The Nuclear Power Thread

[mheslep]

Is nuclear power cheaper than other power sources? No.

Depends where it is built

...The report includes two nuclear data points for China, with overnight costs of USD 1 807/kWe and USD 2 615/kWe; LCOES are USD 26/MWh and USD 31/MWh at a 3% discount rate, USD 37/MWh and USD 48/MWh at 7% and USD 49/MWh and USD 64/MWh at 10%.

Chinese nuclear is three times cheaper than gas, two times cheaper than coal. I suspect only hydro is cheaper in China among reliable power sources.

https://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/ElecCost2015SUM.pdf

 

[jim hardy]

What should we use for perspective in such discussions?

Ten billion humans on the planet seems aberrant to me and if we don't do something about population growth we'll soon enough pave the whole place and have nowhere left to grow food.
Not to mention putting all that carbon back into the atmosphere as we burn fuel and make concrete(by cooking the CO2 out of limestone).

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

I see Nuclear as mankind's hundred year bridge from carbon fuel to fusion.
We have to learn to do all things well - maybe it'll teach us that too.

To me it's that simple.

old jim

 

[Jon Richfield]

Is nuclear power cheaper than other power sources? No.
Will its potential fuel reserves last for millions of years? No, uranium resources are limited. (Solar power's energy source is good for next ~4 billion years).
It produces no waste? No. (Solar doesn't. Even old panels are fully recyclable).
Is it safe from causing very costly accidents? Demonstrably, no. (Solar is safe).

So, what are those desirable features? Power density? Yep, cool. If you build a spacecraft for a trip to Jupiter, it is very important. Is it *that* important in terrestrial power plant?
Wrong. It's a completely valid question whether some technology is good enough to be used, or not. Or even bad enough to be abandoned or banned. Many technologies, while having some benefits, nevertheless were abandoned. Say, radium glowing paint. Lead additives to petrol. Chlorofluorocarbons. Etc etc etc...

Really nikkkom, do yourself justice. I said I was busy. If you do not address the points you are fulminating, not arguing, and certainly not engineering.
And for fulminations I cannot afford the time. I fallout here.

 

[Jon Richfield]

...
I see Nuclear as mankind's hundred year bridge from carbon fuel to fusion.
We have to learn to do all things well - maybe it'll teach us that too.

To me it's that simple.

old jim

Jim, I largely agree, (though nothing is simple! )
but I think that you understate the scope for what it has become fashionable to call renewables.

 

[nikkkom]

Yes, the Chernobyl accident was tragic. Please recognize there have been, and will be, industrial accidents in other countries, not just yours

Note that even after Chernobyl, which impacted me, I did not yet decide that nuclear is hopeless.
It took another nuclear disaster in another country, Japan, for me to finally change my mind. (Well, the last straw was even later - when I saw people from nuclear industry STILL not getting it, even after Fukushima. "Filters on emergency vent lines are not necesssary"?? No, people with the attitudes like that are what is not necessary.)

 

[Jon Richfield]

Note that even after Chernobyl, which impacted me, I did not yet decide that nuclear is hopeless.
It took another nuclear disaster in another country, Japan, for me to finally change my mind. (Well, the last straw was even later - when I saw people from nuclear industry STILL not getting it, even after Fukushima. "Filters on emergency vent lines are not necesssary"?? No, people with the attitudes like that are what is not necessary.)

I suspect that my views on bosses like that are even stronger than yours, and probably have been in place a good deal longer, but I draw a distinction between technology and politics. (Don't bother to tell me that they are inseparable; I agree, but by that criterion there is hardly a technology that we could use at all.) And in dealing with such matters we are not licensed to have last straws or final changes of mind in matters concerning engineering when the underlying technology is sound.

 

[Jon Richfield]

Some of us might be interested in this item in the Lancet Volume 387, No. 10029, p1707–1708, 23 April 2016:

Chernobyl disaster 30 years on: lessons not learned

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736%2816%2930304-X

I might have passed it by, but it seemed like a good example of synchronicity, so I thought I would pass it on.
It is not exactly nuclear engineering source material, but it seems to me generally sound, and the core of the message I support strongly.
One thing I will bet on cheerfully is that politicos and management climbers will hate, hate, hate it!

