The Nuclear Power Thread

[Jon Richfield]

use fast reactor to burn up most of the spent fuel
Yucca mountain problem is the bad result of ONCE-THROUGH fuel policy

Right. Our current nuclear impasse and general problem is the result of letting political hysteria arousing out of bigotry and ignorance mess up what should have been a scientific and technological/engineering challenge.

 

[gmax137]

...bigotry...

whaat??

 

[Jon Richfield]

whaat??

Hm? Is there a problem?

You have of course surely observed the attitude of the anti-nuke Nazis?

Or do I misunderstand?

 

[Astronuc]

Germany agrees to extend nuclear plant life span
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11194117

Germany's coalition government has decided to extend the life span of the country's nuclear power plants by an average of 12 years, officials say.

Under the agreement, some plants will now remain in production until the 2030s, instead of being phased out by 2021 as the previous government wanted.

There will also be new fees on utility companies to fund renewable energy.

Chancellor Angela Merkel argued that renewable sources are not developed enough to abandon nuclear power.

She acknowledged that there were widespread concerns about nuclear energy, but said it was needed as a "bridge technology" until renewables were more viable.

. . .

Nuclear a cash cow for Germany's plans
http://world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Nuclear_a_cash_cow_for_Germanys_plans_0609101.html
06 September 2010

German nuclear power plants are set to operate for longer after a policy change from Angela Merkel's government gave them a short-term extension in return for billions in taxes.

. . . .

 

[Astronuc]

First contracts for first new plant
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_First_contracts_for_first_new_plant_1409101.html
14 September 2010

At a supply chain event for UK contractors yesterday, EDF Energy announced that it has awarded over £50 million ($77 million) worth of contracts for the first nuclear power plant it plans to build in the UK.

Together with its investment partner, Centrica, EDF Energy plans to build four Areva EPR reactors by 2025, two each at its Hinkley Point and Sizewell sites. The company expects the first unit, at Hinkley Point C, to be operating by 2018.
. . . .

Nuclear utilities in global sustainability index
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Nuclear_utilities_in_global_sustainability_index-1409104.html
13 September 2010

A number of US and European nuclear power utilities have been included in the latest review of the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index (DJSI World), one of the leading international benchmarks for corporate contribution to sustainable development.
. . . .

 

[Astronuc]

India ready to export reactors
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-India_ready_to_export_reactors-2309107.html
23 September 2010

Overseas vendors may be keen to sell India their reactor technology, but the country is ready to export its own pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs).

In India's statement to the 54th General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, Indian Atomic Energy Commission chairman Srikumar Banerjee said that Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) is "ready to offer Indian PHWRs of 220 MWe or 540 MWe for export." Furthermore, he said, Indian industry is also "on the way" to becoming a competitive supplier of special steels, large size forgings, control instruments, software and other nuclear components and services on the global market.

. . . .

So India will join Russian, China and Korea as key exporters of commercial nuclear technology. They all will likely become competitive suppliers of special steels, large size forgings, control instruments, software and other nuclear components and services on the global market.

Interesting parallel between the present day US economy and that of Lancashire in the 19th century in which overseas markets began competing effectively with industries in Lancashire, which resulted in loss of revenue, periodic recessions or depressions, and surplus labour. But then again, Lancashire could generate much of its capital locally, as opposed to the US having to go to foreign sources (sovereign investment funds) to raise capital. But that is really a subject for Other Sciences or P&WA.

 

[mugaliens]

Germany agrees to extend nuclear plant life span
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11194117

That's surprising! When I arrived in Germany in 2005, the media buzz at the time was that they were phasing out their nuclear industry in favor of wind.

Sounds like the green party took a nose dive.

 

[Astronuc]

Inside a NPP.

http://news.cnet.com/2300-11128_3-10005036.html?tag=mncol (6 images)

 

[mheslep]

Inside a NPP.

http://news.cnet.com/2300-11128_3-10005036.html?tag=mncol (6 images)

Thanks, though that's more 'outside' than inside anything nuclear, with no reactor photos given. Not that I expect journalists are allowed many pics these days inside the containment dome.

