Electric cars: What do you think?

[anorlunda]

Could you expand on this just a bit?

I won't have time to make a better explanation until next week. But here's a short answer.
Uncertainty, and anomalous market behaviors (such as + or - price spikes or rumored changes in regulations) are signs of volatility. That sometimes spooks investors. Some withdraw from the markets while others postpone or cancel investments.

Reliability of the grid from an engineering point of view rests upon a foundation of a reliable set of investors willing to invest. Engineering/psychology/politics all mix to create the reality that we deal with.

 

[gmax137]

given that getting 'out of the way' of nuclear leads to sites such as Andreyeva Bay

I don't see that as "given" at all.

 

[mfb]

I feel like this is vague/isn't a complete thought and is therefore misleading. Who is the "they" that accounts for the intermittency, and how do they account for it? What does "easily accommodate the fluctuating production" really mean? What are the actual impacts of that "fluctuating production"?

Isn't it true that "fluctuating production" really means that when a solar plant goes online it reduces the production of a natural gas power plant and the cost per kWh goes up?

"they" is people who do these calculations - but as you said in the comment before, that's something that only works in grids with a small fraction of fluctuating renewables, in that case these renewables can always be sold at a market price that doesn't change much and there is nothing to adjust. As long as the number of gas power plants doesn't change it just reduces their profit, but if it leads to a larger reliance on them (or fewer gas power plants because they become less profitable) then it also leads to higher prices when the renewables are not available.

 

[member 656954]

And both the time and cost of nuclear could be reduced substantially if people would just get out of its way.

Thinking I should have just asked, who are the 'people' and what do you mean by 'out of the way', @russ_watters?

 

[epenguin]

It is good to question new tech, @neanderthalphysics, but honestly, on your superficial assessment, we'd not have moved to gas powered cars over horses (though, perhaps that would have been a good thing for us and the planet).

...

Thanks for defining most of your acronyms. I have rarely read a thread with so many, I could guess quite a lot but not all (and suspect some of them are known only in North America) making it quite hard to read. A glossary would be helpful.

 

[mfb]

Thinking I should have just asked, who are the 'people' and what do you mean by 'out of the way', @russ_watters?

I'm not Russ, but:
* Not asking for a general ban of nuclear power plants.
* Applying the same standards for everyone.

Why can coal power plants emit radioactive ash in quantities that would make nuclear power plants lose their license? Radioactivity is not even the worst part of that ash, and this doesn't even include CO2 emissions.

 

[gmax137]

I'm not Russ either, but I think this would go a long way

* Applying the same standards for everyone.

Where this really means, "apply the same standards to all of the electric generation methods."

Google around for "mortality rate by energy source" or similar search strings. Eye opening...

 

[mfb]

Google around for "mortality rate by energy source" or similar search strings. Eye opening...

How deadly is your kilowatt?

No surprise here. Coal is the most deadly. Nuclear power is last. Both in the internal comparison (including Chernobyl and Fukushima) and within the US.
Coal to nuclear power is a ratio of 1000 globally and 100,000 in the US.

 

[member 656954]

Applying the same standards for everyone.

Well, we rarely do this anywhere in life, but each method should have standards applied based on the attributes of the generation method, surely?

Is the idea that a PV plant or wind farm is as inherently risky as a Gen III/III+ nuclear reactor?

Irrespective, what standards make up the discussion of 'same'?

As for coal, I'm not defending it. Vile stuff, it kills the people digging it up directly, it kills the communities that surround the plants indirectly, and it's killing all of us via global warming slowly slowly.

Google around for "mortality rate by energy source" or similar search strings. Eye opening...

I've never argued that mortality rates from nuclear are not low (and I note that using a single global number masks the high rate in China compared to the very low rate in the USA). Nuclear fission is a terrific electrical generation power source...if only it did not create toxic, radioactive waste that will endure beyond how long our civilization is likely to last and for which we can't agree on storage methods to contain it.

 

[mfb]

Is the idea that a PV plant or wind farm is as inherently risky as a Gen III/III+ nuclear reactor?

They kill more people than nuclear reactors. At overall low levels, probably low enough to not be a deciding factor, but pointing out that nuclear reactors can kill people and ignoring that other energy sources routinely do so is a double standard. That kind of double standard kept coal power plants alive, because without it we could have switched to more nuclear power decades ago. France did it.

if only it did not create toxic, radioactive waste that will endure beyond how long our civilization is likely to last and for which we can't agree on storage methods to contain it.

