Not sure how you get that it is "free energy" but it most certainly is not. The cost of building a safe nuclear reactor is HUGE and running/maintaining it is not trivial. They DO pay for themselves in the very long run, but the startup cost is very off-putting.tom8 said:Fukushima disaster aside, the USA has only 19% of its energy needs from nuclear plants: see here. Being a free energy, I wonder whether there are reasons, other than safety concerns, that prevents the US from depending more on nuclear energy?
No, it isn't (and never has been):tom8 said:I guess I meant that it is cheaper than other forms of energy, like oil or gas.
Not only are the start up costs huge for a nuclear plant, but the operation of the reactors generates radioactive waste which must be stored long-term. There is no current central repository for the storage of this waste, primarily because no state or locality wants to host one.phinds said:Not sure how you get that it is "free energy" but it most certainly is not. The cost of building a safe nuclear reactor is HUGE and running/maintaining it is not trivial. They DO pay for themselves in the very long run, but the startup cost is very off-putting.
The other reason is regulatory. I remember reading not too long ago that getting permission to build a nuclear power plant takes about 10 years, IF you can get it at all.
Thanks. I also followed your image link to the brooking sites, and the debate they have over precise comparisons seems quite rich and complex... But yes, I agree for the order of magnitude one doesn't need to get there.russ_watters said:Here's the source article:
http://www.hamiltonproject.org/files/downloads_and_links/05_energy_greenstone_looney.pdf
At one time, it was claimed that nuclear energy would produce electricity that was "too cheap to meter", but after a while, reality set in from the day to day problems arising from constructing, running, and eventually decommissioning numbers of nuclear plants.tom8 said:Thanks for the discussions. I was under the impression that nuclear power is the cheapest, now I think I got my facts straight. I expect that after Fukushima disaster, the use of nuclear power is going to be diminished...
It already has, considerably. Japan and a couple of other countries have announced that they are going to eventually eliminate their nuclear power completely and in the US the regulatory hurtles have already made it pretty much a non-starter.tom8 said:Thanks for the discussions. I was under the impression that nuclear power is the cheapest, now I think I got my facts straight. I expect that after Fukushima disaster, the use of nuclear power is going to be diminished...
Sounds simple enough. So how long does it take from the time a company decides they want to build one, until they are allowed to break ground?Astronuc said:From my experience, there are no regulatory hurdles. The process is pretty straightforward, one develops a design, and submits a PSAR to the NRC. The NRC reviews it, particularly if a utility shows interest in procuring a plant.
It could take a few years. One can see on the NRC site when suppliers meet with the NRC, and when they submit their Design Certification Documents (DCDs). Take a look at the AP1000s which are now under construction at Vogtle and Summer sites.russ_watters said:Sounds simple enough. How long does it take?
A few? Based on the timelines here, the process is expected to take 7-9 years for recently proposed plants (if one believes they won't be delayed by legal challenges and political wrangling...):Astronuc said:It could take a few years.
Yes. Part of the problemw with the current state regarding the plant design is that there is no momentum from multiple plants being proposed/constructed simultaneously due to the decades-long gap between new plants. If multple (10-20) were under review/construction simultaneously, designs could be standardized and they could essentially always have an approved design ready to go, with little or no time required for design certification.Astronuc said:There's two stages for a nuclear plant - one is the design and certification part that suppliers like Westinghouse, AREVA, GEH, and now SMR suppliers provide with the NRC certifying the design, then there is the siting and construction part in which a utility hires a A&E and a construction firm. The siting and permitting for a nuclear plant is usually where interveners challenge the plant.
The time for review and approval depends on where one starts, e.g., a modified design or a brand new design, with new technologies, e.g., liquid metal, or gas cooled, or major changes to safety systems.
I've rarely seen a NIMBY concern I've considered reasonable.wabbit said:On the other hand, NIMBY is a fair concern...
You mean like with jobs and electricity? Not all NIMBYs are after money, most seem to me to be trying to kill projects. In general, I think the economic benefit itself from the project should be enough compensation, but there may be additional compensation warranted if a project reduces a previous utility of the space....and a project should not proceed if the people located nearby aren't compensated to their satisaction. This may be extra cost, but it is legitimate.
