The Nuclear Power Thread

[essenmein]

New to the thread and basically feel our energy production should be 100% nuclear, fission for now, fusion in the future if we get it going.

Re spent fuel and waste (apologies if this has been discussed), I thought part of the problem is that the nuclear industry started largely to produce weapons grade materials, which is why IFR reactors heavily regulated (non prolif etc), however IFR can burn in principle all the fuel, this would allow us to consume our current wast stock and produce nearly zero waste. Sure there will be small amounts of bad stuff that will need to be stored, or potentially neutralized in newer reactors. Thorium would get around that proliferation issue, but thorium fuel reactors not well developed because no possibility of nuclear weapon grade materials, thorium fueled IFR molten salt would be great.

Another interesting idea never properly followed because pure fusion is more of a priority is the fission/fusion hybrid. Basically non net energy producing fusion reactor as a fast neutron source that triggers fission in other wise nonfissile fuels, eg spent fuel or thorium. Inherently safe because there is no need for critical mass. Molten salt loop with neutron source cavity, extract heat as it exits the neutron chamber and then goes back around.

The costs would be much more manageable if building more smaller reactors vs single large highly specialized buildings.

I'm a huge fan of SMR.

 

[Astronuc]

. . . the nuclear industry started largely to produce weapons grade materials

No, the nuclear industry, i.e., commercial nuclear power industry, was never intended to produce weapons grade material. There were special production reactors, outside of the commercial power generating plants, that were used for that purpose. Fast reactor technology, including IFR, was restricted and some information remains restricted.

 

[artis]

Well maybe not in the US, but as far as I know in the USSR they did plan to use commercial reactors (some of them at least) for plutonium production one of the reasons why the RBMK was chosen as it had the option to refuel while being online, I think I've read that other countries had similar ideas,I'm sure others will be able to explain this better.

 

[essenmein]

Both in the US and then USSR the civilian programs sprang up from military development, so while they may not be intended to produce weapons grade materials, they can, which is the issue. I would say this is largely because they inherited the basic technology developed early on that was intended to make weapons grade stuff, EBR-1 was the first reactor to make electricity and it was a research breeder.

There doesn't seem to be much motivation to build thorium reactors and there is clear evidence historically that this is mainly due to the lack of weapons applications.

Eg from wiki:
"Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have zero risk of meltdown. . . . his team built a working reactor . . . . and he spent the rest of his 18-year tenure trying to make thorium the heart of the nation’s atomic power effort. He failed. Uranium reactors had already been established, and Hyman Rickover, de facto head of the US nuclear program, wanted the plutonium from uranium-powered nuclear plants to make bombs. Increasingly shunted aside, Weinberg was finally forced out in 1973.[10] "

 

[Rive]

while they may not be intended to produce weapons grade materials, they can, which is the issue. I would say this is largely because they inherited the basic technology developed early on...

Well, that statement would require some work to back it up, especially if you stick with that present time. As far as I know many of the Gen. I. reactors indeed had dual purpose: some of the Gen.II. were still able to produce Pu on acceptable scale (but I don't know about actual example when it happened): but further on Pu more and more became hindrance instead. Gen.III. already cannot be used to produce Pu - unless you totally ruin the economy of the operation.

One has to admit that Gen.I. reactors were kept operational for surprisinly long time, but right now the only example still running should be somewhere in North Korea (I mean, commercial reactor. At least, in name.)
Some RBMKs are still running from Gen. II.. That's indeed an issue but not really because of any possibility of Pu production.

 

[essenmein]

Well, that statement would require some work to back it up, especially if you stick with that present time. As far as I know many of the Gen. I. reactors indeed had dual purpose: some of the Gen.II. were still able to produce Pu on acceptable scale (but I don't know about actual example when it happened): but further on Pu more and more became hindrance instead. Gen.III. already cannot be used to produce Pu - unless you totally ruin the economy of the operation.

One has to admit that Gen.I. reactors were kept operational for surprisinly long time, but right now the only example still running should be somewhere in North Korea (I mean, commercial reactor. At least, in name.)
Some RBMKs are still running from Gen. II.. That's indeed an issue but not really because of any possibility of Pu production.

Keep in mind was generalizing a little to avoid writing a novel as well as talking historically, ie there is no denying the nuclear industry sprang from the military programs in the early 50's, that doesn't mean today all plants exist to make bomb materials. Then a nuclear program includes all the things needed for such a program, eg fuel processing, enrichment, reactors etc. So if you can enrich uranium, its not a large leap to enrich that uranium further to make weapons, both U235 and Pu239 are suitable for the big booms.

 

[Astronuc]

Both in the US and then USSR the civilian programs sprang up from military development, so while they may not be intended to produce weapons grade materials, they can, which is the issue. I would say this is largely because they inherited the basic technology developed early on that was intended to make weapons grade stuff, EBR-1 was the first reactor to make electricity and it was a research breeder.

