Nuclear energy: for or against?

[jim hardy]

PV costs: "For large-scale installations, prices below $1.00/watt were achieved. A module price of 0.60 Euro/watt ($0.78/watt) was published for a large scale 5-year deal in April 2012."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but construction of a gagawatt nuclear plant costs far more than $1B.

I don't think you're wrong. In late 60's I saw one built for $120 million.
By late 70's that had escalated to ~ 1 billion. Our CEO said of the regulatory environment: "I can't gamble the entire net worth of the company on a plant I may not even be able to run." He went back to coal.

Last I heard the figure was in the $5B range.

No, they don't have to surround cities. A HDVC transmission line can transmit gigawatts of electricity over a link of more than one thousand miles.

Ahhhh but I did say practical...
Let's take that for a thought experiment.
Pick a 150 km square in Arizona and cover it with solar cells. In fact make it 200 km square so there's room between panels for lighting and ventilation of the work area underneath them.
And build those transmission lines to NYC, Miami, LA and Seattle.
From around 8AM to 6PM Mountain time there'll be solar electricity available.
So the steam plants can cut back but must remain warm and spinning at perhaps 20% power, ready to pick up load as the sun goes down in Arizona. What have we saved? A lot of coal, but we haven't displaced existing infrastructure we've doubled it.

OM and I bounced around some similar ideas in another thread. My personal leaning is away from centralization toward local economizing , to achieve the same savings of coal. It'd make people feel involved and empowered if they were to maintain their own rooftop collectors.

 

[atyy]

He left thorium for us as well, and between them we've enough fissile fuel in the crust of the Earth to keep present lifestyle perhaps another 500 years.
By that time somebody should have fusion figured out.

Maybe they'll have quantum computers too!

 

[jim hardy]

Maybe they'll have quantum computers too!

they'll doubtless use base e arithmetic.

 

[russ_watters]

PV costs: "For large-scale installations, prices below $1.00/watt were achieved. A module price of 0.60 Euro/watt ($0.78/watt) was published for a large scale 5-year deal in April 2012."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but construction of a gagawatt nuclear plant costs far more than $1B.

Where did you get that, the wiki? It also says this:

The less solar power costs, the more favorably it compares to conventional power, and the more attractive it becomes to utilities and energy users around the globe. Utility-scale solar power can now be delivered in California at prices well below $100/MWh ($0.10/kWh) less than most other peak generators, even those running on low-cost natural gas.

In other words, at peak times when electricity is at its most expensive, solar power is starting to become competitive. That's nice, but that does not equate to replacing the base load power, only the peaking power.

In any case, the error you made is that that's just the cost of the cells themselves, not the cost of the plant, nor have you properly compared it to the cost of a nuclear plant, which runs 24/7. After you've calculated the installed cost per watt, you need to multiply the cost by 6 to equal the energy generation of a nuclear plant. Ie, 1 watt of nuclear power gives you about 8000 watt-hours of electricity per year. 1 watt of solar power gives you about 1400.

In real-life, solar plants have not fared well economically, except in cases where the peak cost of electricity is very high or the infrastructure cost of running wires is so high it makes sense to just use solar not not run wires. But oops - you want to run transmission cables thousands of miles, so that benefit actually becomes a liability.

 

[Chronos]

It's unfortunate we have not heard more about the latest generation of nuclear reactors - pebble bed reactors. They are immune to nightmarish melt down scenarios, inexpensive to build and scalable. They can be safely located near heavy demand areas, occupy little real estate, and are highly efficient.

 

[nikkkom]

I am not seriously proposing that US should be completely switched to solar power. I think we need to use a mix of generation technologies, _including nuclear_.

I responded to argument that "renewables aren't competitive", which is not true.

 

[jim hardy]

I think we need to use a mix of generation technologies, _including nuclear_.

I completely agree.

 

[atyy]

It's unfortunate we have not heard more about the latest generation of nuclear reactors - pebble bed reactors. They are immune to nightmarish melt down scenarios, inexpensive to build and scalable. They can be safely located near heavy demand areas, occupy little real estate, and are highly efficient.

How close to a heavy demand area can it be located? Could it be put in a residential area? Has anyone built one yet?

 

[russ_watters]

How close to a heavy demand area can it be located? Could it be put in a residential area?