 

[jim hardy]

DOI link gives "error not found" message

Lancet link takes one to a page that wants $31.50 USD

Guess 'll have to wait for the Nova show.

 

[Astronuc]

Some of us might be interested in this item in the Lancet Volume 387, No. 10029, p1707–1708, 23 April 2016:

Chernobyl disaster 30 years on: lessons not learned . . . .

Without a subscription or purchase, one can only read the summary, which doesn't provide much information: "Ahead of the 30 year anniversary on April 26, 2016, Chris McCall spoke to a former plant operator at Chernobyl and to experts about the explosion's long-term health effects."

While it's not nuclear engineering, it is related to health physics or the effects of radiation on persons.

 

[Jon Richfield]

Without a subscription or purchase, one can only read the summary, which doesn't provide much information: "Ahead of the 30 year anniversary on April 26, 2016, Chris McCall spoke to a former plant operator at Chernobyl and to experts about the explosion's long-term health effects."

While it's not nuclear engineering, it is related to health physics or the effects of radiation on persons.

 

[Jon Richfield]

Sorry about that. The whole thing is very irksome. I could paraphrase the article, but...
Then again, I have downloaded the PDF, but I assume that publishing that here would be most unwelcome for all responsible parties.
The article is labelled open access, and free to read, but the only way I can read it myself is when I log in via my email.
If anyone is interested enough to register for free access to such material then what I did some months ago was to go to :
http://www.thelancet.com/access-to-content
There they offered free registration that covered all the editorial and essay material, which I must say, has been quite adequate for my purposes and rewarding, except for passing on stuff as I failed to do before. All they don't offer is the research articles and data. If you do it now, that article should still be available.
Good luck!

 

[jim hardy]

Well ! to my surprise I'm already registered there .

Interesting article.

Indeed people got hurt there, some got killed.. Mother Nature is repairing the damage albeit slowly by a human timeframe.

Last line:

The chief lesson, she says, is
that secrecy is dangerous. “It is a great
mistake. Governments should know
to issue the information”, she said.

Like Watergate, the crime was the coverup .
I respect Nikkom's view that Social science hasn't kept up with technology..
And ... That's a dilemma - can we wait until we're mature enough for it ?
By that logic er, i mean by that standard
i daresay most of us oughtn't marry until we've past child bearing age.

just my thoughts

old jim

 

[mheslep]

...I see Nuclear as mankind's hundred year bridge from carbon fuel to fusion.

Fission is easily a thousand year bridge, if you want to call it that, or ten thousand.

 

[Jon Richfield]

Very likely, but you need a bridge or two to reach the long bridge.
That is the story of Civilisation.
Uncivilisation offers fewer challenges, but won't last as long, because we won't last as long without Civilisation.
Diagnosis is not as simple as it might seem, because it is easier to convince a civilised person that he is not really civilised, than an uncivilised person that he is really uncivilised.
Or something...

 

[nikkkom]

I suspect that my views on bosses like that are even stronger than yours, and probably have been in place a good deal longer, but I draw a distinction between technology and politics.
...
the underlying technology is sound.

I take it you recommend me to just *ignore* nuclear bosses not making nuclear stations under their control safe enough? On the grounds that THEORETICALLY "the underlying technology is sound"? This is stupid.

 

[Jon Richfield]

I take it you recommend me to just *ignore* nuclear bosses not making nuclear stations under their control safe enough? On the grounds that THEORETICALLY "the underlying technology is sound"? This is stupid.

Really, it feels cruel for me to suggest that you go back and re-read what I have said and what you have said and now cannot unsay. But I lack the time not to say it.

