Nuclear energy in USA: why only 19%

[analogdesign]

You are right, but I don't think there's a word for what you describe. It's like a "NIMBY Doughnut": in the hole in the center are where the people close to the plant who benefit from it live. Further away are people close enough to complain but not close enough to receive much economic benefit. Nevada is that way with the Yucca Mountain repository: the locals are in favor, the rest of the state against.

I'm a bit late to this, but in case you're interested, there is a word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY#BANANA).

My father (now retired) was a civil engineer specializing in water projects and built plants throughout the world. Every single water project he worked on in the USA, Canada, or Europe had to deal with lawsuits. Every. Single. One. He called the people that sued "BANANAs", for "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody". I'm not sure if it is a general term but I sure heard it a lot as a kid.

Interestingly, the projects he worked on in the Middle East went smoothly. He even got large cash (!) bonuses on the way home. As in thousands of dollars of cash to put in his pocket before he left for the airport. Imagine that after a project in Manchester or New York...

 

[Cumberland]

I'm a bit late to this, but in case you're interested, there is a word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY#BANANA).

My father (now retired) was a civil engineer specializing in water projects and built plants throughout the world. Every single water project he worked on in the USA, Canada, or Europe had to deal with lawsuits. Every. Single. One. He called the people that sued "BANANAs", for "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody". I'm not sure if it is a general term but I sure heard it a lot as a kid.

Interestingly, the projects he worked on in the Middle East went smoothly. He even got large cash (!) bonuses on the way home. As in thousands of dollars of cash to put in his pocket before he left for the airport. Imagine that after a project in Manchester or New York...

If you he worked on hydropower projects, there is legitimate reason for opposition. Excluding environmental concern, displacement of families by flooding is a strong reason for opposition.

 

[analogdesign]

If you he worked on hydropower projects, there is legitimate reason for opposition. Excluding environmental concern, displacement of families by flooding is a strong reason for opposition.

That's fair enough, but he worked on wastewater treatment plants, which is something everyone needs but nobody wants.

Interestingly, in my opinion, one of the driving forces of environmental injustice (that is, locating toxic waste dumps, power plants, and the like in poor neighborhoods) is simply the fact that people in those neighborhoods complain less and are not as organized so placing the facilities in their neighborhoods is an example of taking the path of least resistance.

 

[DEvens]

At 50deg N Ontario might not be a good representative of solar costs

Toronto is 43N, cos(43) = 0.55. Tilting them and spacing them out of each other's shadows gets you by this quite well.

However, it is night and clouds that are the primary problems with solar.

The graph presented up-thread is clearly label rating power, not delivered power. Solar plants "enjoy" a capacity factor well under 50%, often as little as 10%. There are often week-to-month long cloudy periods where solar produces next to nothing. That means the price on that graph should be at least doubled. And when you include the backup power, usually methane, it can often be a lot worse than that. And if you include the added grid capacity required by the diffuse nature of solar, the cost goes up even more. I would estimate about 70 cents per kWhr.

Wind is similar. The label rating is, say, 100 MW, but that is often delivered for less than 10% of the time. And it is not rare for the wind power in Ontario to fall below 1 percent of rated capacity across the province.

 

[gmax137]

Toronto is 43N, cos(43) = 0.55. Tilting them and spacing them out of each other's shadows gets you by this quite well.

However, it is night and clouds that are the primary problems with solar.

...

The cost issue in the high latitudes is just that -- there's more night. Tilting the panels won't help with that...

 

[Astronuc]

However, it is night and clouds that are the primary problems with solar.

And snow perhaps.

 

[Lok]

Well the main reason USA or most of the nuclear countries don't go far from 20% nuclear capacity is the long shutdown time of a nuclear facility.
What I mean is best shown in this link from Romania (I hope there is no translation neccesary):
http://version1.sistemulenergetic.ro/
Power necessity varies a lot during one day. So when Coal plants can be shutdown in a few hours, wind and hydro in a few minutes while photo is usually to small to matter, nuclear plants need days to power down (not an expert). When you produce more you either waste or sell the energy to some other less fortunate country. Yet any less fortunate country knows you are in surplus and will buy your energy at a low price. And as a down side there is a priority between producing nuclear which corroborated with high precipitation is followed by hydro (nobody wants floods) so that coal plants need to vary their power production and sometimes end up working at only 10% capacity for a week or so. This is a brutal hit on their profit and as one can see above it is not like we can stop using them.
So this would be a no contest, Nuclear vs Economy 0-1.

 

[QuantumPion]

Well the main reason USA or most of the nuclear countries don't go far from 20% nuclear capacity is the long shutdown time of a nuclear facility.
What I mean is best shown in this link from Romania (I hope there is no translation neccesary):
http://version1.sistemulenergetic.ro/
Power necessity varies a lot during one day. So when Coal plants can be shutdown in a few hours, wind and hydro in a few minutes while photo is usually to small to matter, nuclear plants need days to power down (not an expert). When you produce more you either waste or sell the energy to some other less fortunate country. Yet any less fortunate country knows you are in surplus and will buy your energy at a low price. And as a down side there is a priority between producing nuclear which corroborated with high precipitation is followed by hydro (nobody wants floods) so that coal plants need to vary their power production and sometimes end up working at only 10% capacity for a week or so. This is a brutal hit on their profit and as one can see above it is not like we can stop using them.
So this would be a no contest, Nuclear vs Economy 0-1.

That is not entirely accurate. As discussed previously in another thread about nuclear peaking, nuclear power plants can change their power whenever and by however much they want. The reason why they do not want to is because nuclear plants have an almost fixed operating cost regardless of power, so it makes sense for them to run at full power whenever possible. You are right that hydro plants typically have first dibs when there is an excess of supply since that power is really free.

Note that France produces more than 70% of their power from nuclear. The reason why the US has not built more nuclear plants in the past is mainly due to politics. today the limitation is economics - natural gas is just cheaper and easier.

 

[Lok]

That is not entirely accurate. As discussed previously in another thread about nuclear peaking, nuclear power plants can change their power whenever and by however much they want. The reason why they do not want to is because nuclear plants have an almost fixed operating cost regardless of power, so it makes sense for them to run at full power whenever possible. You are right that hydro plants typically have first dibs when there is an excess of supply since that power is really free.

Note that France produces more than 70% of their power from nuclear. The reason why the US has not built more nuclear plants in the past is mainly due to politics. today the limitation is economics - natural gas is just cheaper and easier.

I stand corrected. Although our sole nuclear power plant is old and slow in comparison to modern ones. Still a huge power variation in one Nplant is not as "detrimental" as a mean power variation in Frances 59 reactors (although not all have such variability). And France is kinda obligated to export about 10% of electricity around itself in all directions. The Swiss being especially careful to by the power during nighttime (cheaper) and store it by refilling their hydro, as it does work with decent profits during some periods of the year.