Nuclear energy hot topic once again $7 billlion seriously?

[ensabah6]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070701/ap_on_sc/rethinking_nukes

There is also fervent anti-nuke opposition waiting to be re-stoked. Jim Riccio of Greenpeace said nuclear advocates are exploiting global warming fears to try to revive an industry that's too risky to fool with.

"You have better ways to boil water," Riccio said.

" Watts Bar reservoir in Tennessee after 22 years of construction and $7 billion in costs"

I don't see how it can be cost competitive to build a $7 billion dollar plant.

 

[russ_watters]

You "don't see how it can be cost competitive" at $7 billion? That doesn't mean a whole lot except in relation to how much income it will generate from selling the electricity. So why don't you calculate it for us? Use the following info:
It has a capacity of 1167MW. Assume $.1/kWh.

Also, the thoughtless opinions of anti-technology crackpots really aren't worth anything here.

 

[Astronuc]

" Watts Bar reservoir in Tennessee after 22 years of construction and $7 billion in costs"

I don't see how it can be cost competitive to build a $7 billion dollar plant.

It isn't! But that was then - and we are now.

If the plant wasn't finished it would represent stranded costs - and it would a totally wasted investment. Unit 1 was finished, and unit 2 could be for less than starting brand new construction. Other units, e.g. Bellefonte were nearly completed and ready to start, but those were finally mothballed and then disassembled. However, that is in the past.

The cost overruns for some of the last plants, e.g. River Bend, Grand Gulf, Shoreham (mothballed then disassembled), Zimmer (cancelled), Midland (cancelled and converted to gas).

WILLIAM H. ZIMMER, OHIO, U.S.A. - The Cincinatti Gas and Electric Co. owners of the William H. Zimmer nuclear plant, announced they would try to convert the plant to coal operations. Construction started on the plant in 1972 and it was 97% completed but the NRC halted all but safety related work in 1982 and the utility company found they would have to spend another $1.5 billion (on top of $1.6 billion already spent) to satisfy Federal safety regulations and open in 1986. It will be cheaper to convert to coal.

("Financial Review" 23rd January 1984)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921377,00.html

Some of the huge cost overruns were related to delays and then retrofitting and design changes in the wake of TMI. Then a little later the fire which knocked out Browns Ferry units. Since then the industry has developed a huge amount of experience on nuclear power plant design issues and operation. That experience has been incorporated into the design of the current and next generation of plants.

New plants are expected to cost on the order of $1-2 billion, depending on capacity.

Other large costs were related to ligitation, some of that related to petitions by anti-nuclear groups.

We'll see what happens.

 

[Morbius]

I don't see how it can be cost competitive to build a $7 billion dollar plant.

ensabah,

It DOESN'T really cost $7 billion to build a nuclear power plant.

The problem is that the anti-nukes DELAY nuclear power plants that have been
approved for construction.

This draws out the construction process. The utility BORROWS the money to build the
plant. It has to pay the interest and carrying charges as the plant is being built. The
plant doesn't start earning its keep until it is finished and producing power.

However, the actions of the anti-nukes DELAY the construction, and the utility ends up
borrowing the money to pay the carrying charges - and the cost the the construction loan
escalates.

For example, construction on Watts Bar was begun in 1973. Watts Bar was completed
in 1996 - just two years shy of a quarter century to build! It doesn't take that long to
build a nuclear power plant. What takes that long is to keep fighting lawsuits brought
by the anti-nukes.

It is the height fo HYPOCISY for the idiot anti-nukes to complain about something
THEY CAUSED!

The anti-nukes have long stated that their strategy was to draw out the process to make
it too expensive.

The USA HAD a two step licensing process. If you look at building construction; it's a
one step process. Once you get approval of your building's construction permit - you
can build it. As long as you satisfy the building inspectors who make sure you comply
with the construction codes - at the end of construction - you can occupy the building.

In a nuclear plant, once the plant is built - the operating license is NOT automatic even
if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission certifies that the plant was properly built to specs.

It takes an entirely separate government action to license - an action that can be
challenged in the Courts. So the anti-nukes get a second chance to hold up the
operation of the plant - with the price of the plant escalating all the time.

That $7 Billion price tag was due to the interventions of the anti-nukes; and it is the
RANK HYPOCRISY for their mouthpieces to claim nuclear power is too expensive
when they are the ones that CAUSED IT!

Congress recognized that the anti-nukes were ABUSING the LAW they wrote; and
changed it to a one-step process.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[ensabah6]

ensabah,

It DOESN'T really cost $7 billion to build a nuclear power plant.

The problem is that the anti-nukes DELAY nuclear power plants that have been
approved for construction.