I don't see how those are relevant questions: nuclear power plants are already located in residential areas and near major cities. I live near Limerick (Pa) station, which is in a well populated suburb of Philly.

 

[mheslep]

PV costs: "For large-scale installations, prices below $1.00/watt were achieved. A module price of 0.60 Euro/watt ($0.78/watt) was published for a large scale 5-year deal in April 2012."

The *installed* cost of solar power has been slower to drop and resides several times higher than $1/Watt. That is, the price of the panels themselves could go to zero and after installation solar would still be marginally competitive with the cheapest traditional sources.

And the above still does not include the cost of any backup system to include the cost of keeping some gas fired electric plant ready but idle while solar power is performing.

 

[nikkkom]

It's unfortunate we have not heard more about the latest generation of nuclear reactors - pebble bed reactors. They are immune to nightmarish melt down scenarios

Pebble bed reactors are not immune to meltdowns.
To be significantly more resistant to meltdowns than current reactors, reactor needs to continually get rid of fission products (what LFTRs are planning to do).

inexpensive to build

Remains to be seen...

 

[atyy]

I don't see how those are relevant questions: nuclear power plants are already located in residential areas and near major cities. I live near Limerick (Pa) station, which is in a well populated suburb of Philly.

What then was Chronos referring to when he mentioned pebble bed reactors being sited near heavy demand areas as an advantage?

 

[russ_watters]

What then was Chronos referring to when he mentioned pebble bed reactors being sited near heavy demand areas as an advantage?

Dunno, could be a political issue.

 

[Thermalne]

Pebble bed reactors are not immune to meltdowns.
To be significantly more resistant to meltdowns than current reactors, reactor needs to continually get rid of fission products (what LFTRs are planning to do).



Remains to be seen...

The point is... there are many Gen4 or "innovative" designs that have pros and cons that would be useful to use for various reasons. We should build a mixture of reactors (except anything with a positive reactivity coefficient) that are more passively safe than current light water reactors (They are still really freaking safe). Also, there are plenty of ways to make light water reactors passively safe (and not dependent on offsite or onsite power to cool the reactor) and that's how futures ones should be built.

Also, Pebble Bed reactors are cool, but so are molten salt and liquid metal reactors and high temperature gas reactors too!

Also relevant: http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_po...e-technology-for-doe-funding-opportunity.aspx

 

[RobinSky]

This might be a retarded question, if so please forgive me I have no knowledge in nuclear physics.
But is it possible to use the nuclear waste as some kind of fuel? If not, is it impossible due to laws of physics or just mainly due to impractical reasons? For me as a novice, the radiation from the nuclear waste is radiating energy, and if it was possible to use that radiation as some kind of fuel, it would be a cool idea.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Thermalne]

This might be a retarded question, if so please forgive me I have no knowledge in nuclear physics.
But is it possible to use the nuclear waste as some kind of fuel? If not, is it impossible due to laws of physics or just mainly due to impractical reasons? For me as a novice, the radiation from the nuclear waste is radiating energy, and if it was possible to use that radiation as some kind of fuel, it would be a cool idea.

Thanks in advance.

Most nuclear "waste" (i.e. used fuel) has only had about 2-3% its potential energy used. Fuel recycling (France does this) and some reactor designs use or recycle previously used fuel.

See: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Fuel-Recycling/Processing-of-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/#.UfWG9Y1kxJQ and http://www.nei.org/Key-Issues/Nuclear-Waste-Disposal/Recycling-Used-Nuclear-Fuel

Very good question. I'm glad you asked.

 

[RobinSky]

Most nuclear "waste" (i.e. used fuel) has only had about 2-3% its potential energy used. Fuel recycling (France does this) and some reactor designs use or recycle previously used fuel.

See: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Fuel-Recycling/Processing-of-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/#.UfWG9Y1kxJQ and http://www.nei.org/Key-Issues/Nuclear-Waste-Disposal/Recycling-Used-Nuclear-Fuel

Very good question. I'm glad you asked.

Cool, thanks for the good links! I had no idea about this, and that so little energy is used of the fuel really suprised me. Is there any limit set by nature from the energy we can get from our nuclear fuel? Something like Bet'z law but for nuclear fuel.

