 90+% capacity factor. Of course, there are some units that have poor performance.

If wind is only available at 35% or 20%, then the number of wind units greatly increases, as does the transmission infrastructure. If one looks at the various atlases, there are some areas that have great wind capability, but many larger areas that do not. In the US, the majority of population live in areas of relatively low wind availability.
 
  • #465
Astronuc said:
...In the US, the majority of population live in areas of relatively low wind availability.
That's true if US offshore wind potential is omitted. At the moment offshore wind is not economic nor technically practical on the US east coast due to hurricanes, but that may change w/ stronger wind tower designs.
 
Last edited:
  • #466
Astronuc said:
Nuclear energy is generally produced in base load, but the French do a lot of load following and frequency control with their nuclear units.

OK, yes, With the very high penetration of nuclear power in France there would be little other choice than to sacrifice on the capacity factor, such as to make the production fit the variable consumption, or alternatively export periodically against little demand from other countries. Perhaps France seen in isolation can be said to be oversupplied with nuclear power. By the same token, France might not be in a good position to start exploiting its available wind resources. (Newly added wind power would act in the system as additional consumption variation, only then from 'negative consumers')

With wind at 50% availability one would twice the installed capacity on a kW basis to achieve the same kWh as compared to a unit that runs constantly at full power. Many nuclear units achieve 90+% capacity factor. Of course, there are some units that have poor performance.

I am not sure what you mean by availability of wind in this context, but you do seem to indicate it to be a measure comparable to the capacity factor of nuclear. The best wind sites over here may well have wind turbines operating at capacity factor about 50%, and in a mathematical sense that means that a same sized wind turbine or another system running at 100 % could replace two of such units. Or, could one say, one of the 50% capacity factor turbines replaces two turbines running at a capacity factor of 25 %. However, I am not sure what the superposition elucidates. Whether you look at a nuclear plant targeting a 90% capacity factor, or a wind turbine at a given site targeting a 50% capacity factor, in either case that target is an effect of economic optimisation.

If wind is only available at 35% or 20%, then the number of wind units greatly increases, as does the transmission infrastructure. If one looks at the various atlases, there are some areas that have great wind capability, but many larger areas that do not. In the US, the majority of population live in areas of relatively low wind availability.

Well, of course you can have too small and/or too distant wind resources left worth exploiting, and maybe that is the case in USA. Certainly the magnitude and quality of the wind resource at a given site strongly influence the economical viability of a wind power project, and the incorporation of such a project in the existing grid must of course make economic sense. However, I can see no problem with wind turbines operating at capacity factors of 35% or 20% if that now happens to be the economic optimum for the sites. About 30 GW of on average less capacity factor is operating onshore in Germany currently, I never thought that to be a problem. While the push has become for adding offshore wind power from the North Sea there will indeed be a need for another investment in the transmission infrastructure, but so what, I can't remember when there wasn't :-)
 
  • #467
WASHINGTON, Aug. 7, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) acted today to put a hold on at least 19 final reactor licensing decisions – nine construction & operating licenses (COLS), eight license renewals, one operating license, and one early site permit – in response to the landmark Waste Confidence Rule decision of June 8th by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The NRC action was sought in a June 18, 2012 petition filed by 24 groups urging the NRC to respond to the court ruling by freezing final licensing decisions until it has completed a rulemaking action on the environmental impacts of highly radioactive nuclear waste in the form of spent, or 'used', reactor fuel storage and disposal.
 
  • #468
First license for Canadian new build
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-First_licence_for_Canadian_new_build-2008127.html

The nuclear site preparation [Darlington] license issued to Onatrio Power Generation (OPG) will be valid for ten years, from 17 August 2012 to 17 August 2022.


Meanwhile, back in Washington DC - NRC suspends final licensing decisions
08 August 2012
Licences for US nuclear plants - including those for new construction and life extension - will not be issued until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) addresses a court decision on waste confidence. However, licensing activities will continue as normal.