 

[Astronuc]

There's a nice shot into a core in the pdf in this post.

Here's a link. http://deqtech.com/Resources/PDF/Sources_at_NPP.pdf

It is tough to get images inside containment now. It's pretty much limited due to safeguard restrictions.

 

[Astronuc]

Nuclear Power Institute—Developing The Nuclear Industry Workforce

With eight new nuclear reactors approved for construction in Texas, the need for skilled workers is growing rapidly. NPI is meeting this challenge through a broad partnership with industry, community colleges, universities, high schools, middle schools, science and math teachers, state government, Federal agencies, and elected and civic leaders.

Some 450 skilled workers needed for each new reactor being built in Texas.

nuclearpowerinstitute.org

I've known the director for 28 years. NPI is a recent creation.

A good industry journal for keeping up with nuclear power plants for and by those involved in NPP operation.
http://www.nuclearplantjournal.com/

 

[gmax137]

It is tough to get images inside containment now.

How's this (this unit had been mothballed for many years at the time of the photo):

 

[Astronuc]

Ningde 4 the latest Chinese reactor project
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Ningde_4_the_latest_Chinese_reactor_project_04101001.html

Some 24 reactors are now under construction in China.

 

[mheslep]

Nuclear Power Institute—Developing The Nuclear Industry Workforce

With eight new nuclear reactors approved for construction in Texas,

The NRC has not approved any eight new reactors in Texas. The NRC has not granted final approval to operate to any new reactors in the US.

 

[Astronuc]

The NRC has not approved any eight new reactors in Texas. The NRC has not granted final approval to operate to any new reactors in the US.

The approval is not necessarily from the NRC, although that is what counts. I suspect the approval is in the form of letters of intent or MOUs from utilities, although considering when that was written, applications for 4 units may have been withdrawn or put on hold.

The NRC has certified the ABWR, but the applications amended given the change in relationship between GE, Hitachi and Toshiba, which has been done. COL docketed.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-abwr.html

Meanwhile, certification of the Mitsubishi US-APWR is pending. COL docketed.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/comanche-peak.html

Exelon did have plans for two ESBWRs in Victoria, but I believe those have been deferred.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/victoria.html
June 14 NRC docketed Exelon's ESP application for Victoria County, originally submitted as a COLA.

There was a private group Amarillo Power (UniStar) looking at two unitsnear Amarillo, but I don't think that was serious.

Re: http://www.ne.doe.gov/np2010/neScorecard/neScorecard.html

 

[gmax137]

The NRC has not approved any eight new reactors in Texas. The NRC has not granted final approval to operate to any new reactors in the US.

Also, the state public utility commission usually (typically?) has to approve new plant construction as being 'necessary' by some specific criteria. I don't know if that's the case in Texas, or if that approval was in fact in place there.

 

[Astronuc]

Major engineering contract for Bellefonte
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Areva_wins_Bellefonte_engineering_contract-0510107.html
05 October 2010

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has awarded Areva a contract for engineering and design work towards the completion of the Bellefonte nuclear power plant.

. . . . The NRC reinstated the construction permits for the reactors in 2009. Assuming TVA's board decides to proceed with the completion of unit 1, the plant would be expected to start up around 2018-2019.

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-calvert-cliffs-20101011,0,4652014.story

Development of a new nuclear power plant in Maryland suffered a major setback last week with the disclosure that Constellation Energy Group has withdrawn from the federal loan guarantee program. Without those guarantees, it would appear unlikely that Calvert Cliffs 3 will be developed by Constellation and its partner in the project, Electricite de France.

. . . .

The cost of $880 million on a $7.5 billion loan (for a plant currently estimated to cost $9.6 billion) was too great of a burden for the company to take on. The company, and the nuclear industry, feel that the OMB over-estimates the risk.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-calvert-cliffs-20101011,0,4652014.story
The cost of $880 million on a $7.5 billion loan (for a plant currently estimated to cost $9.6 billion) was too great of a burden for the company to take on. The company, and the nuclear industry, feel that the OMB over-estimates the risk.