 

[Astronuc]

TVA will be selling its 'surplus' Bellefonte NPP site. The site has two older generation B&W 205 units. he core uses a 17x17 lattice. The only plant design of this kind that achieved operation was Mülheim Kärlich in Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany.

http://us.areva.com/en/home-1504/areva-north-america-projects.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mülheim-Kärlich_Nuclear_Power_Plant

TVA spent about $4 billion on the plant, and it would take several more $billions to complete. After a recent board meeting, TVA President and CEO Bill Johnson said that the 1,600 acre site has been appraised at $36 million! There had been some plans to change the plant design to ABWRs, or perhaps ESBWRs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/never-completed-tva-nuclear-plant-that-cost-4b-for-sale/2016/05/05/c7e7d228-1305-11e6-a9b5-bf703a5a7191_story.html

A recent TVA study concluded that the utility will not need any new large-scale baseload facilities that can generate electricity 24 hours a day for at least 20 years.

Neighboring utility Southern Company is building two new units, Vogtle 3 & 4.
http://www.southerncompany.com/what-doing/energy-innovation/nuclear-energy/photos.cshtml
http://www.southerncompany.com/about-us/our-business/southern-nuclear/home.cshtml

 

[anorlunda]

A recent TVA study concluded that the utility will not need any new large-scale baseload facilities that can generate electricity 24 hours a day for at least 20 years.

Very interesting.

• 20+2016=2036. That is the year that we should expect fracked natural gas production to begin falling off. Nuclear, and all non-gas generation, should be more attractive then than now. (That is perhaps why TVA fingered 20 years as the time when a new base load plant will be needed.) The paradox is that unless we continue designing/constructing/operating new nukes continuously, the skills and knowledge atrophy.
• The TVA study cited necessarily uses assumptions about the region's energy growth and energy mix for those 20 years. It would be very instructive to see those assumptions and how sensitive the study results are to those assumptions. Is the study report available online?

 

[jim hardy]

20+2016=2036.

Also about the time existing nukes will be reaching end of (extended) life .

 

[Astronuc]

The TVA study cited necessarily uses assumptions about the region's energy growth and energy mix for those 20 years. It would be very instructive to see those assumptions and how sensitive the study results are to those assumptions. Is the study report available online?

It may be this study - https://www.tva.com/file_source/TVA/Site%20Content/Environment/Environmental%20Stewardship/IRP/Documents/2015_irp.pdf

Nuclear: Complete Watts Bar Nuclear Unit 2 and pursue additional power uprates at all three Browns Ferry units by 2023. Continue work on Small Modular Reactors as part of technology innovation efforts and look for opportunities for cost sharing to render these more cost-effective for our ratepayers.

WB2 is completed and getting ready to go on the grid. Expect uprates of BF1, 2, 3

All three units are scheduled for uprates expected to add another 494 MWe to the grid.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operati...s/status-power-apps/pending-applications.html

Each unit would have an increase of 494 MWt, to a total capacity of 3952 MWt = 3458+494 MWt. Peach Bottom (Exelon), Nine Mile Point 2 (Exelon) and Susquehanna (Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC affiliated with PPL Electric Utilities/PPL Corp.) have done similar uprates.

 

[anorlunda]

It may be this study - https://www.tva.com/file_source/TVA/Site%20Content/Environment/Environmental%20Stewardship/IRP/Documents/2015_irp.pdf

Thank you @Astronuc , that report did have the data I sought. I value it as an example of how future energy decisions are made in real life. They must conform to the expected realities, free of wishful thinking. They must accommodate a range of uncertainty about the future. They must convince potential bond holders that the plans are safe enough to invest in.

Here is a quick summary of the portions of the report that may be of interest to PF members.

It all begins with the load forecast which depends mostly on demographics and energy consumption trends.

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/tva-peak-4.jpg
The figure below shows the primary end result of the study; the expected future mix of additions to generation types. Public forums expend many words expressing personal wishes about these numbers. These are the numbers that hard-headed planners really expect.

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/slask-1.jpg

The plans are also checked for sensitivity to key variables whose future values are unknown. The wide lines in the plan show the planned ranges of the mix. The narrow lines show the extreme ranges that can be accommodated. They list which key variables they used to check the sensitivity.

1. Changes in the load forecast
2. The price of natural gas and other commodities
3. The pricing and performance of energy efficiency and renewable resources
4. Impacts from regulatory policy or breakthrough technologies

I thought it particularly interesting that the report included a "distributed marketplace scenario" which they defined as having 50% of TVA's industrial customers (representing 10% of TVA's load) switch to distributed self generation. That does not include residential rooftop solar. Since most public discussion about distributed generation focuses on consumer level DG, and never considers industrial DG, I think that's very notable. According to the study, industrial DG would have about the same drastic impact on gas prices as a carbon tax would. That's a connection that I never thought of.