PV and wind create toxic waste that will stay toxic forever. And they create more of it (per kWh). If you think toxic waste is a serious problem then you should favor nuclear power over PV in particular.

Did it become clear what "same standards" means?

 

[member 656954]

Did it become clear what "same standards" means?

Not really, but that's okay. I'm not sure we're going to see eye-to-eye on fission as a power source, and based on Gallup, neither is the nation. It is a polarizing topic and as such, is unlikely to help us address climate change because the decision making process for nuclear plants is so drawn out.

 

[essenmein]

Not really, but that's okay. I'm not sure we're going to see eye-to-eye on fission as a power source, and based on Gallup, neither is the nation. It is a polarizing topic and as such, is unlikely to help us address climate change because the decision making process for nuclear plants is so drawn out.

It would be interesting to understand why.

Based on my current understanding of the utter inadequacy of intermittent renewables, an inadequacy that is borne from natural limits, not technological limits. Russ hit on it more succinctly perhaps than I was in my posts on the matter:

"No it won't: ignoring the intermittency problem is free; addressing it costs money. When forced to start addressing it, that will make solar/wind cost more, not less. "

Given that without dramatic reduction in quality of life inttermittent renewable are not going to work, then the only thing we have left in our tool box is fission. Its something that works right now, is scalable, and has entirely manageable waste stream (using breeders), it would be multi generational waste management, but it is management nonetheless. Remember this technology exists today, and with increased support would roll out quickly.

There are 4 SMR companies in Canada alone planning to have reactors coming on line in the next few years, and that is given today's climate of irrational nuclear fear.

I found this the other day and thought it was perfect:
"The first solar powered car was built in 1955. By 1982, just 27 years later, the first solar car had crossed Australia. They are still having competitions to drive solar cars around and across Australia. Typically carrying a single person. Compare nuclear submarines. The first idea for these was in 1939. In 1951 the first one was begun. By 1960 the first one had circumnavigated the planet underwater with a crew of 170. It's amazing how solar power can have such a long and stunning record of mediocrity and failure and still find advocates!"

 

[mfb]

and based on Gallup, neither is the nation

1/3 of them would vote to ban all atoms if you would ask them. People largely oppose nuclear power because they lack the knowledge to have an educated opinion and fear what they don't understand. Ask physics majors or anyone else who understands at least the basics of what nuclear power plants do and you get overwhelming support for nuclear power.

 

[essenmein]

And advocate for chemical free food.

 

[member 656954]

1/3 of them would vote to ban all atoms if you would ask them.

Is that true

Being serious, public opinion is only a minor impediment to atomic power. The main impediment is economic. It is difficult to cite a provisioned new plant that was close to on time and budget and easy to cite numerous where budgets were blown by large amounts or construction halted entirely. I'm not naive enough to expect any capital project of such size to run exactly to budget, but the literature shows doubling or more of investment - typically funded by taxpayers - and years and even approaching decades added to the build.

The economics are unlikely to change, and may even go backward, as suggested in a recent study which challenges previous assessments of nuclear cost benefits and concludes:

"Results suggest that the optimism reflected in previous works is fragile: More realistic nuclear waste management cost models and uncertainty-appropriate intergenerational discount rates produce many more scenarios in which nuclear waste management costs are higher than previously assumed. As a consequence, nuclear energy’s economic attractiveness as a low carbon energy option is appears to be lower than earlier works suggested."​

​

I understand that small modular reactors (SMRs) are intended to change the economics, but that's unproven and even if they can, deploying them in sufficient numbers to combat climate change is increasingly unlikely because we need them provisioned in the low thousands within fifteen years (the premise is that they displace coal plants and gas peakers) which seems very optimistic.

 

[mfb]

Is that true

I don't have numbers for atoms now (although I saw a report of ~1/3 a while ago) but:
Here is someone convincing 86% of chemistry students to ban water.
A TV show seriously covered high concentrations of water found in the water.
Ban foam cups because water is used for their production?
A New Zealand MP wanted to ban water.
Finns want to ban water.
Just because it was called dihydrogen monooxide and its (very real) dangers were pointed out.

Being serious, public opinion is only a minor impediment to atomic power. The main impediment is economic. It is difficult to cite a provisioned new plant that was close to on time and budget and easy to cite numerous where budgets were blown by large amounts or construction halted entirely. I'm not naive enough to expect any capital project of such size to run exactly to budget, but the literature shows doubling or more of investment - typically funded by taxpayers - and years and even approaching decades added to the build.