While there is a loose connection between civilian nuclear power programs and those developed for the military, commercial nuclear plants were never designed to produce weapons material, certainly not LWRs. The US had 9 production reactors at the Hanford site - starting with B-reactor (1943-1968) and ending with N-reactor (1963-1987). N-reactor was the only plant built for dual-purpose, including electrical generation.
https://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/BReactorhttps://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/NReactor
LWRs more or less grew out of the Naval propulsion program, and there was no plan to make weapons material. The four major manufacturers were Westinghouse, General Electric, Combustion Engineering and Babcock and Wilcox, and there were minor players like Allis-Chalmers (which had purchased ACF Industries Nuclear Energy Products Division).

The USSR also has dedicated production reactors, not including the RBMK type, which were not civilian.
http://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs19diakov.pdf
On the other hand, British Magnox reactors were designed with the dual purpose of producing electrical power and plutonium-239 for the nascent nuclear weapons program in Britain.

There doesn't seem to be much motivation to build thorium reactors and there is clear evidence historically that this is mainly due to the lack of weapons applications.

Not so.

"Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have zero risk of meltdown. . . . his team built a working reactor . . . . and he spent the rest of his 18-year tenure trying to make thorium the heart of the nation’s atomic power effort. He failed. Uranium reactors had already been established, and Hyman Rickover, de facto head of the US nuclear program, wanted the plutonium from uranium-powered nuclear plants to make bombs. Increasingly shunted aside, Weinberg was finally forced out in 1973.[10] "

The statement is from an article by journalist Richard Martin in Wired magazine and reflects his opinion, not the reality at the time. AEC wanted to pursue liquid metal fast reactor technology, while discontinuing the molten salt program, which was originally tied to Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion. There were still numerous technical challenges in MSR technology at the time. The whole Wikipedia article is problematic.

Rickover was head of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion program, not "the defacto head of US nuclear program."

A light water breeder reactor concept (using thorium) was tested at Shippingport, August 1977 - September 1982 for about 29,000 effective full power hours.
Argonne National Laboratory, ANL-87-2, FINAL REPORT FOR THE LIGHT WATER BREEDER REACTOR
PROOF-OF-BREEDING ANALYTICAL SUPPORT PROJECT, May 1987
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/19/005/19005808.pdf
WAPD-1600, Water Coold Breeder Program Summary Report, October 1987
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6957197
Another program was conducted at Indian Point 1. The fuel was processed at West Valley Nuclear Fuel Services (Nov 1968 - Jan 1969) and shipped to ORNL as U-nitrate solution. ORNL converted the nitrate to oxide form. (ORNL/TM-13600)

People are taking a look at Molten Salt Concepts again, including both chloride and fluoride based systems.

 

[HowlerMonkey]

Maybe the fact that rbmk reactors only require 2% refined uranium and could possibly manufacture plutonium on the cheap?
A guess ...but super unlikely since there are much more efficient ways to manufacture weapons grade fuel.
Being able to run a reactor on 2% enriched fuel is probably cheaper.

 

[Astronuc]

Unfortunately, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Shut Down Permanently, as of May 31, 2019
https://www.entergynewsroom.com/news/pilgrim-nuclear-power-station-shut-down-permanently/

PLYMOUTH, Mass. – Control room operators at Entergy’s Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, located in Plymouth, Massachusetts, shut down its reactor for the final time on Friday, May 31, at 5:28 p.m. The decision to shut down Pilgrim was the result of a number of financial factors, including low wholesale energy prices.

Entergy’s remaining operating nuclear power plants in merchant power markets - Indian Point Unit 2 and Unit 3, in New York, and Palisades Power Plant, in Michigan, are scheduled to be shut down in 2020, 2021, and 2022, respectively. These closures, along with the sale of these plants to decommissioning specialty companies, mark the end of Entergy’s participation in merchant power markets and its return to a pure-play utility.

https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/05/31/pilgrim-nuclear-power-plant-plymouth-massachusetts/
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2019/05/31/pilgrim-nuclear-power-plant-shutdown
https://www.wpri.com/news/top-video/pilgrim-s-shutdown-ends-nuclear-power-era-in-massachusetts_20190531224753/2043258034

 

[Astronuc]

The problem with non-scientific media reporting on science, engineering or technology in which the author is not an expert:

To control the rate of fission in a nuclear power plant, reactors use control rods. Constructed from elements such as silver and iridium, the control rods absorb neutrons released during fission and slow down the rate of fission.

from
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/597k9x/why-the-chernobyl-nuclear-reactor-exploded
Many western PWRs use silver-indium-cadmium (Ag-In-Cd, or AIC for short). The above quote mentions silver and iridium. We do not use iridium, but indium. Be careful in reading non-scientific literature/media articles.

 

[etudiant]

Truly sad, a huge and reliable power source, regulated to economic death.
What I cannot understand is how the various catastrophic climate change believers can simultaneously fight tooth and nail to block the safest non greenhouse gas emitting power technology.