Hmm... hot issue here. I'd rather not go into a political debate in this forum, so I'll just state that I do not agree with this and retreat from this thread: )russ_watters said:I've rarely seen a NIMBY concern I've considered reasonable.
You mean like with jobs and electricity? Not all NIMBYs are after money, most seem to me to be trying to kill projects. In general, I think the economic benefit itself from the project should be enough compensation, but there may be additional compensation warranted if a project reduces a previous utility of the space.
NIMBY...
Gas and coal plants do not require mass (many square miles, possibly multi-state) evacuation plans in case of accident. Gas and coal plants do not require detailed seismic analysis of the plant geology. These requirements may or may not be over zealous, but they are nonetheless not required of "all energy projects".Astronuc said:The environmental issue (intervention) happens with all energy projects, not just nuclear...
Astronuc said:From my experience, there are no regulatory hurdles. The process is pretty straightforward, one develops a design, and submits a PSAR to the NRC. The NRC reviews it, particularly if a utility shows interest in procuring a plant.
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0113/ML011340072.pdf
And NUREG-0800, or the Standard Review Plan
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0800/It's not a matter of simply creating a concept, but one has to do detail designs with drawing and plenty of engineering analysis. That is not a hurdle, but a necessity.
russ_watters said:No, it isn't (and never has been):
http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2012/04/~/media/Research/Images/0/123/0426_chart2.png
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.gmax137 said:I don't think NIMBYism is really the issue. Surveys show the local communities have strong support for nuclear power. See here, for links under "Plant Neighbors Voice ..." (note the survey linked here excludes the plant employees)
http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Public-Opinion
Anecdotally, every plant I've worked at had strong support from the local communities. The natives viewed the vocal critics as outsiders (at Maine Yankee they said "from away...").
If that's true, can you explain Cape Wind? The Keystone Pipeline?mheslep said:Gas and coal plants do not require mass (many square miles, possibly multi-state) evacuation plans in case of accident. Gas and coal plants do not require detailed seismic analysis of the plant geology. These requirements may or may not be over zealous, but they are nonetheless not required of "all energy projects".
...Turbine tower buckling has been observed in typhoons, but no offshore wind turbines have yet been built in the United States. We present a probabilistic model to estimate the number of turbines that would be destroyed by hurricanes in an offshore wind farm. We apply this model to estimate the risk to offshore wind farms in four representative locations in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal waters of the United States. In the most vulnerable areas now being actively considered by developers, nearly half the turbines in a farm are likely to be destroyed in a 20-y period.
Power plants still have to do EISs. A gas plant has to tie into a gas pipeline and construct transmission lines. A new pipeline was very controversial in Dutchess County NY. Local residents don't want a gas pipeline through their property, particular after it was discovered that the new large pipeline was constructed with various violations. Folks also don't want power lines through their neighborhood - although they don't mind through someone else's neighborhood.mheslep said:Gas and coal plants do not require mass (many square miles, possibly multi-state) evacuation plans in case of accident. Gas and coal plants do not require detailed seismic analysis of the plant geology. These requirements may or may not be over zealous, but they are nonetheless not required of "all energy projects".
Except that Terrapower is developing a new reactor. They are however looking for cooperation with R&D in other countries.mheslep said:In December 2014 the House subcommittee on Energy met, with testimony from DoE Assistant Sec for Nuclear Energy, Dr Lyons, and by the executives of some next gen nuclear companies, to include SMR maker NuScale and molten salt player Transatomic. Dr Lyons confirms the one billion and 39 months starting here. Dr Lewan of Transatomic makes it clear that development of advanced reactor technology is completely unfeasible in the US nuclear regulatory environment, with no predictable outcome and no approved test facility. She estimates 20 years of obtaining a regulatory pathway under the NRC. According to the discussion with Dr Lewan, Canada has made its nuclear approval process predictable, suggesting new technology approval will head there, similar to the move of drone development to Canada because of the FAA.