That is yet more nuclear development stopped by government imposed costs.

 

[Astronuc]

That is yet more nuclear development stopped by government imposed costs.

As opposed to bank or investor imposed costs?! Note that banks and investment funds are not chomping at the bit on 'high risk' nuclear power plants, and I'm sure they'd want a hefty premium up front, and high interest rates.

 

[mheslep]

As opposed to bank or investor imposed costs?! Note that banks and investment funds are not chomping at the bit on 'high risk' nuclear power plants, and I'm sure they'd want a hefty premium up front, and high interest rates.

Eh? As I understood the article, OMB was setting higher than reasonable, ie forcing higher interest rates than even private capital would have charged. That, and OMB was forcing additional guarantees. So, all above and beyond what would happen without federal involvement, say in China where total plant costs are much lower even though they are exposed to essentially the same world wide cost of capital.

 

[joelupchurch]

As opposed to bank or investor imposed costs?! Note that banks and investment funds are not chomping at the bit on 'high risk' nuclear power plants, and I'm sure they'd want a hefty premium up front, and high interest rates.

But the risks are created by the government. We have had two nuclear reactors that the government refused to issue operating licenses. The companies spent billions of dollars and the government wouldn't let them operate the plants. That doesn't even include all the costs imposed by the insane NRC licensing procedures. The Chinese are building reactors using our designs in less time that it takes the NRC to issue a license to start construction in the United States.

Remember we are talking about reactor designs that the NRC has already approved. There is a whole other process for getting a new design approved.

It really bugs me that opponents of nuclear power say that is too risky when they are the ones that create the risk.

 

[mheslep]

But the risks are created by the government. We have had two nuclear reactors that the government refused to issue operating licenses. The companies spent billions of dollars and the government wouldn't let them operate the plants. That doesn't even include all the costs imposed by the insane NRC licensing procedures.

Yes! Exactly.

The Chinese are building reactors using our designs in less time that it takes the NRC to issue a license to start construction in the United States.

Remember we are talking about reactor designs that the NRC has already approved. There is a whole other process for getting a new design approved.

It really bugs me that opponents of nuclear power say that is too risky when they are the ones that create the risk.

Hmm, two different types of risk here. Financial and accident/proliferation safety.

 

[joelupchurch]

Yes! Exactly.

Hmm, two different types of risk here. Financial and accident/proliferation safety.

Yes, but we are talking about designs that NRC has already approved. The important job for the NRC is to make sure the contractors and subcontractors are building the reactor to the design they approved. They can't do that job until construction starts, so the extra delay provides no extra safety.

I don't mean sitting at a desk in Washington checking paperwork. I mean actual eyeballs at the construction site. The Ap1000 is a modular design, where most of the reactor is built in factories, which should make it easier to control the quality. I wouldn't be surprised, when we start building AP1000 reactors, if we end up buying components from the Chinese.

 

[Astronuc]

Eh? As I understood the article, OMB was setting higher than reasonable, ie forcing higher interest rates than even private capital would have charged. That, and OMB was forcing additional guarantees. So, all above and beyond what would happen without federal involvement, say in China where total plant costs are much lower even though they are exposed to essentially the same world wide cost of capital.

Um the Chinese government is involved in the building of those reactors in China, and they are flush with cash. In the US, we have public utilities or mechant power producers who have to go to the capital markets. The reason for the government loan guarantees is that the utilities could not get financing from the financial markets.

It could very well be that the government is over-estimating the risk of default on the $7.5 billion loan.


The Chinese government can also accept less stingent safety standards since they are will to accept the loss of life that would be unacceptable in the US (unless one lives in New Orleans ). And the Chinese people cannot sue the government or companies they way its done in the US.

Large forgings have so far been ordered from Japan until shops can be established in the US.

But the risks are created by the government. We have had two nuclear reactors that the government refused to issue operating licenses. The companies spent billions of dollars and the government wouldn't let them operate the plants.

Which two nuclear reactors? Usually the government has a very good reason not to issue a license. There are two sites under construction - South Texas and Vogtle. The rest are either slowly moving along or have been suspended or deferred for various reasons.