This draws out the construction process. The utility BORROWS the money to build the
plant. It has to pay the interest and carrying charges as the plant is being built. The
plant doesn't start earning its keep until it is finished and producing power.

However, the actions of the anti-nukes DELAY the construction, and the utility ends up
borrowing the money to pay the carrying charges - and the cost the the construction loan
escalates.

For example, construction on Watts Bar was begun in 1973. Watts Bar was completed
in 1996 - just two years shy of a quarter century to build! It doesn't take that long to
build a nuclear power plant. What takes that long is to keep fighting lawsuits brought
by the anti-nukes.

It is the height fo HYPOCISY for the idiot anti-nukes to complain about something
THEY CAUSED!

The anti-nukes have long stated that their strategy was to draw out the process to make
it too expensive.

The USA HAD a two step licensing process. If you look at building construction; it's a
one step process. Once you get approval of your building's construction permit - you
can build it. As long as you satisfy the building inspectors who make sure you comply
with the construction codes - at the end of construction - you can occupy the building.

In a nuclear plant, once the plant is built - the operating license is NOT automatic even
if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission certifies that the plant was properly built to specs.

It takes an entirely separate government action to license - an action that can be
challenged in the Courts. So the anti-nukes get a second chance to hold up the
operation of the plant - with the price of the plant escalating all the time.

That $7 Billion price tag was due to the interventions of the anti-nukes; and it is the
RANK HYPOCRISY for their mouthpieces to claim nuclear power is too expensive
when they are the ones that CAUSED IT!

Congress recognized that the anti-nukes were ABUSING the LAW they wrote; and
changed it to a one-step process.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

I agree that it is hypocrisy. Still, since greenies can do this, their action should be factored into any realistic projection of cost overruns.

 

[ensabah6]

It isn't! But that was then - and we are now.

If the plant wasn't finished it would represent stranded costs - and it would a totally wasted investment. Unit 1 was finished, and unit 2 could be for less than starting brand new construction. Other units, e.g. Bellefonte were nearly completed and ready to start, but those were finally mothballed and then disassembled. However, that is in the past.

The cost overruns for some of the last plants, e.g. River Bend, Grand Gulf, Shoreham (mothballed then disassembled), Zimmer (cancelled), Midland (cancelled and converted to gas).

("Financial Review" 23rd January 1984)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921377,00.html

Some of the huge cost overruns were related to delays and then retrofitting and design changes in the wake of TMI. Then a little later the fire which knocked out Browns Ferry units. Since then the industry has developed a huge amount of experience on nuclear power plant design issues and operation. That experience has been incorporated into the design of the current and next generation of plants.

New plants are expected to cost on the order of $1-2 billion, depending on capacity.

Other large costs were related to ligitation, some of that related to petitions by anti-nuclear groups.

We'll see what happens.

Is $1 billion for light water nukes? What are the next generation nukes that can be built?

 

[Morbius]

I agree that it is hypocrisy. Still, since greenies can do this, their action should be factored into any realistic projection of cost overruns.

ensabah,

It's hard to factor in something you don't know.

Additionally, Watts Bar was an especially attractive target for the anti-nukes.

The USA's nuclear weapons employ tritium as part of their constituent materials. Tritium
is the "heavy-heavy" form of Hydrogen - H3 - and is radioactive with a 12 year half life.

Because it decays, tritium in the USA's nuclear weapons needs to be replenished with
freshly made tritium, which requires a nuclear reactor. Until about 1988, the USA
operated a fleet of heavy water reactors at its Savannah River site in Aiken, South
Carolina. However, in 1988; the last of these reactors was shutdown. The USA
had to rely for many years on its already made inventory of Tritium to replenish its
weaponry.

The Clinton Administration decided that a US Government-owned commercial power
reactor would be used as the irradiation source for production of new Tritium. The
reactor chosen was Watts Bar which is owned by the TVA - the Tennessee Valley
Authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Generating_Station

http://www.tva.gov/news/tritium.htm

Watts Bar also faced particularly aggressive challenges and a whole new set of legal
issues because it was UNIQUE among nuclear power reactors, since it is the ONLY
one that also has a role in the USA nuclear weapons program. [ TVA's Sequoyah
nuclear power plant was also selected; but, to my most recent knowledge; has not
actually produced tritium, it's in a "stand-by" phase.]

Not only could the anti-nukes shutdown the operation of a nuclear reactor; they could
also throw a monkey-wrench into the maintenance of the USA's strategic nuclear
deterrent.

Courtesy of ABC News KGO Radio in San Francisco, the current estimates of
electricity costs by generation technology:

http://www.kgoam810.com/viewentry.asp?ID=361055&PT=PERSONALITIES

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[ensabah6]

ensabah,

It's hard to factor in something you don't know.

Additionally, Watts Bar was an especially attractive target for the anti-nukes.

