The Nuclear Power Thread

[anorlunda]

I tried to a bit of research to answer the ICAP question in AU. It was inconclusive. I did find this.

• https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/energy-policy-wa
  The market design is done by the government, not industry. The markets I know best, are governed by "participants". That includes generator owners, transmission owners, retail utilities, consumer advocates, environmental advocates, industrial consumers, government regulators, blah blah. They design the markets and make all the rules, but they need approval from government. They mandate that the system operator maintain a market design department staffed by engineers. Engineers design, then submit the designs for approval of the stakeholders, who submit them for approval by government. Disputes wind up in court. I worked for the system operator in NY. $16B of other people's money passed through our hands every year, so as you might expect we had a lot of scrutiny.
• I found that there is a natural gas capacity market at aemo, but no mention of an equivalent market for electricity.
• It could be semantics. The AU energy operator, https://www.aemo.com.au/, talks about electric reserves, but not capacity. Reserves and capacity are closely related but not identical. Other markets have separate auctions for capacity and for reserves.

 

[bhobba]

Just to let people know the longer-term outcome of the crisis we had. It was to bring ageing and just about at the end of their life coal power stations back on line for one last 'gasp'. Let's hope some better 'risk' managed longer-term solutions are put in place. And considering this is the nuclear power thread it must include nuclear in the mix. Not doing so would limit solutions to supplying power, which has been amply demonstrated to have dire consequences if not done correctly. This just should NOT happen in a country like Australia. I suspect factors other than the reliability of the power grid have been at work. Hopefully, those involved have learned a valuable lesson.

Thanks
Bill

 

[anorlunda]

Australia's experience is not totally unique.From an earlier thread. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/when-renewable-energy-meets-power-grid-operations.970843/

It was just few years ago that (in Germany) the coal/gas power plants tried to leave the market en masse, mostly on the south, due the falling prices. The problem was, that wind is most concentrated on the north, so the building of the north-south power line could not be delayed any longer: also, this amount of closure was a clean stab into the amount of reserves necessary at winter. The first reaction - the permission for most closure requests was denied.

The follow-up was even more interesting. To grant a still acceptable profit to plant owners and to prevent them leaving the business a new mechanisms were implemented, but the weight of the so called 'strategic reserve' was a bit of an eyesore to many countries around, as an example for protectionism // unwillingness to take responsibility and further pushing weird ideas onto neighbors.
...
The main problem (still not too frequently admitted) is that the additional infrastructure required by intermittent sources will has intermittent usage statistics. The perfect example - I think - is the already mentioned new north-south power line in Germany. It is necessary to deliver the wind energy from north to south, but the circumstances when it is really needed at full capacity happens only a few weeks in a year.

 

[anorlunda]

Uh Oh, Germany's experience it not just in the past. It is current.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/green-germany-prepares-to-fire-up-the-coal-furnaces/
"A bill providing the legal basis to burn more coal for power generation is now making its way through parliament, aiming to boost the output of so-called reserve power plants that are irregularly used for grid stabilization and were scheduled to go offline over the next few years," Deutsche Welle noted this week.

 

[Dale]

That grid stabilization issue is a big one, and unfortunately nuclear, as it currently stands, is not well suited to address it. Nuclear capacity is so expensive that it is usually run at or near peak capacity all the time.

A reliable and “green” grid will get most of its power from nuclear, wind, and solar. But will need something that can be throttled as well. Fossil fuels and biofuels seem suitable for that, and most fossil fuel generators can easily be adapted for biofuels. And depending on local geography geothermal and hydroelectric power can play that role.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't think there's any technical reason one cannot throttle nuclear plants. There is a financial reason - capital costs are high and fuel costs low, so once you own one, you want it running all the time. This is opposite what you have with gas peaker plants.