If you check what caused the delays and additional costs then you'll often find new regulations, lawsuits and so on, not issues with the construction itself.

because we need them provisioned in the low thousands within fifteen years (the premise is that they displace coal plants and gas peakers) which seems very optimistic.

Where would be the bottleneck?

 

[member 656954]

If you check what caused the delays and additional costs then you'll often find new regulations, lawsuits and so on, not issues with the construction itself.

There was a study (sorry, can't immediately find it) that concluded loss of skills because of the construction drought - as in, no new nukes for so long - did significantly contribute to delays and overruns as knowledge had to be relearned. The 1.6 GWe Flamanville 3 reactor in France was startup planned for 2013. It is not yet operating, and startup was recently postponed again due to welds that needed to be repaired, which is an example of the skills issue.

But imposed regulations etc. clearly do delay nuclear reactors.

Where would be the bottleneck?

Given that there are no working Gen IV SMRs, those regulations, lawsuits and so on, are the first bottleneck. Let's assume that we have demonstrated SMRs in 2025, which means "generating utility scale electricity" somewhere in the world. There is currently about 2,024,100 MWe from coal, so if an SMR is 300 MWe (and that's on the higher end of the scale for some of the proposed designs), we need to deploy over 6,000 to replace coal. So, 600 SMRs each year for a decade (I'm assuming an SMR is economically viable in all geographies).

That is a considerable ramp up of capability for any SMR manufacturer, let alone a number of them, and it is unlikely that all regions will be equally accepting of nuclear power in that five-year time frame, so it is a 'fits and starts' adoption curve.

Also, an accident or incident will scupper the market, and given that SMRs make nuclear more accessible, the likelihood of that is higher than with fewer, larger plants.

Of course, this is all supposition. NuScale is likely to be the first SMR deployed, and that will help answer some of the questions, including that most pressing of whether an SMR makes economic sense.

 

[gmax137]

I'm not sure we're going to see eye-to-eye on fission as a power source

That's OK with me. I have been having discussions like this during my entire 40 year career in commercial nuclear. I have almost never seen anyone change their opinion. Any more, I don't really care.

If you have an interest in these things, I hope you actually do something towards making progress in whatever way you see as best. Opinions from the sidelines won't solve our problems.

 

[essenmein]

There is currently about 2,024,100 MWe from coal, so if an SMR is 300 MWe (and that's on the higher end of the scale for some of the proposed designs), we need to deploy over 6,000 to replace coal. So, 600 SMRs each year for a decade (I'm assuming an SMR is economically viable in all geographies).

You might be starting to realize the gravity of the situation. 2TWe of coal today, needs to be replaced, but that is just electricity, not TPES. Globally electricity is ~18% of TPES, so basically you can multiply the problem by 5 just due to that. You've done the math for SMR, now consider the alternative.

In the US land use per MW rated capacity of wind turbine is about 3/4 acre, or about 1.3MW/acre. Note that is rated capacity (I assume this is basically name plate capacity), so add the capacity factor in, ~37% max for all US utility scale wind power (2018), means you get about 0.5MW/acre (For reference nuclear capacity factor in US in 2018 was 93%).

To replace coal we would need to build wind turbines covering a land area of 4,000,000 acres. 1 acre = 0.004km2, so that's about 16000km2, New Hampshire (US state) for comparison is 22000km2... The largest wind turbine is rated at ~12MW name plate (Haliade-X), these are 260m high with a rotor diameter of 220m, if all are off shore, capacity factor closer to 50%, then you'd need to make 350,000 of these turbines, if land based that number is closer to half a million turbines. That is a literal mountain of non recyclable toxic composite waste from the 110m turbine blades when they end of life.

I dare say building 6000 SMR reactors is much much easier than nearly half a million wind turbines, in nearly every respect, material resources, costs, land use etc etc.

Solar is even more hilarious:
Topaz 550MW (Cali):

Area = 19km2, average capacity factor = 26.6% (2015-2018), ie average output from this 550MW solar farm is 150MW.

You need to build TWO of these solar farms to replace ONE 300MW SMR, which you could fit into a reasonable sized basement. Shutting down Diablo canyon nuke plant (2GW), 2256MW name plate capacity, 87.2% capacity factor (life time) will need 13 of these solar farms to replace that power.

Then the fact that no one talks about those very real storage costs that will need to be considered if we want a reliable grid with nearly 100% renewable. IMO its obnoxious to price wind or solar power without those storage costs, its basically a classic bait and switch scam.