 

[Astronuc]

TopFuel 2015 - Conference Proceedings - published by Euronuclear.
Topfuel - https://www.euronuclear.org/events/topfuel/topfuel2015/transactions.htm

Primarily LWR fuel technology from around the world. Covers modern LWR technology, and some of the latest research in various topics related to LWR fuel and nuclear power plants, e.g., spent fuel. The annual conference rotates among Europe, US and Asia.

In 2016, the conference is in Boise, Id. ANS is the principal organizing institution in the US. Unfortunately the proceedings must be purchased, and is rather expensive.

2012 - Manchester
https://www.euronuclear.org/events/topfuel/topfuel2012/transactions.htm

 

[Astronuc]

Exelon's Quad Cities and Three Mile Island nuclear power plants failed to clear in the PJM regional capacity auction for the 2019-2020 planning year, meaning those units will not be able to receive capacity revenue for that period. Meanwhile, over 1500 people rallied in Illinois to support the passage of legislation that would protect nuclear plants from early closure.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C...-plants-fail-in-capacity-auction-2605167.html

Earlier this month, Exelon said it will move forward with the early retirements of Clinton - which operates in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) RTO - and Quad Cities if the state of Illinois fails to pass the Next Generation Energy Plan (NGEP), which would support their continued operation. The two plants have made combined losses of $800 million over the past seven years despite being two of the company's highest-performing plants. Although Clinton cleared MISO's recent capacity auction, Exelon said that the unit will not receive enough revenue to avoid continued losses.

Back in April - In a statement, Exelon said that the single-unit 1065 MWe boiling water reactor continues to lose money and will have to close unless market and energy policy reforms are implemented.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Future-unclear-for-US-unit-despite-auction-success-1804168.html

Clinton is one of the most modern BWRs in the country, along with River Bend, Perry and Grand Gulf. All are BWR/6s.

 

[mheslep]

Nuclear Energy Assembly 2016 occurred this week: "Preparing for new reactor development"

The session featured interviews with five CEOs of nuclear design or operating companies. I was unaware of Oklo, a startup with a 2 MW design out of Silicon Valley to target the replacement of diesel gensets. Though unsaid, I imagine the military must be a likely target customer for such a design, escaping one size fits all, bloated, plant security requirements from the US NRC.



Summary from nuclear advocate Rod Adams here

 

[mheslep]

They must conform to the expected realities, free of wishful thinking.

That's seldom completely true about forecasts unfortunately. In the electricity business, the players have for a century been use to steady, year after year increases of a few percent in demand. That trend allowed utilities and ISOs to keep a couple large new power projects going, and cut regular dividend checks to investors. But this trend has stopped; there's been no aggregate US electric growth for years now and per capita growth has been slowly but surely falling, yet the industry has been stuck in denial.

 

[anorlunda]

That's seldom completely true about forecasts unfortunately. In the electricity business, the players have for a century been use to steady, year after year increases of a few percent in demand. That trend allowed utilities and ISOs to keep a couple large new power projects going, and cut regular dividend checks to investors. But this trend has stopped; there's been no aggregate US electric growth for years now and per capita growth has been slowly but surely falling, yet the industry has been stuck in denial.

When I wrote that about wishful thinking, I had generation mix in mind, not load growth.

Load growth forecast is most strongly coupled with GDP, and GDP forecasts are pressured by politicians and doomsayers to bend one way or the other. But utility load grows forecasts are not optimistic/pessimistic thinking but instead are mandated. Many facilities, including transmission, take 10-15 years from first proposal to operation. If a utility forecast zero or negative growth and that turned out to be wrong, the result could be a catastrophic shortage. That would tank the economy and make the lowball forecast the cause of the decline rather than a symptom.

In 2000, Enron in California demonstrated conclusively that having too little electricity available is vastly more profitable than having enough or having a surplus. If you like to believe that the utility industry is a conspiracy of greedy fat cats, then you should expect them to under-forecast the load.