 

[bhobba]

As luck would have it there was a discussion on this very point during one of our talk shows tonight. It seems the technology for what Dale called 'A reliable and "green" grid' including nuclear etc., is not quite there yet, but will likely be there in the foreseeable future. The issue is planning the transition well and avoiding disaster scenarios like what nearly happened in Brisbane. It is a bit like electric vehicles. Most who own one say they are a dream to drive, but mass uptake will need careful planning and an understanding of what government can and can't do. Governments can't (well, they can try) make pronouncements that all cars sold by, say, 2030 will be electric. Technological change does not work like that.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Dale]

I don't think there's any technical reason one cannot throttle nuclear plants. There is a financial reason - capital costs are high and fuel costs low, so once you own one, you want it running all the time.

Absolutely. The capital and startup costs are currently very high. Maybe the small modular nuclear reactors will change that, but licensing costs will need to be resolved too.

 

[Astronuc]

This somehow escaped my attention last year.

April 20, 2021 - SHINE, Phoenix Merger Focused on Advancing Fusion Technology​

https://phoenixwi.com/press-releases/shine-phoenix-merger-advancing-fusion-technology/

The combined company represents the first two phases of the long-term vision of Greg Piefer, the founder of both companies, for producing clean energy from fusion (see “SHINE’s Four-Phase Progression to Clean Energy Production” below). The goal of each phase of SHINE’s approach is to build additional capacity and capability, and deepen scientific understanding of fusion technology as it progresses to clean fusion energy production. Each step through the four phases is expected to provide further proof of the technology’s robustness, a foundation for ongoing innovation in the next phase and the creation of value for the company, its customers, and shareholders.

“SHINE and Phoenix have shared a common long-term vision and operated in close collaboration during the past 11 years, but it’s always been inefficient to operate as separate companies,” said Greg Piefer, CEO of SHINE. “Coming together will enable us to advance fusion technology more quickly by aligning interests and combining complementary core competencies. Through the four phases, we are taking a deliberate approach to building a company that can ultimately deliver cost-effective, clean fusion energy to billions, while serving important near-term market needs like advanced industrial imaging and medical isotopes, along the way.” For a video of additional comments from Greg Piefer, please click here (:46 broadcast-quality available for the media).

They have good people there. I've interacted with some over the past decade or so.

 

[BWV]

Seems like China has accelerated its Nuclear energy program, planning 150 new reactors

https://asiatimes.com/2021/11/china-goes-big-uk-goes-small-on-nuclear-power/

 

[russ_watters]

Seems like China has accelerated its Nuclear energy program, planning 150 new reactors

https://asiatimes.com/2021/11/china-goes-big-uk-goes-small-on-nuclear-power/

China gets it, and they don't have to worry about pesky things like public opinion and lawsuits.

Last night I accidentally watched a ted talk by a professional environmentalist who gradually over a decade+ of his career came around to recognizing that renewables alone can't save the planet and nuclear needs to be a significant part of the solution. But if it took him that long, with that much effort invested, what hope is there for the general public, who puts much less effort into it, to come around?

 

[BWV]

well perhaps the timeline is the same - the technological advances in batteries and materials that would allow an all solar / wind grid vs. getting through the politics of building enough new nuclear plants

although I do think that gas + solar + wind combined with electric light vehicles is good enough

 

[Astronuc]

Executive Summary of the eVinciTM Micro-Reactor Deployment in Mining and Remote Canadian Communities Feasibility Study

https://www.brucepower.com/wp-conte...houseBPMicroReactor_ExecutiveSummary_R000.pdf

Micro-Reactor Deployment in Remote Communities is under serious consideration in many area.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural.../small-modular-reactors-smrs-for-mining/22698

 

[BWV]

Executive Summary of the eVinciTM Micro-Reactor Deployment in Mining and Remote Canadian Communities Feasibility Study

https://www.brucepower.com/wp-conte...houseBPMicroReactor_ExecutiveSummary_R000.pdf

Micro-Reactor Deployment in Remote Communities is under serious consideration in many area.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural.../small-modular-reactors-smrs-for-mining/22698

How long until these are on the market?