On 8 June, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that the NRC's rules for the temporary storage and permanent disposal of nuclear waste stood in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act. This requires that either an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement be prepared for all major government agency actions.
. . . .

Regarding the development of a waste facility, the court noted that 20 years of work towards building a repository was effectively abandoned when the Department of Energy withdrew its application for the Yucca Mountain repository in 2010, and that, "At this time there is not even a prospective site for a repository, let alone progress towards the actual construction of one."

. . . .
and how many $billion wasted? :grumpy:
 
  • #470
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C_Coping_with_energy_transition_1411121.html
14 November 2012

EOn continues to struggle under German energy policy, with gas generation made "barely profitable" by pro-renewable market arrangements and nuclear generation slashed and taxed by government decree.

The utility has summarised its performance from January to the end of September, explaining to shareholders that it would honour dividend predictions for 2012, but would revise ambitions for 2013 and 2015. Despite a worsening outlook, the company still recorded pre-tax earnings of €8.8 billion ($11.2 billion) with 'underlying net income' of about €4 billion ($5.0 billion) for the first nine months of 2012.

One problem is that renewable generation is given priority access to the grid when it is available. This sometimes prevents gas-fired generation from operating during peak hours and has altered the economics of gas to such an extent that it is now "barely profitable to operate," said CEO Johannes Teyssen. "In most European markets, the gross margin for gas-fired units is approaching zero or is indeed already negative."

. . . .
This an example of a poor energy and economic policy on the part of the German government, and it is harming the economy.
 
  • #471
German energy policy is constrained by anti nuclear sentiment on the one hand (fuelled by media support of a small cadre of activists plus public distrust sustained by unrelenting publicity focused on the nuclear industry's failures) along with the recognition that gas supply from Russia is unreliable (it was turned off just a couple of winters ago).
The fix is more coal fired power, because the 'green' alternatives are falling well short of requirements for reliability and quantity.
 
  • #472
mPower empowered by SMR funds
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-mPower_empowered_by_SMR_funds_121112a.html

Meanwhile

Alstom unveils world's longest turbine blade (for large low pressure (LP) steam turbines)
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Alstom_unveils_longest_turbine_blade-2011128.html

Also, note that Europe uses 50 Hz, to large turbines are usually 1500 RPM (although some are designed for 3000 rpm) rather than 1800 rpm used in 60 Hz systems.

In 3000 rpm turbines, the last stage blade length is on the order of 1.35 m
http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/mediablob/en/247554/data/235582/1/rwe-power-ag/nuclear-power/blob.pdf
 
  • #473
I have done work on the ALSTOM HP and LP coolers used in the GT-24 and GT-26 gas turbines. Lots of ASME code calcs ...
 
  • #474
Bethlehem-based Lehigh Heavy Forge Corp. teaming with N.C. company to make nuclear reactors
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf/2012/11/lehigh_valley_forge_teaming_wi.html
Bethlehem-based Lehigh Heavy Forge Corp. expects to add 100 jobs over the next 10 years through a partnership announced today with a North Carolina nuclear technology company.

The South Side foundry is teaming with the Babcock & Wilcox Co. to supply forgings for a new brand of small modular reactors being developed by B&W. Officials announced the partnership at an event joined by Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett and local business and government officials.

. . . .
 
  • #475
World Nuclear Association said:
On 2 December 1942 a team of 49 scientists led by Enrico Fermi started the world's first nuclear reactor. 70 years on two of team recounted their experiences in this video.
Argonne nuclear pioneers: Chicago Pile 1
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #477
  • #478
New US Nuclear Builds

Vogtle 3 and 4 and V C Summer 2 and 3 (both twin AP1000 sites) are under construction.

Vogtle has been doing ground work for sometime.

On March 9, pouring of the basemat for Unit 2 commenced. It lasted about 50 hours as a continuous pour.