 

[mheslep]

Um the Chinese government is involved in the building of those reactors in China,

Yes of course, but the point is the government there apparently does not act to drive up the cost, relatively speaking.

and they are flush with cash.

What does this have to do keeping plant cost down?

In the US, we have public utilities or mechant power producers who have to go to the capital markets. The reason for the government loan guarantees is that the utilities could not get financing from the financial markets.

That's curious. Do you have a source for that? I would think the case more likely is that the utility could get financing, but just not at a rate acceptable to them.

[...]The Chinese government can also accept less stingent safety standards since they are will to accept the loss of life that would be unacceptable in the US (unless one lives in New Orleans ).

I agree, and I support a higher safety standard. However I'm far from convinced that standards and regulatory environments imposed by the US bureaucracy are all supportable on the basis of safety, versus bureaucratic inertia.

And the Chinese people cannot sue the government or companies they way its done in the US.

Again because of the legal system imposed by the US government in the last ~century or so.

 

[Astronuc]

What does this have to do keeping plant cost down?

Low financing costs, low overhead down the supply chain, and they subsidize their industries. Also, the average person in China (per capita GDP ~ $3,744 (World Bank)) has a lower standard of living than the average person in the US (per capita GDP ~ $46,436 (World Bank)).

That's curious. Do you have a source for that? I would think the case more likely is that the utility could get financing, but just not at a rate acceptable to them.

Just what I hear in the industry, but I'll try to get more information from the appropriate sources.

Again because of the legal system imposed by the US government in the last ~century or so.

And there is a good reason for that. Corporations used to make unsafe (harmful) products or provide unsafe (harmful) working conditions. Over time, the role of government has evolved to protect the consumer and worker, which is consistent with " . . . establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, . . . , promote the general Welfare, . . . ." BTW - the "people" elected the governments that determined those policies.

 

[mheslep]

.

Which two nuclear reactors? Usually the government has a very good reason not to issue a license. There are two sites under construction - South Texas and Vogtle. The rest are either slowly moving along or have been suspended or deferred for various reasons.

I think he means historically - Byron for at least one of them. License refused in 1984 after 9 years of construction. License eventually granted; the delay no doubt cost a fortune.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Nuclear_Generating_Station

 

[mheslep]

Low financing costs, low overhead down the supply chain, and they subsidize their industries. Also, the average person in China (per capita GDP ~ $3,744 (World Bank)) has a lower standard of living than the average person in the US (per capita GDP ~ $46,436 (World Bank)).

? I don't follow how that all connects to being "flush with cash"? Anyway ...

And there is a good reason for that. Corporations used to make unsafe (harmful) products or provide unsafe (harmful) working conditions.

Corporations? All kinds of business entities, including mom&pop shops have made unsafe products, and they still do, though not as much. I think you'd find it hard to prove the US version of government regulation is responsible for all of that improvement.

Over time, the role of government has evolved to protect the consumer and worker,

Again, I think you'd find it hard to prove that it actually does those things.

which is consistent with " . . . establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, . . . , promote the general Welfare, . . . ."

So are many things. Like, for instance, having access to inexpensive, clean energy, which allows those without means a chance to prosper.

BTW - the "people" elected the governments that determined those policies.

Yes, unfortunately that does not mean "people" desired everything those governments have done, or certainly not as much as the trial lawyers desired it.

 

[joelupchurch]

Which two nuclear reactors? Usually the government has a very good reason not to issue a license. There are two sites under construction - South Texas and Vogtle. The rest are either slowly moving along or have been suspended or deferred for various reasons.

The infamous case was Shoreham. It was complete, but it couldn't get an operating license because Governor Mario Cuomo wouldn't sign off on a Emergency Evacuation Plan. Governor Dukakis used similar tactics to keep Seabrook from opening for years. The delays drove the major shareholder of the plant into bankruptcy.

It doesn't look like the apple falls far from the tree. Governor Elect Andrew Cuomo has been trying to get Indian Point shut down by getting their environmental permits revoked.