On the other hand, if you believe as I do that the mantra of the industry is reliability (i.e. keep the lights on at all costs), then conservative assumptions about load growth are mandatory. Those conservative assumptions drive long-term projects to prepare for whatever the future may bring.

If you want to argue that the electric utility is in a death spiral, you can find support in some quarters. But you can't look for support in the engineering community. Engineering is necessarily conservative, and planning for a death spiral is not a conservative assumption.

 

[Astronuc]

The shutdown of Fitzpatrick as been postponed until 2017.

Meanwhile, Exelon followed through with plans to close Clinton and Quad Cities (3 reactors).
http://www.powermag.com/exelon-makes-good-on-threat-quad-cities-and-clinton-nuclear-plants-to-close/

Clinton is one of the youngest NPPs - Operating License: Issued - 04/17/1987, Expires - 09/29/2026
With life extension, it could operate another 30 years.

Apparently, at the root of the problem, is generation vs demand. Some areas have excess capacity, while other areas are deficient. Unfortunately, the markets are separated geographically. Some of Exelon's plants can't sell their power at reasonable rates, while NY is hurting for affordable power.
Standing in the way are state and federal governments, and regional operators.
http://www.pjm.com/~/media/about-pjm/pjm-zones.ashx
http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/market_data/maps/index.jspLast year, Exelon announced a $500 million deal with GE for gas turbine generation.

On May 24, GE and its joint-venture partners in Global Nuclear Fuel-Americas (GNF-A) announced that they had signed a deal with Rosatom subsidiary TVEL to design and fabricate fuel rods for U.S. reactors.
http://www.powermag.com/uranium-production-near-historic-lows-as-u-s-reactors-look-to-russia/

 

[Astronuc]

The Realities of Nuclear Power: International Economic and Regulatory Experience, May 1988
https://books.google.com/books?id=4HW8aGfyACkC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false

Table 1.1 provides a summary of where things were ca. 1988. The US LWR fleet peaked at ~115 reactors before we started shutdown the oldest reactors like Yankee Rowe, Big Rock Pt and others. In the US, ~108 reactors, including 8 HTGRs, were canceled as of 1990. Construction had started on 27 of the canceled plants.

 

[anorlunda]

I just finished reading an interesting paper. http://www.engineeringthefuture.co.uk/government/pdf/Nuclear_Lessons_Learned_Oct10.pdf The discussion section says succinctly a point that I have been trying to make in several PF threads regarding investments. The added emphasis is mine.

The investment needed to secure a mature and licensed design and make a commit to building a fleet of stations is vast. For the private sector to invest such sums there must be a significant degree of certainty about planning consents, grid requirements, electricity supply market stability and the disposal of spent fuel and waste over the six decades or more that these stations will supply electricity. Investment on this scale has to be viewed in the international context; why invest in low-cost, low-carbon electricity supply in the UK rather than elsewhere in the world? EDF have proposed a fleet of four stations which would be a very substantial investment but it is modest compared with the number of nuclear station China is proposing to build. This confidence, stability and reason for favouring the UK can only come from a Government commitment. The UK Government have made progress with the identification of suitable sites, proposals to simply the planning consents process, and the instigation of the Generic Design Assessment (GDA) process which will clarify the nuclear Regulatory position. However UK utilities are under no obligation to provide security of supply or low-cost, low-carbon electricity.

This is the challenge for nuclear power. The US federal government does not seem willing to commit that strongly to nuclear. The prospect of a carbon tax looms, but it is never conclusively included or excluded. But even disregarding government policies, the prudence of a financial investment in anything technological that requires a six decade planning horizon is highly questionable. The low prices of natural gas are a major factor, but even if gas prices were high, gas plants offer the advantage of short lead times and rapid ROI. Even if the useful lifetime of a natural gas power plant is only 7-20 years, the up-front investors can walk away with a profit.

The key word is uncertainty. Uncertainty about the future works against long-term investments and favors short-term investments.

 

[mheslep]

The situation you describe largely applies to nuclear development in the US, Europe in recent decades. Elsewhere, reactors have been built recently in five years, and for half or a third the cost of that in the US.