The basemat provides a foundation for the containment and auxilary buildings that are within the unit's nuclear island. Measuring 1.8 metres thick, the basemat required some 5350 cubic metres of concrete to cover an area about 76 metres by 49 metres. The concrete-pouring process took just over 50 hours and was completed at about 10.00am on 11 March.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-AP1000_construction_underway_at_Summer-1203134.html


Update: March 13, 2013

Southern Nuclear began pouring the basemat at Vogtle 3, a day after SCANA/SCE&G began the pour at Summer 2. It takes about 50 hours to pour the basemat.

http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/metro/2013-03-13/concrete-poured-new-vogtle-reactor-foundation

Southern Nuclear has begun pouring of specially designed basemat concrete for the foundation of its Unit 3 Plant Vogtle reactor, just three days after similar steps were completed at SCANA’s V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina.

http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/m...eaviest-reactor-parts-moved-plant-vogtle-site

(Jan 24) The reactor vessel head, weighing 160 tons, serves as the “lid” of the Unit 3 reactor and will be bolted to the even-larger reactor vessel body – a 300-ton component that remains in Savannah, Ga., awaiting shipment to the site aboard a specially built rail car.
 
Last edited:
  • #479
Japan signs deal with Turkey to build nuclear plant
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/04/world/europe/turkey-japan-nuclear/?iref=obinsite
(CNN) -- Turkey and Japan have agreed to a $22 billion deal to build a nuclear power plant in Turkey, the semi-official Turkish news agency Anadolu reported.
. . . .

http://www.atmea-sas.com/scripts/ATMEA/publigen/content/templates/Show.asp?P=57&L=EN

Large LWRs of Gen 3 generation are on the order of 1.1 to 1.2 GWe. ATMEA is roughly the same capacity as Westinghouse's AP-1000.
 
  • #480
Iaea inpro

The International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) was established in 2000 to help ensure that nuclear energy is available to contribute to meeting the energy needs of the 21st century in a sustainable manner. It is a mechanism for INPRO Members to collaborate on topics of joint interest. The results of INPRO's activities are being made available to all IAEA Member States.
http://www.iaea.org/inpro/
http://www.iaea.org/INPRO/about.html

INPRO Programme 2012-2013
Project 1: National Long Range Nuclear Energy Strategies
Project 2: Global Nuclear Energy Scenarios on Sustainable Nuclear Energy
Project 3: Innovations in Nuclear Technology
 
  • #481
A relatively new development in aneutronic p+B11 fusion.

. . . .
A team led by Christine Labaune, research director of the CNRS Laboratory for the Use of Intense Lasers at the Ecole Polytechnique in Palaiseau, France, used a two-laser system to fuse protons and boron-11 nuclei. One laser created a short-lived plasma, or highly ionized gas of boron nuclei, by heating boron atoms; the other laser generated a beam of protons that smashed into the boron nuclei, releasing slow-moving helium particles but no neutrons. The researchers describe their work in Nature Communications today.
. . . .
Timing was crucial for the success of the experiment, says study co-author Johann Rafelski, a theoretical physicist at the University of Arizona in Tucson. The boron plasma generated by the laser lasts only about one-billionth of a second, and so the pulse of protons, which lasts one-trillionth of a second, must be precisely synchronized to slam into the boron target. The proton beam is preceded by a beam of electrons, generated by the same laser, that pushes away electrons in the boron plasma, allowing the protons more of a chance to collide with the boron nuclei and initiate fusion.

. . .
http://www.nature.com/news/two-laser-boron-fusion-lights-the-way-to-radiation-free-energy-1.13914

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3506/full/ncomms3506.html
 
  • #482
Congratulations to the team for their successful demonstration. Are there any energy in/energy out calculations for the experiment? And a fortiriori, for a scaled up actual power producing reactor?
 
  • #483
From the abstract alone I'm not clear what contribution is made by this work at CNRS on fusion. Fusion with p+B11 has been done long ago with accelerators and targets, and beam fusion of any kind has no path to net power. Is the contribution purportedly in the use of lasers?
 