 

[essenmein]

I'm glad there is at least some players developing new gen reactors, companies like terrestrial energy and nuscale give me hope!

 

[Xforce]

I'd like to start a discussion/debate of nuclear power for the purpose of informing people about it. I am participating in a thread in another forum http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9370 where we are discussing an article about Germany planning to phase out nuclear power. I am STRONGLY against this. It is bad for scientific, economic, political, and environmental reasons.

In the course of discussions of the nuclear power issue, it seems to me that the arguements against nuclear power are based primarily on ignorance and emotion. I'm all for open scientific debate, but on this particular subject, I tend to take the approach of educating, not strictly debating. If that comes off as arrogant, I apologize, but this is a remarkably straightforward issue when you get down to the science of it.

So, to start off, a few facts:
-The US has roughly 98 million kW of nuclear generation capacity in roughly 100 plants and runs at about 90% load.
-For comparison, the US has about 4 thousand kW of wind capacity and that doubles about every other year.
-Virtually all new generation capacity in the US is from oil.
-The US has not started construction on a single nuclear plant since Three Mile Island about 20 years ago.
-According to the WHO, air pollution kills 70,000 people in the US every year and affects virtually everyone.
-electric power generation is the leading producer of air pollution in the US.
-HALF of the electricity in the US comes from COAL.
-No civilian has ever been killed as a result of nuclear power in the US (TMI was the worst accident and a long term study produced no statistically significant increase in cancer rates).
-Chernobyl killed roughly 50 people and injured/sickened maybe 1000, including long-after cancers (I had no idea it was that low, so http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9604/msg00651.html is where I found that).

To me, the evidence is so enormously strong in favor of re-activating our nuclear power program, it should be self-evident. Clearly however, nuclear power is all but dead in the US and indeed much of the world.

I'd also like to discuss research. There has been nuclear power research done over the past 20 years (though not much because of TMI). Pebble-bed reactors for example have potential to be both easy to service and virtually melt-down proof. I'd like to hear of other technologies.

Actually, nuclear power plants produce nasty radioactive waste.
Maybe it’s a great idea to introduce fusion, since it does not go off like Chernobyl (if the reactor chamber break, the reaction just stops), 10 times more energy dense than fission, huge amounts of fuel in the universe. The worst thing it can produce is probably neutron radiation... we better get ITER fired up soon

 

[etudiant]

Actually, nuclear power plants produce nasty radioactive waste.
Maybe it’s a great idea to introduce fusion, since it does not go off like Chernobyl (if the reactor chamber break, the reaction just stops), 10 times more energy dense than fission, huge amounts of fuel in the universe. The worst thing it can produce is probably neutron radiation... we better get ITER fired up soon

Not to be too Pollyanna, but nuclear waste is a relatively small problem. In terms of volume, the cumulative nuclear waste produced since the beginning is about 10% of the amount of coal ash we generate annually and a very minimal fraction of the mining wastes we generate. Note that coal ash is actually pretty nasty stuff, as is much of the mining wastes, not really different from nuclear wastes.
All these residues are toxic, with the heavy metal contamination dangers at least as great and at least as permanent as is the radioactivity in nuclear wastes. We do a more diligent job of managing our nuclear wastes, but it is incoherent to spend billions on that while we cover square miles of land with fly ash or phosphate mining residues, both of which have radioactive burdens as well as other metal pollutants.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, nuclear power plants produce nasty radioactive waste.

I made that post/opened this thread in 2003(!). Germany did indeed set out on one of the most ambitious energy transformations in modern history. It has 3 prongs:
1. Phase out nuclear power.
2. Implement "renewable" energy.
3. Reduce carbon emissions.

The first two goals are self-contained: you just do them. The third goal is an effect, not an action. So how'd they do in this arguably most critical endeavor ever undertaken by humanity?

Germany has spent roughly 500 billion Euros to date on its energy transition and has succeeded in reducing their CO2 output by about 17% and yet today has an electrical grid that is 40% coal. If instead of shutting down nuclear plants, they had built nuclear plants, for about the same amount of money they could have eliminated coal and with it another 14% of their emissions.

The waste issue would really be a non-issue if people put rational thought into it -- or even no thought. Most people would probably not remember where our 60 years of nuclear waste is currently stored, if asked. It's just not something that matters in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Astronuc]

I recently read a biography of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover who directed the Naval Nuclear Program. Besides following the career of Rickover, it provides some background on the development of various reactor systems and provides some insight into how we got from Naval propulsion systems to commercial nuclear power plants.

Norman Polmar & Thomas B. Allen, "Rickover: Controversy and Genius: A Biography," Touchstone Book, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1982.

 

[Astronuc]

A Step-by-Step Guide to Nuclear Innovation Policy
https://www.thirdway.org/report/a-step-by-step-guide-to-nuclear-innovation-policy

I have a problem with the article in that it has a single person with a reactor concept. Reactors, and even the fuel, are extraordinarily complicated. It takes a multi-discipline team to design and develop a reactor. There are nuclear engineers/physicists with neutronic design/analysis capability, there are materials scientist/engineers who specialize in materials design and performance, there are mechanical engineers who specialize in mechanical design and analysis (mechanical and materials engineers work together), there are civil/structural engineers specializing in structural design and analysis, and there are electrical engineers specializing in electrical generation, instrumentation and control systems. There is no way a single person can perform a comprehensive nuclear plant and nuclear reactor design.

What's Missing in U.S. Nuclear? An Innovation Culture
https://www.thirdway.org/report/whats-missing-in-u-s-nuclear-an-innovation-culture
I disagree. I've seen a lot of innovation during more than 30 years in the nuclear industry.

I have seen policy flip flops with successive administrations and congresses. It takes at least 10 years for a plant to go from concept through design and construction, and that is everything goes right. If policy changes during that period, projects drop dead.

Usually things go wrong - Westinghouse sold an unfinished product, then the problems snowballed
https://www.post-gazette.com/busine...-the-problems-snowballed/stories/201710290008

June 2018 - Nine years after construction on it began, first Westinghouse AP1000 nuke goes critical in China as US project continues
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/1d11p6ft3fdctvgzgedqmq2
Construction of the 7,500-MW Sanmen nuclear power plant began in 2009, with the hope of having it enter service in 2014. Westinghouse and partnering developer and contractor China State Nuclear Power Technology Corp., or SNPTC, announced June 21 that the first of two units at the Sanmen nuclear project outside Shanghai in the eastern Zhejiang province has achieved initial criticality.

 

[bhobba]

What's Missing in U.S. Nuclear?

You are lucky - you have a nuclear power industry. Until recently here in Aus you were described as a nut, and by this I mean even I was described as a scientific illiterate, for just discussing it. And this from a person that did not know the difference between fission and fusion. That is now changing a little in that there is some discussion about it now, but the latest government report still says Australian culture will not accept nuclear so is ruled out of consideration here in Aus. It's madness to rule out even considering nuclear as part of a country's energy mix. We are even spending unnecessary billions, with long time delays, on converting French nuclear subs to non-nuclear to replace our ageing submarine fleet:
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/5993636/sinking-billions-on-an-outdated-weapon/#gsc.tab=0

The existing French nuclear sub would meet our needs without much modification (as would some US designs without any modification at all) - but no - because of the nuclear 'fear' we can't do that.

Thanks
Bill

 

[artis]

wow @bhobba that is interesting, so your government is doing the equivalent of buying a ferrari but swapping the original engine with a 2 stroke single cylinder + paying extra for such an "added bonus"

 

[bhobba]

wow @bhobba that is interesting, so your government is doing the equivalent of buying a ferrari but swapping the original engine with a 2 stroke single cylinder + paying extra for such an "added bonus"

Exactly. As the saying goes - 'A Camel is a Horse Designed by a Committee'. Having worked for the government for over 30 years, what was it Madeline Kahn said in Blazing Saddles after seeing it's 'hero' in his birthday suit - It's Twu, It's Twu.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Imager]

The Westinghouse Project reminded me of a term we often used for Senior Executive Presentation, a Powerpoint Reality.

 

[TeethWhitener]

The existing French nuclear sub would meet our needs without much modification (as would some US designs without any modification at all) - but no - because of the nuclear 'fear' we can't do that.

This may not be strictly true, depending on what Australia wants them for. New diesel electric subs are much quieter than older nukes. It’s one reason China’s pouring so much money into them: the South China Sea is really shallow and the Chinese run a pretty tight ship (pun intended) in those parts, so the ability to pop up anywhere and project sea power is pretty important to them.

 

[Astronuc]

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The executive who spent billions of dollars on two South Carolina nuclear plants that never generated a single watt of power is almost certain to spend time in prison.

https://apnews.com/article/state-co...olina-courts-6f4f8417fc32bf6a0e0faaf7792fdf04

SCANA and its subsidiary, South Carolina Electric & Gas, were destroyed by the debt and poor management and were bought out by Dominion Energy of Virginia in 2019.

https://www.wistv.com/2020/11/24/fo...ud-charges-connection-with-vc-summer-project/

https://www.wfae.org/energy-environ...ing-the-15-billion-dominion-energy-scana-deal

 

[BWV]

Problem is building new nuclear plants are impossible without substantial regulatory reform and even then, cost is uncompetitive with renewables or nat gas. You can finance contracted renewables at a mid-single digit cost of equity capital with easy debt financing while nuclear remains uninvestable. New renewables are now competitive with the operating costs of existing nuclear plants

 

[BWV]

a piece from the pro-nuclear World Nuclear Association details some of the difficulties financing Nuclear power

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/financing-nuclear-energy.aspx

The key paragraph, is below, which essentially admits financing nuclear will always be at a cost disadvantage to gas or renewables due to the lack of non-recourse financing (where the collateral is limited to the specific project, rather than the sponsor's balance sheet). Hard to understate the importance of financing and capital cost to power investments, and nuclear is dead on that basis:

Limited versus full-recourse financing

Finance for a project can be raised on a limited/non-recourse basis or on a recourse basis. If a project is financed on a recourse basis, lenders’ collateral is provided by the existing assets of the project’s promoters. In the case of limited-recourse financing (or project financing), by contrast, the capital raised is backed only by the project itself.

In the case of project finance, a separate corporate entity is set up to own the project, and shares in the new entity are bought by participants in the project. Debt may be raised to pay for part of the construction cost, but lenders' only collateral will be the shares in the project company itself. As a result, whilst the arrangement has the advantage of shielding equity holders’ other assets, it is riskier for lenders. It is normally therefore more difficult and expensive to obtain loans from lenders.

Project finance is used widely in the power sector, but mainly for renewable projects and natural gas turbines – assets that are less capital-intensive, more flexible and have shorter construction times. It has not been used in any significant way for nuclear power plants or hydropower projects.

Contracts guaranteeing future revenues (see section below) may provide some additional security to lenders, but such arrangements are of limited value in a non-recourse arrangement if the project fails or the plant is prevented from operating. Until a promoter can demonstrate a strong track record of building and operating nuclear plants with a standardised design, it is unlikely that nuclear plant projects will be financed on a limited-recourse basis.

 

[PeterDonis]

financing nuclear will always be at a cost disadvantage to gas or renewables due to the lack of non-recourse financing

Smaller modular reactors would seem to be a good way to avoid this problem.

 

[Dale]

even then, cost is uncompetitive with renewables or nat gas

Is that cost including the cost of the regulations or just the kind of "physical" operational cost (not sure if there is a specific word for that)?

 

[BWV]

Is that cost including the cost of the regulations or just the kind of "physical" operational cost (not sure if there is a specific word for that)?

Including - also the 29 $/mwh cost number for existing plants includes decommissioning costs - so reaching a point where it is cheaper to shut down a nuclear plant and replace with renewables (ignoring grid capacity issues, as nuclear plants are far larger than individual solar or wind installations).

Regulations impact the financial risks for sponsors which in turn impact financing options. Solar, wind and gas are simple and don't have a big 'left tail' of adverse outcomes, so capital markets are happy to only take the project as collateral to lend against. Given the (low) probability of large liabilities associated with nuclear, there would need to be a transparent set of regulations / gov guarantees that would absolve to the corporate sponsor (typically a utility) of exposure to liabilities in case of some sort of accident. This, of course, is politically difficult and fraught with moral hazard issues.

 

[Astronuc]

substantial regulatory reform

What would constitute "substantial regulatory reform"? The NRC has worked with industry and the public to improve regulation and reducing burden. Some may take a position it's been too much and others will argue not enough. Besides the NRC, there is EPA, FERC, OSHA, SEC, . . . .

Consider the technical side of regulation, how well did it work with FAA and Boeing with respect to assuring the quality of MCAS? What would it look like for a utility to install a faulty control system in a reactor, which then initiates a substantial reactivity insertion event, let's say 5$ of excess reactivity instead of $0.05?

 

[BWV]

What would constitute "substantial regulatory reform"? The NRC has worked with industry and the public to improve regulation and reducing burden. Some may take a position it's been too much and others will argue not enough. Besides the NRC, there is EPA, FERC, OSHA, SEC, . . . .

Not up on the details, but the current impossibility of building new plants indicates the need. The amount of regulation required due to the nature of nuclear power relative to solar & wind puts it at a severe disadvantage

Consider the technical side of regulation, how well did it work with FAA and Boeing with respect to assuring the quality of MCAS? What would it look like for a utility to install a faulty control system in a reactor, which then initiates a substantial reactivity insertion event, let's say 5$ of excess reactivity instead of $0.05?

That is the moral hazard issue I pointed to above. Solar and wind cannot catastrophically fail so they don't have this issue, therefore nuclear cannot compete

 

[PeterDonis]

Solar and wind cannot catastrophically fail

So if a nuclear reactor is designed so it also cannot catastrophically fail (and a number of new designs have this property), then it should be regulated the same way solar and wind are regulated, which is not the way nuclear has been regulated up to now.

 

[BWV]

So if a nuclear reactor is designed so it also cannot catastrophically fail (and a number of new designs have this property), then it should be regulated the same way solar and wind are regulated, which is not the way nuclear has been regulated up to now.

Absolutely, but politically feasible?

 

[PeterDonis]

politically feasible?

I said "should be", not "will be". I won't try to predict which way the politics would end up.

 

[Astronuc]

So if a nuclear reactor is designed so it also cannot catastrophically fail (and a number of new designs have this property), then it should be regulated the same way solar and wind are regulated, which is not the way nuclear has been regulated up to now.

There is the matter of regulating the exposure of personnel and the public to radiation, which is a major factor in regulating nuclear plants and which does not apply to other forms of power generation.

Modern NPP designs are supposed to be more resistant to catastrophic failure, but certain designs can still fail, in the sense of releasing fission products outside of the fuel. With failed fuel, when it comes time to refuel, the staff have to deal with the noble gases Xe, Kr and solubles Br, I, Cs, . . ., and fuel particles. Even with the fuel intact, staff must be shielded by water in the fuel transfer systems and wet pool storage. Spent (used) fuel is maintained in the spent fuel pool until the fuel has radiologically (and thermally) cooled to the point where it can be transferred to a dry cask in which the fuel will sit in an inert gas (e.g., He) until final disposition (sent to a repository or reprocessed). In general, standards for materials used in nuclear systems are much stricter than for the same materials used in non-nuclear, non-power applications. Some regulations are found in ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (BPV) Code. Nuclear regulation is similar in some ways to Aerospace regulation where catastrophic failure is not acceptable, although that could mean very low probability like <1E-6, or <1E-5.

I nevertheless agree with sensible regulation.

 

[Astronuc]

24 October 2013 - https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurefueling-the-westinghouse-smr

Westinghouse has taken a key step forward in the development of its 225 MW Small Modular Reactor (SMR), completing the design, fabrication and start of testing on the first fuel assemblies.

Don't know where this is going.

NuScale's system seems furthest along, but I have yet to see the start of a NPP anywhere.

 

[PeterDonis]

With failed fuel, when it comes time to refuel, the staff have to deal with the noble gases Xe, Kr and solubles Br, I, Cs, . . ., and fuel particles. Even with the fuel intact, staff must be shielded by water in the fuel transfer systems and wet pool storage.

If fuel processing could be automated (as for instance in a pebble bed reactor), this risk would be mitigated as well. However, it doesn't appear that the current small modular reactor designs are doing this.

 

[Astronuc]

If fuel processing could be automated (as for instance in a pebble bed reactor), this risk would be mitigated as well. However, it doesn't appear that the current small modular reactor designs are doing this.

There is at least one pebble bed reactor concept and there are others that use graphite moderate fuel, e.g., Kairos, with molten salt cooling. Yet the spent fuel needs to be stored safely, with shielding somewhere. The amount of shielding (and cooling) will depend on the burnup (GWd/kgHM) of the fuel.

https://kairospower.com/technology/

 

[PeterDonis]

the spent fuel needs to be stored safely, with shielding somewhere

Yes, I understand that. I was simply saying that the risk of radiation exposure to plant staff would be greatly reduced if the process of removing and storing the spent fuel could be automated so that it didn't require human intervention.

 

[Astronuc]

Yes, I understand that. I was simply saying that the risk of radiation exposure to plant staff would be greatly reduced if the process of removing and storing the spent fuel could be automated so that it didn't require human intervention.

There have been developments in remote handling systems, especially regarding manufacture of MOX (U,Pu)O₂ fuel and waste from reprocessing. Such systems could conceivably be adapted to NPP reactor and spent fuel handling systems.

But sometimes, things can go wrong. A 3T fuel handling system was accidentally dropped into the MONJU reactor on August 26, 2010. https://cnic.jp/english/?p=2129

That mishap and other problems resulted in cancellation of the program.

 

[russ_watters]

[reverse order]
New renewables are now competitive with the operating costs of existing nuclear plants

LCOE has significant limitations when it comes to modeling intermittent renewables. It's a simple calculation of the total lifetime cost of the plant divided by the energy produced. The problem with that is to make predictions with it, you have to assume you can sell the electricity, at/above that fixed average cost. But intermittent renewables don't make electricity when the grid wants it, they make electricity when they want to (the environment allows). That means that the value of the electricity they make is highly variable. At their worst, they make electricity that nobody wants at any price.
https://www.energyforgrowth.org/memo/lcoe-and-its-limitations/

The worst case for this would be @anorlunda 's "overbuild" scenarios, where most of the electricity generated can't be sold.

The problem is opposite for natural gas peaking plants, which make electricity only when it is at its most expensive.

This isn't a major problem yet for solar in the US because we're only at something like 3% solar (energy, not power), but we're only a few years away from it becoming a major problem. We have already seen a few examples of it. This was 3 years ago: https://www.theagilityeffect.com/en...ergy-enables-california-post-negative-prices/

Another limitation in predicting scaling solar based on LCOE is that right now we're building solar plants primarily where they have the most sunlight available. A solar plant in Pennsylvania isn't going to produce anywhere near as much electricity as it does in Southern California, but will cost just as much. Conventional plants are identical regardless of where you put them.

Problem is building new nuclear plants are impossible without substantial regulatory reform and even then, cost is uncompetitive with renewables or nat gas. You can finance contracted renewables at a mid-single digit cost of equity capital with easy debt financing while nuclear remains uninvestable.

What would constitute "substantial regulatory reform"? The NRC has worked with industry and the public to improve regulation and reducing burden. Some may take a position it's been too much and others will argue not enough. Besides the NRC, there is EPA, FERC, OSHA, SEC, . . . .

Consider the technical side of regulation, how well did it work with FAA and Boeing with respect to assuring the quality of MCAS? What would it look like for a utility to install a faulty control system in a reactor, which then initiates a substantial reactivity insertion event, let's say 5$ of excess reactivity instead of $0.05?

It's not the technical side I'm concerned about, it's the very decisions of where and *if* to to build them. A lot of that is local politics (though there are probably some NRC hoops to jump through as well). But consider that if you can't even build a big wind plant in some places (offshore, on federal land!) because of NIMBYISM, how much harder it is to site a nuclear plant:
https://www.ack.net/news/20171202/timeline-of-cape-wind-project

Cape Wind was first conceived in 2000. It took 10 years (!) to get government approval to build it (federal, state, and local). And if the story had ended there and it had been built, that still would have been absurd. But after 6 more years of legal challenges, and then losses of funding, and power purchasing agreements, and expiring permits, the project was abandoned in 2017.

Contrast that with the Messimer Plan in France, which was not subject to public or parliamentary oversight; They broke ground on the first nuclear plants the same year, and built 56 in 15 years. In the US we spent more time than that defeating a wind farm!

The Yucca mountain nuclear waste repository faces the same issues. The site was selected in 1987(!), and remains in legal limbo today. It's just a friggin tunnel into a mountain!

 

[BWV]

LCOE has significant limitations when it comes to modeling intermittent renewables. It's a simple calculation of the total lifetime cost of the plant divided by the energy produced. The problem with that is to make predictions with it, you have to assume you can sell the electricity, at/above that fixed average cost. But intermittent renewables don't make electricity when the grid wants it, they make electricity when they want to (the environment allows). That means that the value of the electricity they make is highly variable. At their worst, they make electricity that nobody wants at any price.

The worst case for this would be @anorlunda 's "overbuild" scenarios, where most of the electricity generated can't be sold.

Storage will become an issue once solar and wind begin to take more share, but they are >20% of Texas’s isolated grid compared to the ~10% national average without significant issues. Solar and wind are built with 10-25 year power purchase agreements where some party, either a utility or a corporate sponsor agrees to purchase the offtake at a fixed price. This is how large companies like Google are able to state they are 100% renewable - the company is the single largest purchaser of solar and wind power in Earth. Additionally, it is the primary reason why the cost of capital is so low for these projects as the owners of the asset have no exposure to electricity price risk.

A hypothetical 100% solar and wind grid would not only have battery storage, it could use surplus solar power for desalination or creating H2

 

[anorlunda]

Good thread. I like it when the topic is energy/power analysis rather than a lot of principles.

This isn't a major problem yet for solar in the US because we're only at something like 3% solar (energy, not power), but we're only a few years away from it becoming a major problem. We have already seen a few examples of it. This was 3 years ago: https://www.theagilityeffect.com/en...ergy-enables-california-post-negative-prices/

Major problem for who? Almost all scenarios have winners and losers. In the SoCal case, my guess is the winners are retail power customers who do not own rooftop solar. They see lower costs during some hours of the afternoon.

The grid operator may see a problem as the sun gets low in the sky at the same time everyone arrives home from work. Solar generation falls so rapidly, that it is difficult to ramp-up other sources fast enough. But even that provides an opportunity for someone else to make money helping with the ramp-up. Large scale storage of energy for 30-60 minutes, is a specialized category. Let the clever entrepreneurs have a go at it.

 

[Astronuc]

It's not the technical side I'm concerned about, it's the very decisions of where and *if* to to build them.

True. I took the context of "regulatory reform" to refer to regulation of the nuclear industry or nuclear energy, which is primarily the responsibility of the US NRC, which oversees the safety and licensing of nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel production facilities (among others). With respect to regulation of the electric utility industry, that involves more agencies, e.g., EPA, FERC and NERC. And there are other regulatory agencies, e.g., DOJ, SEC, OSHA, . . . . And that is just the federal level. Each state has some Public Utility Commission, and there are local jurisdictions at the county and town/city/village level.

Ref: https://redclay.com/2017/08/08/regulation-electricity-industry-regulation-utility-industry/
https://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/Pages/FederalRegulation.aspx

 

[Imager]

@Astronuc and @russ_watters I just wanted thank you for providing such great information in this thread. That article on the Cape Win project was just scary.

 

[russ_watters]

Major problem for who? Almost all scenarios have winners and losers. In the SoCal case, my guess is the winners are retail power customers who do not own rooftop solar. They see lower costs during some hours of the afternoon.

That's not a win for the customers. Ultimately, they are paying for the cost to build the plant either way, so if the price goes negative for a time or worse a plant gets shut down and doesn't produce electricity because nobody can use it, that just means at other times the cost - and the net/overall cost has to be higher.