/Robin

 

[BruceW]

I think that Iron is the lightest element that you could keep doing fission on to get energy (in a theoretical sense). For lighter elements, if you continue to do fission, you have to put in more energy than you get out. So in principle, you could do fission repeatedly on some nuclear fuel (and its daughter atoms), until you are left with Iron. But of course, there are reasons that we do not do this. I guess you could call them 'practicality reasons'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fissile

 

[RobinSky]

But what limits us from not "extracting" more than just 2-3% of the energy? Is it limits set by nature or are the reasons because it's hard with current technology? This is very interesting!

 

[gmax137]

Many of the fission products are good neutron absorbers. With time the fission products build up and absorb more and more neutrons. So, there are fewer and fewer neutrons available to maintain the chain reaction.

You could take the fuel out of the core and process the material to remove the fission products and then re-use the uranium to make new fuel. This "re-processing" is not done here in the US.

 

[BruceW]

But what limits us from not "extracting" more than just 2-3% of the energy? Is it limits set by nature or are the reasons because it's hard with current technology? This is very interesting!

It is hard with current technology. Given the right conditions, fission of lighter elements could produce heat. But making those conditions would probably cost more. Remember that we are here on earth, which is a certain temperature and pressure, and with a certain proportion of elements.

 

[African Rover]

I am not seriously proposing that US should be completely switched to solar power. I think we need to use a mix of generation technologies, _including nuclear_.

I responded to argument that "renewables aren't competitive", which is not true.

I think renewables are not competitive. Germans have to pay a levy of more than 6 cents (Euro)per kWh, just to support renewables. Canadians produce nuclear electricity for about half that amount.
Solar power is particularly expensive. The cost per kW is irrelevant, count the cost per kWh. Add the cost of a storage system and, or, add the cost of a backup power plant. Why build a renewable power plant if you have to back it up anyway with a conventional power plant? The electricity storage system that is really proven is the pumped storage scheme. But you need the space and the right geology for that. The damage to the environment is about the same as strip mining.
At the moment the U.K. is set to pay about 90-95 pounds per MWh for new nuclear energy. But for wind they are paying 130 pounds.
If you have an insight as to how that makes renewables cheaper please let me know.

 

[African Rover]

that's why they oppose fission and fusion?!? You mean that they are worried their funding will be given to nuclear power projects instead?

Not quite, environmentalists are funded by the oil and gas lobby.

 

[nikkkom]

Solar power is particularly expensive. The cost per kW is irrelevant, count the cost per kWh.

Keep saying that, maybe you will even start believing it.
Market data says otherwise.

Solar power's cost goes down 20% with each doubling of production capacity. And the production capacity is nowhere near market saturation. Ergo, solar cells are going to become more than twice as cheap at today.

BTW, got any plans how to stop those pesky engineers from finding ways to manufacture cheaper and/or more efficient solar cells?

Add the cost of a storage system and, or, add the cost of a backup power plant.

In Sahara, you hardly ever need a backup.

 

[etudiant]

Keep saying that, maybe you will even start believing it.
Market data says otherwise.

Solar power's cost goes down 20% with each doubling of production capacity. And the production capacity is nowhere near market saturation. Ergo, solar cells are going to become more than twice as cheap at today.

BTW, got any plans how to stop those pesky engineers from finding ways to manufacture cheaper and/or more efficient solar cells?



In Sahara, you hardly ever need a backup.

Nighttime is an issue, even in the Sahara. Backup remains essential.
Also, the steady decline in solar panel prices has not been mirrored by similar declines in installation and integration costs, so the overall improvements are much slower.
Still, I agree that solar has much more potential than wind turbines, huge contraptions stuffed with ultra precision mechanical parts that are about as durable as one would expect them to be.
When the subsidies run out, the turbines will break down long before the solar systems.

 

[nikkkom]

Nighttime is an issue, even in the Sahara.

Nighttime is not a peak load time.

 

[jadair1]

I think renewables are not competitive. Germans have to pay a levy of more than 6 cents (Euro)per kWh, just to support renewables. Canadians produce nuclear electricity for about half that amount.
Solar power is particularly expensive. The cost per kW is irrelevant, count the cost per kWh. Add the cost of a storage system and, or, add the cost of a backup power plant. Why build a renewable power plant if you have to back it up anyway with a conventional power plant? The electricity storage system that is really proven is the pumped storage scheme. But you need the space and the right geology for that. The damage to the environment is about the same as strip mining.
At the moment the U.K. is set to pay about 90-95 pounds per MWh for new nuclear energy. But for wind they are paying 130 pounds.
If you have an insight as to how that makes renewables cheaper please let me know.