The USA's nuclear weapons employ tritium as part of their constituent materials. Tritium
is the "heavy-heavy" form of Hydrogen - H3 - and is radioactive with a 12 year half life.

Because it decays, tritium in the USA's nuclear weapons needs to be replenished with
freshly made tritium, which requires a nuclear reactor. Until about 1988, the USA
operated a fleet of heavy water reactors at its Savannah River site in Aiken, South
Carolina. However, in 1988; the last of these reactors was shutdown. The USA
had to rely for many years on its already made inventory of Tritium to replenish its
weaponry.

The Clinton Administration decided that a US Government-owned commercial power
reactor would be used as the irradiation source for production of new Tritium. The
reactor chosen was Watts Bar which is owned by the TVA - the Tennessee Valley
Authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Generating_Station

http://www.tva.gov/news/tritium.htm

Watts Bar also faced particularly aggressive challenges and a whole new set of legal
issues because it was UNIQUE among nuclear power reactors, since it is the ONLY
one that also has a role in the USA nuclear weapons program. [ TVA's Sequoyah
nuclear power plant was also selected; but, to my most recent knowledge; has not
actually produced tritium, it's in a "stand-by" phase.]

Not only could the anti-nukes shutdown the operation of a nuclear reactor; they could
also throw a monkey-wrench into the maintenance of the USA's strategic nuclear
deterrent.

Courtesy of ABC News KGO Radio in San Francisco, the current estimates of
electricity costs by generation technology:

http://www.kgoam810.com/viewentry.asp?ID=361055&PT=PERSONALITIES

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Thanks for sharing this with me, if new reactor plants were built tomorrow, what reactor design would you favor, based on an informed view? lightwater still?

 

[Astronuc]

Thanks for sharing this with me, if new reactor plants were built tomorrow, what reactor design would you favor, based on an informed view? lightwater still?

Plans on the books are for advanced LWRs at the moment - about 30 or so - in the US at least. ABWRs have been built and two are being completed in Taiwan now. EPRs are being built, but there are already delays and some technical issues to be resolved. AP-1000 and ESBWR are still in design stages and in the approval process at the NRC.

It has to be LWR because GenVI concepts are not ready, and probably won't be for a decade or more.

 

[ensabah6]

Plans on the books are for advanced LWRs at the moment - about 30 or so - in the US at least. ABWRs have been built and two are being completed in Taiwan now. EPRs are being built, but there are already delays and some technical issues to be resolved. AP-1000 and ESBWR are still in design stages and in the approval process at the NRC.

It has to be LWR because GenVI concepts are not ready, and probably won't be for a decade or more.

Oh okay. What about pebble bed reactors?

 

[Morbius]

Thanks for sharing this with me, if new reactor plants were built tomorrow, what reactor design would you favor, based on an informed view? lightwater still?

ensabah,

Yes - lightwater reactors do enjoy the most mature development. However, I recently
attended the meeting of the Mathematics and Computation Division of the American
Nuclear Society in Monterey in April.

The plenary talk on the "Global Nuclear Energy Partnership [ GNEP ]" was given by
Dennis Spurgeon of the U.S. Dept. of Energy. In addition to a fleet of advanced lightwater
reactors, the GNEP plans also envision that the fleet also include some "actinide burner"
reactors to deal with nuclear waste - to "burn up" the long-lived isotopes, in order to make
ultimate disposal easier.

For that function, I would suggest a reactor design that I worked on 20+ years ago when
I was on the staff of Argonne National Laboratory. The reactor is called the Integral
Fast Reactor or IFR. The leader of the project was the then Associate Director of
Argonne, Dr. Charles Till. Dr. Till gave an interview to the PBS series "Frontline" about
a decade ago when Frontline did a program on nuclear power:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

Oh okay. What about pebble bed reactors?

ensabah,

I'm less sanguine about pebble bed reactors after attending the Monterey M&C Division
conference in April. There were several talks about pebble bed reactors. These
reactors present some interesting challenges in terms of calculating the operation of the
reactor - because they are stochastic. That is - you don't really know where all the pebbles
are at any given time - there's a random distribution coded into the reactor simulation
programs to account for this.

I'd just feel more comfortable if I didn't have to "guess" what the configuration and
operating parameters of the reactor were. I prefer a more deterministic approach.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[ensabah6]

ensabah,

Yes - lightwater reactors do enjoy the most mature development. However, I recently
attended the meeting of the Mathematics and Computation Division of the American
Nuclear Society in Monterey in April.

The plenary talk on the "Global Nuclear Energy Partnership [ GNEP ]" was given by
Dennis Spurgeon of the U.S. Dept. of Energy. In addition to a fleet of advanced lightwater
reactors, the GNEP plans also envision that the fleet also include some "actinide burner"
reactors to deal with nuclear waste - to "burn up" the long-lived isotopes, in order to make
ultimate disposal easier.