Rolls Royce is also developing small reactors
https://www.rolls-royce-smr.com/press/rolls-royce-smr-shortlists-locations-for-first-factory

 

[Astronuc]

How long until these are on the market?

Hard to say. It could be 5+ years for a demo system. I'm not sure how far along the licensing process has progressed. I know of some demo plants being designed, and I know of one in the planning stage, with request for proposal coming out within the year.

 

[anorlunda]

US regulators will certify first small nuclear reactor design​

https://arstechnica.com/science/202...l-certify-first-small-nuclear-reactor-design/

Wow, I was not expecting that. Congratulations NuScale,

Edit: I looked up some details.

https://mc-67443a0a-0a3b-4888-8568-...136b81c&hash=665C75BFFFD9E0D06D1FEAFD100BDB48

There are several key features of the NuScale plant that collectively distinguish it from the many other SMRs being developed today and contribute to its simplicity and flexibility.
• Compact size. The nuclear steam supply system, including containment, can be entirely prefabricated off site and shipped by rail, truck or barge to the site. This reduces construction time due to parallel fabrication considerations and reduces overall schedule uncertainty due to the reduced amount of on-site construction activities.
• Natural circulation cooling. Natural circulation operation and integral design eliminates pumps, pipes, and valves in the primary system and hence the maintenance and potential failures associated with those components, while also reducing house load.
• Triple Crown of Safety. The NuScale plant, with its innovative design is able to safely shut down and self-cool with no operator action, no AC or DC power, and no additional water for an unlimited period of time.
• Dedicated power trains. Because each power module, including the power conversion system, is independent of other modules, each module can be shut down while other modules continue to operate. This feature allows for continuous plant output and greatly enhances the overall reliability of output power.

 

[russ_watters]

US regulators will certify first small nuclear reactor design​

https://arstechnica.com/science/202...l-certify-first-small-nuclear-reactor-design/

Wow, I was not expecting that. Congratulations NuScale,

Edit: I looked up some details.

I've heard their reactors aren't going to be cheap, but hopefully they get cheaper as they produce more. Still, reduced "schedule uncertainty" and shorter construction timeliness is still an economic advantage. It means they start making money sooner and pay back faster.

 

[anorlunda]

I've heard their reactors aren't going to be cheap, but hopefully they get cheaper as they produce more.

In coming years, our standard of what is cheap is likely to change a lot.

I just bought gas for $4.50, thinking that was cheap.

I was surprised because I just expected NRC to sit on their hands and never approve anything ever again.

 

[gmax137]

It means they start making money sooner and pay back faster.

I think this is the selling point. Each 77 MWe module can be operating (ie, selling power) while the subsequent modules are being built/installed.

 

[anorlunda]

They probably don't do this, but it would be neat if all initial fueling and refueling could happen in the factory under controlled conditions. Refueling could be combined with inspection.

But the cost and risks of transporting those modules back and forth with fresh or spent fuel would probably shoot that idea down.

EDIT: OTOH, with 12 modules per site, an automated refueling/inspection machine could be kept busy handling one module every 2 months.

 

[artis]

I wonder how do small cores compare in neutron efficiency with larger cores. In terms of minimum necessary enrichment and fuel burnup.

Control of small cores might be easier though.

 

[anorlunda]

I wonder how do small cores compare in neutron efficiency with larger cores. In terms of minimum necessary enrichment and fuel burnup.

Control of small cores might be easier though.

I don't know that answer. But small cores must also have fewer opportunities to control shape by placement of old/new/high enrichment/low at different radial positions. I don't know if all bundles are replaced at refueling.

I also wonder if fuel costs as a percent of total costs are higher/lower/same compared to other reactors.

I also wonder about load following, and about the manpower and training for operations.

I also wonder about finding multiple sources for fuel bundles.