A question, how long does it take to decommisson a Nuclear Plant after it is permantely shut down?

Let's use the San Onofre or Vermont Yankee NPP's as examples.

How long will the spent fuel need to be cooled and how much energy will that take?

What will it cost to store the radioactive waste for the thousands of years it will be dangerous?

How radioactive are the containment vessels etc and what will it cost to decontaminate them and disasemble them or do we just let them sit there for hundreds of thousands of years? In Canada we allow the facility to be placed in "safe storage" so no work needs to be done for 50 years or more after shutdown.

I believe the promise of Nuclear energy being "to cheap to meter" when it was first proposed did not take any of these things into account.

If these costs are factored into the price of the power I think Nuclear Power is to expensive to produce without massive government subsides and that doesn't even factor in the economic cost of a Chernoble or Fukushima type disaster!

I used to be a proponent of nuclear power but I am no longer, I have gone to the dark side.

 

[gmax137]

... The cost per kW is irrelevant, count the cost per kWh ...

Of course it is relevant. Otherwise your very next words make no sense:

... Add the cost of a storage system and, or, add the cost of a backup power plant. Why build a renewable power plant if you have to back it up anyway with a conventional power plant?

...
I believe the promise of Nuclear energy being "to cheap to meter" when it was first proposed did not take any of these things into account.

You might want to look into the source of that quote more closely. Lewis Strauss (a business man and AEC commissioner) was talking about fusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Strauss
A hundred years from now, people may be using that quote as an example of brilliant foresight ("they laughed at Strauss..."). Or maybe not. The point is, it had nothing to do with fission technology.

... If these costs are factored into the price of the power I think Nuclear Power is to expensive to produce without massive government subsides ...

Actually, those costs are taken into account, at least in the US.

And, what massive subsidies are you thinking about? Today the massive subsidies go to oil & gas, and renewables. In the 1980s - 1990s - 2000s they went to oil & gas, in the 1960s they went to oil & gas and nuclear. Do you see a pattern there?

And how do you account for the subsidy coal burning gets? We allow them to put their waste into the air we breathe. If nuclear was allowed to do that, it wouldn't have "a waste problem" either.

 

[African Rover]

In Sahara, you hardly ever need a backup.[/QUOTE]

Trust me, I traveled through it more than once, the Sahara is not in the land of the midnight sun.
No matter what time of the year it is, latest at 19.30h the sun is gone and it is dark, and in winter the temperatures drop below freezing in many areas within half an hour after sunset. I think you would want a storage or backup then.

 

[jadair1]

Of course it is relevant. Otherwise your very next words make no sense:





You might want to look into the source of that quote more closely. Lewis Strauss (a business man and AEC commissioner) was talking about fusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Strauss
A hundred years from now, people may be using that quote as an example of brilliant foresight ("they laughed at Strauss..."). Or maybe not. The point is, it had nothing to do with fission technology.




Actually, those costs are taken into account, at least in the US.

And, what massive subsidies are you thinking about? Today the massive subsidies go to oil & gas, and renewables. In the 1980s - 1990s - 2000s they went to oil & gas, in the 1960s they went to oil & gas and nuclear. Do you see a pattern there?

And how do you account for the subsidy coal burning gets? We allow them to put their waste into the air we breathe. If nuclear was allowed to do that, it wouldn't have "a waste problem" either.

Very good points about all energy soures being subsidized.

I don't think the storage and decommissioning costs are fully accounted for, yes in the design stage they are accounted for but I think the real cost are vastly understated. No different from the enviromental damage done by Fracking, deep water drilling , see BP Deewater Horizon, the tar sands or other mining operations.

The real costs are passed on to future taxpayers.

Is it possible that the cost to clean up Fukushima will be greater than all the income generated by all the NPP's in Japan combined?

I am hearing that no insurers /reinsures will underwrite new Plants without liability restrictions.

If Tepco had to pay for all the costs post Fukushima they would be completely bankrupt.