Sure, any industrial endeavor has regulatory hurdles. I did not say otherwise. And I think the EIS, as currently implemented, is one that is still overly-political, not sufficiently based only on environmental harm. I said the non-nuclear endeavors don't have nearly the time and money required by the regulator as does nuclear, even for the same power scale. Even Keystone, Russ's counter example, was only tripped up for so long because it crossed an international border allowing the US DoS and the President to act arbitrarily. Otherwise, domestic pipelines and plants can and do meet EIS requirements routinely, and by routinely I mean not requiring a billion dollars up front (to the NRC), and the answer over given terrain is largely predictable.Astronuc said:Power plants still have to do EISs. A gas plant... A new pipeline ...
Coal plants ...
Dry storage containers hardly qualify as "drums" with the thin gauge metal associate with them.Chestermiller said:Storage of the nuclear wastes is much more than just a cost issue. It is also a huge environmental safety issue. If the drums start to leak, big problem. ...
The [cask] assembly concrete is constructed from Type II Portland cement and is reinforced with A615 Grade 60 steel bars. The concrete has a density of 144 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi)...
The [cask] assembly has a 132.0-inch outside diameter, a 70.5-inch cavity diameter ... The internal cavity of the VCC assembly is lined by a 1.75-inch thick carbon steel shell and a 2-inch thick carbon steel bottom plate. A carbon steel shield ring assembly is provided at the top end of the VCC assembly to reduce radiation streaming from the VCC annulus. The top end of the VCC assembly is covered with a ¾-inch thick lid that is secured to the VCC assembly by bolts.
The entire new reactor budget at the NRC for FY 2015 is about $237 million, and that's all the designs, and includes utility projects as well. I expect much of that has to do with new builds like the four units at Vogtle and Summer. For FY 2016, the budget will decrease to about $191 million.mheslep said:and by routinely I mean not requiring a billion dollars up front (to the NRC),
See page 10 (14/41) in http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071129.pdfNRC estimates that its review of a reference COL would cost applicants about $26 million, assuming $258 per hour for reviewer time. The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates that COL applicants would spend about $100 million for preparing the application, paying NRC licensing fees, responding to NRC during the review process, and overhead. A reactor designer estimates that preparing a design certification application costs $200 million.
I was referring to - and I suspect he was too - the cost of complying with the regulations, not the cost of enforcing them:Astronuc said:The entire new reactor budget at the NRC for FY 2015 is about $237 million, and that's all the designs, and includes utility projects as well. I expect much of that has to do with new builds like the four units at Vogtle and Summer. For FY 2016, the budget will decrease to about $191 million.
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.htmlNuclear power plants are much more complex than homes or automobiles, leaving innumerable options for spending money to improve safety. In response to escalating public concern, the NRC began implementing some of these options in the early 1970s, and quickened the pace after the Three Mile Island accident.
This process came to be known as "ratcheting." Like a ratchet wrench which is moved back and forth but always tightens and never loosens a bolt, the regulatory requirements were constantly tightened, requiring additional equipment and construction labor and materials. According to one study,4 between the early and late 1970s, regulatory requirements increased the quantity of steel needed in a power plant of equivalent electrical output by 41%, the amount of concrete by 27%, the lineal footage of piping by 50%, and the length of electrical cable by 36%. The NRC did not withdraw requirements made in the early days on the basis of minimal experience when later experience demonstrated that they were unnecessarily stringent. Regulations were only tightened, never loosened. The ratcheting policy was consistently followed...
In addition to increasing the quantity of materials and labor going into a plant, regulatory ratcheting increased costs by extending the time required for construction. According to the United Engineers estimates, the time from project initiation to ground breaking5 was 16 months in 1967, 32 months in 1972, and 54 months in 1980. These are the periods needed to do initial engineering and design; to develop a safety analysis and an environmental impact analysis supported by field data; to have these analyses reviewed by the NRC staff and its Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and to work out conflicts with these groups; to subject the analyzed to criticism in public hearings and to respond to that criticism (sometimes with design changes); and finally, to receive a construction permit. The time from ground breaking to operation testing was increased from 42 months in 1967, to 54 months in 1972, to 70 months in 1980.