 

[Rive]

Then the fact that no one talks about those very real storage costs that will need to be considered if we want a reliable grid with nearly 100% renewable. IMO its obnoxious to price wind or solar power without those storage costs, its basically a classic bait and switch scam.

Well.

I think that the very active silence around the costs associated with intermittency (without storage even mentined) just alone is a scam, so we might need some more accurate words to express what that storage would be.

 

[gmax137]

we might need some more accurate words to express what that storage would be.

"storage" what storage? there is no storage today. there is the burning of "safe clean natural" gas.

 

[essenmein]

I don't have numbers for atoms now (although I saw a report of ~1/3 a while ago) but:
Here is someone convincing 86% of chemistry students to ban water.

The DHMO thing is absolute perfection:
"for those who have developed a dependency on DHMO, complete withdrawal means certain death."

Now have to clean up coffee.

 

[mfb]

"storage" what storage? there is no storage today. there is the burning of "safe clean natural" gas.

There is hydro, but it can't handle the demands of a grid that relies mainly on renewables. A few places like Iceland and Norway are an exception.

 

[gmax137]

interesting reading:

"Most pumped storage electricity generators in the U.S. were built in the 1970s...

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41833

 

[russ_watters]

Thinking I should have just asked, who are the 'people' and what do you mean by 'out of the way', @russ_watters?

Took me a few days to write this...

Some of the answer to that is a bit tough because the anti-nuclear movement in the 60s-80s was so successful that more nuclear plants were canceled over that time than are in service altogether in the US (about 100) and the industry came to a standstill. So we don't have much in the way of modern examples to cite specifically. But the usual methods of obstruction are via lawsuits, protests, and politicking. Politicians can simply have their underlings sit on applications and bury them (more on that later...). These sorts of issues aren't unique to nuclear power, but are the worst with nuclear power.

I live about 5 miles from the Limerick, PA nuclear plant, which I believe was the last to go online before a 25 year haitus. The site was originally chosen in 1969, lawsuits and protests delayed the construciton start until 1974, and the first reactor was finished and went online in 1984. So of the roughly 15 years from announcement to startup for the first reactor, 6 years were spent fighting political battles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerick_Generating_Station#History

My understanding is that none of the half dozen new reactors started or under construction in the new mini-resurgence are new plants, but are new reactors already partly approved decades ago for construction at existing plants, making the process a bit speedier.

Anyway, though, there is one big, specific one:

Nuclear waste. Most people don't even know, but the nuclear waste issue has been settled from a legal standpoint since 2002. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 set out the procedure for selecting, studying, funding and constructing the facility. The Yucca Mountain site was chosen and written into the law in 1987 and after a challenge process by Nevada (also written into the law), it was designated to be developed and constructed in 2002. Since then, not much has happened but obstruction.

Probably the most significant obstuction was from the Obama administration, who simply said he wasn't going to do it, and instructed the DOE to stop developing it, which they did. This worked for 5 years, until he lost two lawsuits, one that ordered him to restart the program as required by the law and the other to stop the government from collecting money from nuclear plant owners to fund it, until the government started meeting their legal obligation to build it (both cases decided in 2013). The funding paid for with that rate surcharge amounts to about $600 million per reactor!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository#Opposition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Policy_Act
https://apnews.com/94f66f6e350f41e4b0656de6cc042427

These delays/uncertainty have led to basically all nuclear plants in the US developing and implementing their own contingencies for mid-term (decades to potentially centuries) of on-site storage, costing them additional tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. That requires its own permitting and also dissuades investors from funding the construction of new plants.

2. Governments can simply declare they don't want nuclear power, in particular California:

The last remaining nuclear power plant in California will begin shutting down operations in six years after state regulators Thursday unanimously approved a plan outlining details of the closure.

“We chart a new energy future by phasing out nuclear power here in California,” California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Picker said before the 5-0 vote to shut down the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County. “We agree the time has come.”

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...diablocanyon-shutdownvote-20180111-story.html
https://www.vox.com/2016/6/21/11989030/diablo-canyon-nuclear-close

See also; Germany. Nuclear plants require permits to operate, and governments can simply decline to renew them or revoke them.