Modular reactors would be a new ball game, there may be many secondary factors that influence total competitiveness.

 

[Astronuc]

They probably don't do this, but it would be neat if all initial fueling and refueling could happen in the factory under controlled conditions.

I believe that there was some consideration on delivering the reactors with the initial fuel loading intact, but I don't know of that is currently the plan. One concern in transporting fuel horizontally (on its side) is the loading on the bottom fuel assemblies and the control systems. The route would have to be carefully planned to avoid bumps and shocks. When fuel is shipped, there are accelerometers on inner and outer containers, but they would only establish a threshold (go/no-go), since they are set to trigger at a given acceleration. There may be more sophisticated systems that allow a load/acceleration spectrum to be developed.

Shipping irradiated fuel would be more problematic. NuScale plants have a refueling station. I'm not sure the current fuel cycle strategy, but one would expect between 1/3 to 1/2 of the core to be exchanged. One operating plan was based on 24-month cycles (700-730 EFPD), so that every other month, one unit would be taken our of service while the other 11 modules would continue to operate. Everything is fine until one or more fuel rods leak, in which case, the reactor system would have to be flushed prior to opening the reactor vessel and removing the fuel to be discharged.

Refueling could be combined with inspection.

That is typically the case.

I've heard their reactors aren't going to be cheap, but hopefully they get cheaper as they produce more. Still, reduced "schedule uncertainty" and shorter construction timeliness is still an economic advantage. It means they start making money sooner and pay back faster.

In theory, the plant is smaller than a comparable single unit with the same output, but each of 12 modules requires a steam generator, turbine and electrical generator. The plant might use less steel and concrete, but it uses more components in the power conversion system.

On the other hand, a small issue with one reactor should not affect the output of the others, and in theory, the plant capacity factor (CF) should be greater with 11 of 12 modules continuing to operate.

They have increased the generation capacity of the modules since the initial design.

 

[Astronuc]

I wonder how do small cores compare in neutron efficiency with larger cores. In terms of minimum necessary enrichment and fuel burnup.

Small cores tend to be less efficient neutronically, due to leakage from the ends and circumferential surface. I know of one design that leaked neutrons to the extent that the steam generators and containment structure became radioactive.

Neutron leakage may be partly alleviated with neutron reflectors, usually stainless steel, or natural or depleted fuel assemblies, and axial blankets.

 

[anorlunda]

each of 12 modules requires a steam generator, turbine and electrical generator.

I read that, but I don't see why that is necessary. Historically, it was common to have many boilers feeding a common steam header.

Turbines and generators have no problems running at any fraction of rated power. Of course, it is true that availability is higher with multiple independent components, but costs are higher too. Any power plant with any source of steam generation, could have n smaller independent turbine/generators, but the designers haven't chosen to do that.

 

[Dale]

I read that, but I don't see why that is necessary. Historically, it was common to have many boilers feeding a common steam header.

I don’t think that it is necessary, but it is in keeping with their “redundant array” design philosophy. I think that is why they recommend it

 

[anorlunda]

I don’t think that it is necessary, but it is in keeping with their “redundant array” design philosophy. I think that is why they recommend it

You may be correct. But that is a very expensive way to purchase more reliability. As this table shows, cost in $/kW is a strong function of unit size. Twelve 60 MW turbine generators may cost 3-4 times as much as one 720 MW turbine generator.

 

[Astronuc]

I read that, but I don't see why that is necessary. Historically, it was common to have many boilers feeding a common steam header.

Turbines and generators have no problems running at any fraction of rated power. Of course, it is true that availability is higher with multiple independent components, but costs are higher too. Any power plant with any source of steam generation, could have n smaller independent turbine/generators, but the designers haven't chosen to do that.

Putting two or more 'modules' on one steam generator could be problematic when taking one module off-line. One would have to isolate the feed from one module, and the steam turbine would operating below optimal capacity.