  • #484
  • #485
If everyone here will pardon my ignorance as a non-physicist, could someone please tell me why it is necessary for the B11 to be in plasma form? The protons certainly, but is there some subtle resonance that bulk boron lacks that is necessary for the nuclear fusion and subsequent fission? It is not as if the resultant He4 would form any persistent ash or poison, surely?
 
  • #486
Jon Richfield said:
If everyone here will pardon my ignorance as a non-physicist, could someone please tell me why it is necessary for the B11 to be in plasma form? The protons certainly, but is there some subtle resonance that bulk boron lacks that is necessary for the nuclear fusion and subsequent fission? It is not as if the resultant He4 would form any persistent ash or poison, surely?
It's a consequence of the process and the temperature.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #487
The Czech utility CEZ has canceled plans for 2 additional nuclear units at Temelin. The economics have changed.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-CEZ-cancels-Temelin-expansion-tender-1004144.html

One of the designs was an advanced VVER (MIR-1200 or AES-2006; ~1200 MWe gross, ~1115 MWe net), which was competing against the AREVA EPR (1600 MWe) and Toshiba/Westinghouse AP1000 (1150 MWe).

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Vendors-react-to-Czech-cancellation-2204141.html

http://www.iaea.org/INPRO/7th_Dialogue_Forum/Rosatom_1.pdf

http://www.mir1200.cz/en/design-solution/references/index.shtml
http://www.mir1200.cz/en/design-solution/main-components/reactor/index.shtml

http://www.cez.cz/en/power-plants-a...e-temelin-nuclear-power-plant/technology.html
 
  • #488
Hmmm... "The economics have changed" huh? Watch this space. Short term there is some sort of kerfuffle building up to the South East on the fringes of a lagoon off the Med that affects gas markets; there is a general fuss about carbon burning coinciding with all sorts of shutting down of nukes, there is a huge political AND technical wrangle about fracking and a lot of credibility gap about renewables...
Any bets about how often and in which directions the economics change again?
I know about the long-term directions for us to get serious (adequate) amounts of power, but there will always be politics and "economics" in the way.
 
  • #489
Some information on the evolution of BWR reactors and the ABWR.

http://www.hitachi-hgne-uk-abwr.co.uk/downloads/UKABWR-GA91-9901-0034-00001-REVA_C2a_Public.pdf
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #490
ASME said:
When the first edition of Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code appeared 50 years ago, it provided rules for three classes of pressure vessels for nuclear power plants.

This was, however, the birth of an industry, an entire supply chain that would eventually provide one-fifth of the electricity consumed annually by the United States. So it quickly became apparent that the industry needed to address many issues besides the design and construction of the reactor vessels. More guidance was needed—and welcomed—by the industry and other stakeholders.

Section III eventually grew to encompass rules governing the construction and inspection during the building of storage tanks, piping, pumps, valves, containments, and other components of nuclear power plants. The code also addresses containment systems for storage and transport packaging of spent fuel and high-level radioactive material and waste.

Read more - https://www.asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/nuclear/a-group-effort-that-grew

Topics on Nuclear Energy
https://www.asme.org/engineering-topics/nuclear-power
 

Similar threads

Radioistope Power Systems (RPS) and Pu-238
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
0
Views
575
Safe zero base reactivity level nuclear fission reactor?
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
2
Views
1K
Question about Midland Cogenerating Nuclear Power Plant
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
2
Views
2K
What Are The Economics Of Pebble Bed Reactors
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
26
Views
5K
Chernobyl loses power, spent fuel storage question #Ukraine
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
20
Views
2K
Questions about the state of nuclear power in the U.S.
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
11
Views
2K
What will be the economic purpose of modular reactors?
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
11
Views
2K
How long can nuclear plants last without power? (CME hit)
    • Nuclear Engineering
2
Replies
52
Views
7K
Nuclear fusion power plants - why is it taking so long to make them?
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
25
Views
4K
Nuclear Powered Peaker Plants?
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
13
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top