The increase in total construction time, indicated in Fig. 2, from 7 years in 1971 to 12 years in 1980 roughly doubled the final cost of plants.
Right, out of total budget for new and existing for NRC of $1 billion, almost entirely paid for by industry. The one billion that's used a rule of thumb for new light water reactors is over several, as much as four years. Not all of that goes to the NRC of course, but the NRC requires the spending be done by applicant, indirectly or otherwise, on design work.Astronuc said:The entire new reactor budget at the NRC for FY 2015 is about $237 million, and that's all the designs, and includes utility projects as well. I expect much of that has to do with new builds like the four units at Vogtle and Summer.
Your estimate is in conflict with testimony a couple months ago from the Energy Subcommittee. Also, to what end? The primary point of the spending is not to support the budget of the NRC, but to reach a predictable if not guaranteed outcome. That is, demonstrate safety and reliability metrics and the applicant gets a liscense. The experts that testified explained that the process has no predictability for reactors that are not light water, large, PWRs.... A certification could probably done for about $200 million or so, but not necessarily $1 billion.
A large risk indeed, given the testimony I posted, in which the regulator stated that the US has always done light water reactors, and therefore is should stay that way. Moreover, the NRC is an "independent agency" and therefore the government and the people should leave them alone to decide what's best (for lightwater reactors).Transatomic's MSR would probably require some kind of prototype, since what they propose is different from the only MSR constructed and operated in the US. They would probably need a private investor willing to take a big risk, or get funding through DOE.
Certainly, a supplier or applicant has to do the engineering and design work, and that does take lots of money, for probably several hundred or thousand scientist and engineers depending on the size and complexity of the design. One could try to use off-the-shelf components, e.g., existing turbine/generator technology. In the case of Transatomic, they'll need detailed reactor and core design information and data, and probably new codes that do core simulation and fuel-coolant hydraulics.mheslep said:Thanks for the references.
Right, out of total budget for new and existing for NRC of $1 billion, almost entirely paid for by industry. The one billion that's used a rule of thumb for new light water reactors is over several, as much as four years. Not all of that goes to the NRC of course, but the NRC requires the spending be done by applicant, indirectly or otherwise, on design work.
The NRC is addressing that, but someone comes in with a new concept, for which there is no precedent, how can the NRC predict an outcome. The NRC does not design reactors and NPPs, they simply review designs with respect to safety criteria and existing statutes, which Congress creates. All that started under the AEC, which evolved into the NRC and ERDA => DOE, splitting the regulatory entity from the R&D/promotion entity.Your estimate is in conflict with testimony a couple months ago from the Energy Subcommittee. Also, to what end? The primary point of the spending is not to support the budget of the NRC, but to reach a predictable if not guaranteed outcome. That is, demonstrate safety and reliability metrics and the applicant gets a license. The experts that testified explained that the process has no predictability for reactors that are not light water, large, PWRs.
The NRC is independent, but subject to the laws established by Congress, include the Code of Federal Regulations and US Code, which contains various public laws, such as the Atomic Energy Act + various amendments.A large risk indeed, given the testimony I posted, in which the regulator stated that the US has always done light water reactors, and therefore is should stay that way. Moreover, the NRC is an "independent agency" and therefore the government and the people should leave them alone to decide what's best (for lightwater reactors).
YesAstronuc said:Is the statement "given the testimony I posted, in which the regulator stated that . . ." related to Dr. Peter Lyons's testimony?
That's a good review of what went wrong. There were some major problems back then, and there were A&E firms who got into nuclear plants, when they should not have done so, since they lacked experience and weren't qualified, especially when it came to first-of-a-kind systems. Then there was TMI-2 and the fire at Browns Ferry, and significant QC/QA problems at other sites.russ_watters said:
Dr. Peter B. Lyons was confirmed as the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy on April 14, 2011 after serving as the Acting Assistant Secretary since November 2010. Dr. Lyons was appointed to his previous role as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) in September 2009. Ref: http://energy.gov/contributors/peter-b-lyonsmheslep said:Yes
WNA has most of the basics.DrDu said:It would be interesting to have data from France, maybe the only country which sets on nuclear reactors as a basic pillar in energy generation.