I don't believe one would want to connect two modules to one turbine, which if one module was offline, the turbine would have 50% reduction in thermal input. So then does one connect 3, 4, or 6 modules of 12, which would mean 4, 3 or 2 turbines. There are some PWRs that have twin turbine trains, but most have a single turbine.

The idea of fully separate modules is that they generate fully independent through to the generator output.

 

[gmax137]

Does NuScale have a contract-signed customer yet? It would be really interesting to see the bid evaluation between a NuScale twelve-pack and a conventional 900-1100 MWe nuclear plant. Of course, the chances of such an eval being public are slim.

 

[Astronuc]

Does NuScale have a contract-signed customer yet? It would be really interesting to see the bid evaluation between a NuScale twelve-pack and a conventional 900-1100 MWe nuclear plant. Of course, the chances of such an eval being public are slim.

01 February 2022 - Field activities at the Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP) site have been completed in what Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) has described as a major milestone for the project to build a NuScale small modular reactor plant at the Idaho National Laboratory.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Fieldwork-completed-in-milestone-for-UAMPS-SMR

As far as I know, UAMPS was teaming with Energy Northwest (WA) in developing a pilot plant using 6 modules of 77 MWe.

UAMPS expects to build six 77 MWe NuScale Power Modules - renamed VOYGR by NuScale late last year - at the Idaho National Laboratory site. The pressurised water reactor, with all the components for steam generation and heat exchange incorporated into a single unit, is the first SMR to receive NRC design approval.

Formal engagement of a plant operator is being negotiated, UAMPS said. Other work under way includes developing cost estimates, developing topic reports for submission to the NRC, continuing work on the standard plant design, and developing a supply chain pricing analysis. NuScale and Fluor are working on power module manufacturing trials and steam generator fabrication.

UAMPS is a political subdivision of the State of Utah that provides wholesale electric-energy, transmission, and other energy services to community-owned power systems throughout the Intermountain West region of the USA. Its members are located California, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico and Wyoming as well as in Utah.

Last year, UAMPS was discussing a 12 unit, 600 MWe plant, or 50 MWe per module.
https://www.uamps.com/nu-scale-modular-reactor

https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsuamps-downsizes-nuscale-smr-project-8937920

 

[gmax137]

It has been a while since I looked at the NuScale plant. Natural circulation drives the primary side flow through the "helical steam generators" which are located within the module containment shell. So each reactor has its own SGs. The steam exits the module and drives the main turbine/generator. External condenser and feed pumps return the feedwater to the module.

I did not see a description of the turbine/generator so I'm not sure if that is shared or if each module has its own.

Fuel Standard LWR fuel in 17 x 17 configuration, each assembly 2 meters (~ 6 ft.) in length; up to 24-month refueling cycle with fuel enriched at less than 5 percent

https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/technology-overview

 

[BWV]

South Korea recommitting to nuclear

https://www.neimagazine.com/news/ne...-rapid-rebuilding-of-nuclear-industry-9849898

 

[Astronuc]

"NuScale Plant Design Overview", August 2012
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1221/ML12216A392.pdf

Status Report on the NuScale Module Developed in the Modelica Framework
https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/Sort_20117.pdf

The initial plant module was 160 MWt/50 MWe. The VOYGR system uses 250 MWt/77MWe modules.
https://www.nuscalepower.com/about-us/faq

https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/report-claims-serious-problems-with-proposed-nuscale-smr/#gref

 

[etudiant]

"NuScale Plant Design Overview", August 2012
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1221/ML12216A392.pdf

Status Report on the NuScale Module Developed in the Modelica Framework
https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/Sort_20117.pdf

The initial plant module was 160 MWt/50 MWe. The VOYGR system uses 250 MWt/77MWe modules.
https://www.nuscalepower.com/about-us/faq

https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/report-claims-serious-problems-with-proposed-nuscale-smr/#gref

Interesting that the power rating is up 50%, have to think that reduces the safety margin of the passive cooling setup.