For that function, I would suggest a reactor design that I worked on 20+ years ago when
I was on the staff of Argonne National Laboratory. The reactor is called the Integral
Fast Reactor or IFR. The leader of the project was the then Associate Director of
Argonne, Dr. Charles Till. Dr. Till gave an interview to the PBS series "Frontline" about
a decade ago when Frontline did a program on nuclear power:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

So in the near future it will be LWR, how soon can IFR designs come online?

 

[ensabah6]

ensabah,

I'm less sanguine about pebble bed reactors after attending the Monterey M&C Division
conference in April. There were several talks about pebble bed reactors. These
reactors present some interesting challenges in terms of calculating the operation of the
reactor - because they are stochastic. That is - you don't really know where all the pebbles
are at any given time - there's a random distribution coded into the reactor simulation
programs to account for this.

I'd just feel more comfortable if I didn't have to "guess" what the configuration and
operating parameters of the reactor were. I prefer a more deterministic approach.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

I did not know that. I've heard of claims that those pebbles are highly flammable and that they can jam.

 

[Morbius]

So in the near future it will be LWR, how soon can IFR designs come online?

ensabah6,

Argonne had a working prototype of the IFR reactor by modifying EBR-II; the Experimental
Breeder Reactor II at the Argonne-West site in Idaho. Argonne also demonstrated the
reprocessing system by modification of the Hot Fuel Examination Facility - South that
adjoins the EBR-II reactor site.

Dr. Till refers to the working prototype in the Frontline interview; which actually took
place in the control room of the IFR prototype.

The IFR concept is about as advanced as any of the "next generation" reactor designs.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

I did not know that. I've heard of claims that those pebbles are highly flammable and that they can jam.

ensabah6,

I wouldn't say "highly" flammable - which is a term I would reserve for gasoline, and
charcoal lighter fluid.

I would say "flammable" - they are essentially "charcoal briquettes".

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[ensabah6]

ensabah6,

Argonne had a working prototype of the IFR reactor by modifying EBR-II; the Experimental
Breeder Reactor II at the Argonne-West site in Idaho. Argonne also demonstrated the
reprocessing system by modification of the Hot Fuel Examination Facility - South that
adjoins the EBR-II reactor site.

Dr. Till refers to the working prototype in the Frontline interview; which actually took
place in the control room of the IFR prototype.

The IFR concept is about as advanced as any of the "next generation" reactor designs.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Do you think IFR are the best possible design reactors, given humanity's need for safe, clean energy with little toxic long term waste?

I know there is a lag time from the blueprints to construction to going online,
but why do they say 4th generation nuclear reactors will take 2030 to be online?

I don't think the LHC took that long!

 

[Morbius]

Do you think IFR are the best possible design reactors, given humanity's need for safe, clean energy with little toxic long term waste?

ensabah,

I think it is a design that is worthy of serious consideration.

I believe the inclusion of a number of "actinide burner" reactors is being considered
by the Dept. of Energy. The IFR would certainly be a candidate. I wouldn't want to
pick a particular design without studying all the possibilities.

However, one can certainly read about the advantages of the Integral Fast Reactor
in the Frontline interview with Argonnne's Dr. Charles Till:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[ensabah6]

ensabah,

I think it is a design that is worthy of serious consideration.

I believe the inclusion of a number of "actinide burner" reactors is being considered
by the Dept. of Energy. The IFR would certainly be a candidate. I wouldn't want to
pick a particular design without studying all the possibilities.

However, one can certainly read about the advantages of the Integral Fast Reactor
in the Frontline interview with Argonnne's Dr. Charles Till:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Do you favor actinide burner reactors, or for that matter, what type of design would you like to see implemented in the world.

 

[Morbius]

Do you favor actinide burner reactors, or for that matter, what type of design would you like to see implemented in the world.

ensabah,

You don't need all your reactors to be actinide burners.

The current vision under GNEP is that there will be a handful of
actinide burner reactors; and the rest of the fleet will be other
forms of advanced reactors.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[ensabah6]

ensabah,

You don't need all your reactors to be actinide burners.

The current vision under GNEP is that there will be a handful of
actinide burner reactors; and the rest of the fleet will be other
forms of advanced reactors.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

So what is your vision of what type of reactors should be built in the near future?

 

[Morbius]

So what is your vision of what type of reactors should be built in the near future?

ensabah,

I'm not "placing bets" on any given technology.

I'm sure that a few IFR type reactors would go well in the mix to fulfill
the "actinide burner" role. However, there are multiple technologies and
designs - so I'm not really favoring a particular design at present.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist