The Nuclear Power Thread

[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"

 

[artis]

@gmax Well this might be long but maybe someone including you might be interested.

I agree with you 50/50. Here's my take on this.
A total government owned anything is bad , why? simple. Because governments tend to become lazy and incompetent if not always then at least at certain points in time. It is human nature that when they can share their responsibility they tend to take a lesser risk and much less sacrifice compared to when they stand everything to lose themselves.
I think there are two ditches here as on every road. One ditch is to have a "wild west" type of capitalist jungle where nothing is regulated and everyone just goes gold rush. Sure enough this approach is wrong clearly for again the same human nature reasons, the other approach is where everything is regulated to the last screw in the chair outside the lobby of a power plant. This was the approach in the former USSR. I happen to know about it.

Infrastructure in the former USSR and China is state owned and controlled and this is the other ditch, Chernobyl happened largely because of lazy bureaucrats running a giant nuclear plant with a very peculiar and experience demanding reactor, sure electricity was so cheap you could just leave your heater on in the summer but the downside is much increased risk of accidents if the government appointed oversight turns out less qualified or lazy, also much higher loses , nobody really cared to increase the grid efficiency and many other things.
There are countless examples from other places like China about this.Everything from much lowered emissions standards to advance competition to higher risk and accident rates etc. I'm sure we all agree on this.

As much as you want you can't really take politics or culture out of this. The example of France does not really apply to US @russ_watters , because unlike US, France is much more homogeneous also smaller, it;s just that countries that are more or less ethnically monolithic and have more or less the same thinking can have a government run program with much more success, the key is in the unity of thought.
If US had such a unity I see no problem for why the US couldn't move on with many plans that are currently o hold.
This is the same reason for why medical plans that work for countries like Norway will never work for countries like US, a different society with different numbers and models of living.

I personally think that for US it is bet to have a sensibly regulated private energy sector where competition and advances in technology push the price and also the market direction.

All in all it's the inescapable side effect of democracy that often times fools have just as much free speech and influencing power as competent people and in matters like nuclear energy this is a important factor.

 

[artis]

Truth be told there is some blame for the private sector if we talk about nuclear , I for example still can't understand how the Japanese energy company that ran Fukushima was allowed to make those reactors with diesel backup at such a low elevation in a room that can get flooded.
I mean those reactors were just fine even after the tsunami, if they had taken the risk to run them at a minimum power output even during the tsunami they could have continued to cool themselves and would have been fine.

I am not pretending to be a wise guy here but if that was my plant and my investment I would have spent a few extra bucks and made sure my diesel room is uphill and water tight.
Such a simple change would have saved Fukushima and possibly many nuclear plant projects from cancellation.On the same note I do feel that it might be the case that in the nuclear sector some of the regulations are too tight while others are not good enough.
PS. @anorlunda when you talked about that 30-60 minute storage were you envisioning possible flywheel storage systems ?

 

[anorlunda]

PS. @anorlunda when you talked about that 30-60 minute storage were you envisioning possible flywheel storage systems ?

That's one possibility, yes. So far, flywheel storage has been mostly a bad investment. But if a 30-60 minute market arises, they might fare better in competition. But there are many ways to skin that cat.

 

[gmax137]

@gmax Well this might be long but maybe someone including you might be interested.

I agree with you 50/50. Here's my take on this.
A total government owned anything is bad , why? simple. Because governments tend to become lazy and incompetent if not always then at least at certain points in time. It is human nature that when they can share their responsibility they tend to take a lesser risk and much less sacrifice compared to when they stand everything to lose themselves.
I think there are two ditches here as on every road. One ditch is to have a "wild west" type of capitalist jungle where nothing is regulated and everyone just goes gold rush. Sure enough this approach is wrong clearly for again the same human nature reasons, the other approach is where everything is regulated to the last screw in the chair outside the lobby of a power plant. This was the approach in the former USSR. I happen to know about it.

Infrastructure in the former USSR and China is state owned and controlled and this is the other ditch, Chernobyl happened largely because of lazy bureaucrats running a giant nuclear plant with a very peculiar and experience demanding reactor, sure electricity was so cheap you could just leave your heater on in the summer but the downside is much increased risk of accidents if the government appointed oversight turns out less qualified or lazy, also much higher loses , nobody really cared to increase the grid efficiency and many other things.
There are countless examples from other places like China about this.Everything from much lowered emissions standards to advance competition to higher risk and accident rates etc. I'm sure we all agree on this.

As much as you want you can't really take politics or culture out of this. The example of France does not really apply to US @russ_watters , because unlike US, France is much more homogeneous also smaller, it;s just that countries that are more or less ethnically monolithic and have more or less the same thinking can have a government run program with much more success, the key is in the unity of thought.
If US had such a unity I see no problem for why the US couldn't move on with many plans that are currently o hold.
This is the same reason for why medical plans that work for countries like Norway will never work for countries like US, a different society with different numbers and models of living.

I personally think that for US it is bet to have a sensibly regulated private energy sector where competition and advances in technology push the price and also the market direction.

All in all it's the inescapable side effect of democracy that often times fools have just as much free speech and influencing power as competent people and in matters like nuclear energy this is a important factor.

Thanks @artis for your thoughtful reply. I like your "keep between the ditches" metaphor. You are correct, driving into either ditch is hazardous.

 

[artis]

Sure @gmax137 you know as I said private owned and pushed energy sector is not bad , but one needs to keep a tight yet sensible eye on them, now this has to be the government.
A recent example , a local one, here in EU they now push for lots of renewables, one of them is cogeneration plants where you basically make a little bit of electricity and lots of heat from burning wood chips.
EU gave out lots of orders and subsidies for these plants, many sure got built and operate correctly but some guys built one and also operated it but guess what? They just put their lil bit of electricity into the grid while dumping the heat on large heat exchangers in the atmosphere. Why?
Heres why. Eu pays a double tariff to any renewable electricity producer, so the small hydro gets it, wind gets it and solar and also cogeneration. Now the problem is where do you put the heat in the summer and other periods when one doesn't need so much , well normally environmentally you would decrease your output, but money wise you just roll full on nonstop and go to the bank and get your paycheck.
These guys made millions before they got shut down and now they are in the midst of a trial.

The funny thing is that one local guy went to walk with his dog and he noticed hot air rising in summer from the heat exchangers , no smoke no nothing. Being a wise guy most likely he sensed something is not right, he called the local TV and just blew the lid right off these guys.Moral of the story?
Very few people do anything for a noble cause or a higher goal, like environment or God or the peace on earth. Most people just want to live as good as they can and get rich.
I think that the real art in a good capitalist system is to build a good separator with sensible regulation and oversight so that one can let the geniuses and engineers and honest business folks make life better while putting money seeking scumbags behind bars.This is rather long but truth be told I see only 3 options (realistically) for nuclear to come back.

1) Fusion stops being 30 years away , smaller modular reactors that are safe and easy to license (50/50 chance)
2) Public suddenly starts reading actual books and come to their senses (I wouldn't bet on this one)
3) Government gets more power and just pushes reform despite NGO , think tank and "environmentalist hippie" pushback, sort of China style capitalism ( not sure this is doable in the west or necessary)

Oh yeah and the last option , we run out of other options...
Given Hydro is here to stay and renewables are pushing more into the market, I do wonder if we leave out coal and gas and oil, how much percentage wise could the renewables rise globally, because then we sum up hydro and all reneables and the part that is left empty has to be filled with a green and sustainable source of energy.

 

[Astronuc]

@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"

A useful reference - https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/

Politics is a significant factor (from the policy side as well as regulatory side), but so is economics. The 1990s saw the consolidation of utilities in parallel with a move to deregulate the electrical utility industry, and the trend continued during the 2000s. Some utilities sold their nuclear plants, while some bigger utilities, e.g., Exelon, bought nuclear plants. The cost of new plants accelerated with the cost of raw materials. I attended several presentations on the next generations (Gen-3+) LWRs, which were originally priced at about $1 billion (and 5 years to build), but during the early 2000s the prices appreciated to ~$5 billion, then ~$7 billion per unit!
The industry was also focused on fuel reliability (trying to achieve zero fuel failures by 2010), while addressing limits on peak fuel enthalpy during RIA events and high-temperature cladding oxidation during LOCA events (both hypothetical accident scenarios, but key parts of plant licensing), control blade interference with BWR channels, plant uprates (some plants increasing power by up to 20% of original licensing levels), and plant life-extensions (going from 40 years to 60 years, and looking down the road to 80 years). Unresolved challenges included a lack of final disposition of spent fuel in the US (Yucca mountain perennially in limbo) and development of cheap natural gas power plants that could be quickly built (couple of years) as opposed to at least 5 years (optimistic) for a nuclear plant.

For two units, Vogtle 3 and 4, "On August 26, 2009, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued an Early Site Permit and a Limited Work Authorization. Limited construction at the new reactor sites began, with Unit 3 then expected to be operational in 2016, followed by Unit 4 in 2017, pending final issuance of the Combined Construction and Operating License by the NRC." The units are now nearing completion (2021 and 2022), which would put them at about 12 and 13 years for construction (from ground breaking), or 8 and 9 years since the basemats were poured in March and November 2013, respectively. The expected building cost for the two reactors is estimated at about $14 billion.

https://www.powermag.com/westinghouse-shaw-to-break-ground-on-georgia-nuclear-units-3-and-4/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant#Units_3_and_4
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34172

Gas-fired plants (using aero-derivative gas turbines), particularly in combined cycle plants have become prolific/ubiquitous along with cheap natural gas from fracking. But some older gas-fired plants have problems, too.
https://arstechnica.com/information...-plant-closes-down-as-renewables-get-cheaper/

The sad thing about some of the German PWRs is that they are among the most thermally efficient (>35%, and approaching 37%) NPPs (e.g., Pre-Konvoi NPPs: Grafenrheinfeld, Grohnde and Brokdorf) ever constructed.
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=107
Some of the plants did load-following, and some were pretty aggressive.
https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2011/load-following-npp.pdf
Some old history - https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/307038

I've had the privilege of working with most of the German, as well as other European, nuclear utilities, most Japanese nuclear utilities and Taipower, not to mention most US nuclear utilities. Most of the folks with whom I have worked are deceased, retired, or moved into other areas in the industry (e.g., energy trading, electrical cars and charging systems, renewable energy, . . . ).

Advanced NPP concepts, i.e., Gen-IV and others, are another story.

 

[Astronuc]

Advanced reactor projects teams receive US federal risk reduction funding
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Advanced-reactor-projects-teams-receive-US-federal
17 December 2020

The five projects chosen through a funding opportunity announcement issued in May to receive the cost-shared awards are: the BWXT Advanced Nuclear Reactor, a transportable microreactor using TRISO fuel for use in off-grid applications and remote areas; Westinghouse's eVinci Microreactor, a transportable heat pipe-cooled microreactor also using TRISO fuel; the Hermes Reduced-Scale Test Reactor, a scaled-down version of Kairos Power's fluoride salt-cooled high temperature reactor (KP-FHR); the Holtec SMR-160 light-water small modular reactor; and the Molten Chloride Reactor Experiment, a project led by Southern Company Services Inc to build and operate a small reactor experiment based on TerraPower's molten chloride fast reactor technology.

Somewhat related - https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-advanced-reactor-systems-watch-2030

 

[artis]

@Astronuc I read about these plant life extensions elsewhere also, is that because with time and testing they noticed that the reactors vessels (in BWR and PWR ) case don't degrade as fast as once thought?

I read that Russians are also extending their VVER reactor lifetimes but I don't think that they have changed the reactor vessels in any of those cases so assuming the original vessels.
I also read of certain RBMK reactor life extensions but here I'm not sure whether they haven't changed parts of the core since RBMK being a channel reactor can undergo change in certain parts of the core or maybe evne the full core, which IIRC was done at Leningrad NPP. But maybe you can correct me @Astronuc

 

[Astronuc]

@Astronuc I read about these plant life extensions elsewhere also, is that because with time and testing they noticed that the reactors vessels (in BWR and PWR ) case don't degrade as fast as once thought?

Starting in the 1980s, utilities began implementing low leakage core patterns in which high burnup assemblies were loaded on the periphery of the core. In the 1990s, some utilities started loading specially designed assemblies in which some fuel rods were replaced with stainless steel rods or Hf-absorber rods. These assemblies were asymmetrically designed with two or more rows of stainless steel or Hf-absorber rods on one side or face of the assembly, which would sit adjacent to the core barrel or baffle. The goal has been to reduce the fast flux, which integrated over time is fast fluence. That approach has been largely successful. However, some older plants have shutdown, some before reaching 40 years.

In addition to radiation effects (from fast neutrons and gammas), there are concerns about thermal aging effects. Embrittlement data are constantly reviewed and curves revised with respect to embrittlement of pressure vessels and core internals.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads...sel-task-light-water-reactor-sustainability-0

EU has a separate program from the US - https://publications.jrc.ec.europa....JRC46534/eur23449 - ames 19 - anneal-2008.pdf

I read that Russians are also extending their VVER reactor lifetimes but I don't think that they have changed the reactor vessels in any of those cases so assuming the original vessels.
I also read of certain RBMK reactor life extensions but here I'm not sure whether they haven't changed parts of the core since RBMK being a channel reactor can undergo change in certain parts of the core or maybe evne the full core, which IIRC was done at Leningrad NPP. But maybe you can correct me @Astronuc

I'm more familiar with VVER than RBMK. I know the Russians have employed pressure vessel annealing, which has been considered in the US. As far as I know, VVERs operators have adopted similar approaches to the US and EU, and in some cases, they have employed 'dummy' assemblies.

https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurereactor-dosimetry-for-vvers-past-and-future/
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/39/050/39050622.pdf

https://www.neimagazine.com/news/ne...ogy-to-extend-the-life-of-a-vver-1000-6876259
https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newskey-life-extension-equipment-delivered-to-armenian-npp-8121357

https://nucet.pensoft.net/article/46380/
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Rosatom-launches-annealing-technology-for-VVER-100

 

[Astronuc]

AIP Conference Proceedings - ADVANCING OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENERGY FOR NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Proceedings of the Nuclear Science, Technology, and Engineering Conference 2014 (NuSTEC2014)
https://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1659/1

An interesting paper
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4916849
and another on SMRs
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4916841