Also, while I said "get out of the way", others noted a non-level playing field whereby other sources of energy are heavily incentivized. Since money is a finite thing, and they are all part of one big market, that can be viewed as indirect interference against nuclear power. To be a bit more specific, many states now have financial incentives provided for "renewable" energy which isn't quite the same as "Carbon free electricity". The difference is specifically the exclusion of nuclear power.
https://energynews.us/2015/02/06/midwest/why-the-nuclear-industry-targets-renewables-instead-of-gas/

That article is written with an anti-nuclear spin, but it's pretty funny to read the advocates claim hypocrisy in nuclear owners wanting subsidies. They are absolutely correct about the nuts and bolts of the issue: natural gas is really cheap even without subsidies, solar and wind get subsidies to help them compete, and nuclear doesn't get subsidies which makes it hard for them to complete. But they have no answer for why nuclear shouldn't get the same carbon-free subsidies except..."hypocrisy"! (...because plant owners are capitalists and shouldn't want subsidies?)

 

[russ_watters]

"they" is people who do these calculations - but as you said in the comment before, that's something that only works in grids with a small fraction of fluctuating renewables, in that case these renewables can always be sold at a market price that doesn't change much and there is nothing to adjust. As long as the number of gas power plants doesn't change it just reduces their profit, but if it leads to a larger reliance on them (or fewer gas power plants because they become less profitable) then it also leads to higher prices when the renewables are not available.

Ok, I guess we're not that far apart here. What I wonder/hope is that "they" are calculating the impact at higher percentages of renewables, since the impact rises with higher penetration. The impact is small with small percentages, but it gets much higher with higher percentages, and both gas and solar itself will feel that impact. I wonder if they calculate their economics based on what they see today or what they predict the solar production rate will be in 10+ years.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, we rarely do this anywhere in life, but each method should have standards applied based on the attributes of the generation method, surely?

Where the goals overlap the standards should be the same, surely? What is our end goal, here? Is it "less carbon emissions" or just "no nukes"? If it's "less carbon emissions" then nuclear power should be massively subsidized like solar and wind, right? Otherwise, what are we doing here?

I'm not sure we're going to see eye-to-eye on fission as a power source, and based on Gallup, neither is the nation. It is a polarizing topic and as such, is unlikely to help us address climate change because the decision making process for nuclear plants is so drawn out.

A couple of things:

1. By mission, here at PF, we are above public opinion considerations. We're quite simply better than that -- and if we're not going to be, who is? The public needs sober, scientific and unrestrained economic analysis to help it make good decisions about what to support. So it's your choice: do you want to mold your opinion to and then vote for what the masses believe or do you want to educate yourself about what makes the most sense when studied scientifically?

2. Whether you believe it or not, your position is basically accepting that we're doomed*. Because without nuclear, we can't meet our climate change goals (note: nuclear alone isn't enough, but it is a requirement). So, what is it you want? Do you want to fix climate change or not?

*Or maybe worse, it's closing your eyes and putting the pedal to the floor and hoping you don't crash.

 

[russ_watters]

Being serious, public opinion is only a minor impediment to atomic power. The main impediment is economic. It is difficult to cite a provisioned new plant that was close to on time and budget and easy to cite numerous where budgets were blown by large amounts or construction halted entirely.

Let's pretend that the two issues aren't the same single issue. What do we do about it? Why don't we have the federal and state governments just write every major power provider in the US a $3 billion check to build a nuclear plant, like we do for solar and wind plants?

The economic issue is an entirely solvable choice both on the front end and the back end.

...typically funded by taxpayers...

Nope. That's a false-myth about nuclear power. Nuclear plants are nearly 100% privately funded, including fully funding of the waste handling (in some cases as I mentioned above double-funding of the waste handling).

There was a study (sorry, can't immediately find it) that concluded loss of skills because of the construction drought - as in, no new nukes for so long - did significantly contribute to delays and overruns as knowledge had to be relearned. The 1.6 GWe Flamanville 3 reactor in France was startup planned for 2013.

I'm not sure if you realize, but you are arguing against your point there. The loss of skills issue is very real and the way to rebuild skills is more practice. As such, nuclear plants should get cheaper and their construction itself smoother if we build more of them, closer together in time.

 

[russ_watters]

That's OK with me. I have been having discussions like this during my entire 40 year career in commercial nuclear. I have almost never seen anyone change their opinion. Any more, I don't really care.

I've only been having the argument for 20, and as dismaying it is, the main upside is getting to say "If you'd have listened to me 20 years ago..."

[for example]
...California and Germany would already have carbon-free grids:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...ld-already-have-100-clean-power/#3606d789e0d4

 

[Vanadium 50]

Politicians can simply have their underlings sit on applications and bury them

Eeekk!

Oh wait...sorry... pronoun trouble.