The primary winner would be the solar panel/plant manufacturer, who gets to build extra solar plants that produce less electricity for the same cost.

An energy storage customer could win too, but that's a hard fought win and risky bet.

The biggest losers though would be those who built solar plants expecting to be able to sell the power and then finding out later that they can't.

 

[PeterDonis]

Contrast that with the Messimer Plan in France, which was not subject to public or parliamentary oversight; They broke ground on the first nuclear plants the same year, and built 56 in 15 years.

One way I've thought of for doing something similar in the US would be this: have every military base in the continental US be powered by a nuclear reactor, operated by military personnel using the model of the Navy's nuclear power program, and have the government sell whatever excess power is generated over the requirements of the base back to the public power grid. That last provision would probably make the reactors more than pay for themselves.

 

[anorlunda]

That's not a win for the customers. Ultimately, they are paying for the cost to build the plant either way, so if the price goes negative for a time or worse a plant gets shut down and doesn't produce electricity because nobody can use it, that just means at other times the cost - and the net/overall cost has to be higher.

That used to be true in the regulated monopoly model. But we left that behind in many states long ago. In the deregulated model it can and does occur that investors build a facility that loses money. It is not the public that eats the losses, it is the investors. And yes, it is entirely possible for investors to lose all their money while delivering some energy to consumers making it a win for the consumers.

The scenario you pose, where consumers ultimately bear the costs for everything succeed-or-fail was the evil of the regulated monopolies that made us abandon that system. Under a regulated monopoly, the utility is guaranteed a return proportional to the investment, not the production. So, more productive investments and less productive investments return the same profit. That is significant in the nuclear power context. Private investors and regulated utilities have different views on nuclear power investments because of the difference in the burden of who pays for a failed or unfinished project.

Negative prices get too much attention. I think the reason is that people forget that the average price over a year can be positive, even if there are negative prices for a few hours during the year. It is not that big a deal. Imagine if the stock market worked that way, and that every time the price index went down it was considered a calamity and evidence of structural weakness in the system.

There is also nothing wrong with making peaking facilities that are needed only part time. That is the same as saying they can't sell their power full time. In fact, by law in most places they must have a minimum of 20% (the number varies locally) reserve capacity online and ready to go but not producing power. As the mix of wind/solar increases, that 20% number will have to increase also. In another thread, I explored the case of 100% solar in the mix and the reserves number increased from 20% to 700%.

A homeowner who invests in rooftop solar based on a promise that his excess power can always be sold for a profit has been hoaxed.

 

[gmax137]

Under a regulated monopoly, the utility is guaranteed a return proportional to the investment, not the production.

And this system did exactly what was intended, namely electrification of the country. If you go back to the 1930s in the US, this is how the grid was financed and is the reason every farm and ranch is now served with power lines.

The scenario you pose, where consumers ultimately bear the costs for everything succeed-or-fail was the evil of the regulated monopolies that made us abandon that system.

I'm not so sure that spin is accurate. I think certain people saw a way to make money, a lot of money, by deregulating the system and allowing "merchant" operations. Personally, I believe we would be better off with electricity a government function. Electric service is a necessary part of the modern world. As @russ_watters points out, look at what France did in the 1970s. We don't have privately built, pay to use turnpikes anymore, we have the federal interstate system. Electricity is as important as transport, and can be operated in a similar way.

When I started in the power generation business I was struck by the mind-set of the people involved, especially at the generating plants. These are dedicated people who view keeping their units "on line" as an almost sacred trust. Evil? Deregulation imposes a short-term view (quarterly earnings) vs. the long term view (building 80-year infrastructure). Which is better for the country?

 

[anorlunda]

Personally, I believe we would be better off with electricity a government function.

You're free to think that. But there are examples and counter examples.

Have you been following the current news about public power in Puerto Rico?

I'm familiar with the state owned utility in a European country. It has always been a place to park the least competent but politically loyal public employees. The number of employees per kwh delivered was among the highest in the world (but their reliability numbers were OK). I'll leave it to you to guess which country.

But I'm also familiar with other public power companies that do very good jobs, ditto for private companies. But in the private sector, if you perform poorly, you don't survive.

And this system did exactly what was intended, namely electrification of the country. If you go back to the 1930s in the US, this is how the grid was financed and is the reason every farm and ranch is now served with power lines.

That's correct. But it is also history. The power industry's origin was the Edison Illuminating Company, not the REA.

We should be careful to not allow this thread to become too political.

 

[gmax137]

We should be careful to not allow this thread to become too political.

I agree. But...

So, I went back to the beginning of this thread. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-nuclear-power-thread.9091/

@russ_watters listed a number of facts, and not surprisingly, some have changed in the past 17 years (for example, natural gas does not appear in Post#1; nobody is building oil-fired power units, and coal no longer produces 50% of US MW-hrs). But, with a few corrections that post could have been written today. Little of substance has changed. => "politics"