 

[Astronuc]

The downside of nuclear energy (and the extractive industries) that folks don't like to discuss.
https://www.propublica.org/article/new-mexico-uranium-homestake-pollution

I remember a story from the 1970s about contamination where homes in Grand Junction, Colorado, were built with contaminated uranium mine tailings. I believe the tailing were added to the concrete or cinder blocks. The homes were well above normal background.

 

[artis]

The downside of nuclear energy (and the extractive industries) that folks don't like to discuss.
https://www.propublica.org/article/new-mexico-uranium-homestake-pollution

I remember a story from the 1970s about contamination where homes in Grand Junction, Colorado, were built with contaminated uranium mine tailings. I believe the tailing were added to the concrete or cinder blocks. The homes were well above normal background.

An interesting read.
I wonder why they don't put the waste simply back into the unused mine?
Apart from cost.

 

[Astronuc]

Bloomberg reports "World’s Biggest Nuclear-Fusion Project Faces Delays as Component Cracks"

• The $23 billion ITER project in France faces new delays

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...at-fusion-power-shows-cracks-in-silver-lining

World Nuclear News reports "The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project has announced defects have been discovered in the thermal shields and vacuum vessel sectors and warned that the consequences on schedule and cost "will not be insignificant".
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Defects-found-in-two-key-components-of-ITER-tokama

The director general of ITER, Pietro Barabaschi, said: "If there is one good thing about this situation, it is that it is happening at a moment we can fix it. The know-how we are acquiring in dealing with ITER's first-of-a-kind components will serve others when they launch their own fusion ventures. It is in ITER's nature and mission, as a unique and ambitious research infrastructure, to go through a whole range of challenges and setbacks during construction. And it is therefore our task and duty to promptly inform the engaged scientific community so that they will take precautions when dealing with the same type of assemblies."

ITER is a major international project to build a tokamak fusion device in Cadarache, France, designed to prove the feasibility of fusion as a large-scale and carbon-free source of energy. The goal of ITER is to operate at 500 MW (for at least 400 seconds continuously) with 50 MW of plasma heating power input. It appears that an additional 300 MWe of electricity input may be required in operation. No electricity will be generated at ITER.

Thirty-five nations are collaborating to build ITER - the European Union is contributing almost half of the cost of its construction, while the other six members (China, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the USA) are contributing equally to the rest. Construction began in 2010 and the original 2018 first plasma target date was put back to 2025 by the ITER council in 2016.

That's an optimist spin.

he cause was found to be stress caused by the bending and welding of the cooling fluid pipes to the thermal shield panels "compounded by a slow chemical reaction due to the presence of chlorine residues in some small areas near the pipe welds".

This had caused "stress corrosion cracking", ITER said, "and over time, cracks up to 2.2 mm deep had developed in the pipes".

Now, that is a stunning revelation! What the heck are chloride residues doing on stainless steel?! Stress corrosion cracking!? This would appear to be negligence on the part of someone. The problem is supposed to have been resolved = for at least two decades, as the industry began learning about it ~4+ decades ago.

During an audit in the mid-1990s, I cited a shop over concerns of halide/chloride contamination of stainless steel components. Even nearly 30 years ago, we knew not to allow chloride contamination or residues on stainless steel! Twenty+ years later, it should be well-known!

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'd call ITER a dumpster fire, except that a dumpster fire actually produces energy.

 

[bhobba]

This is why at the current stage of the debate of transitioning to low-carbon power sources, or even if we should, engineers and engineering economists should have much more involvement. I find the lack of their current involvement somewhat disturbing. For example, a simple analysis of the current Australian government policies showed what they want to do would cost trillions - way beyond what we can afford, plus multiple wind farms the size of Tasmania in the Simpson desert. This is just early stages in the debate, but I don't think governments should be saying what they will be doing (e.g. relying mostly on wind and solar but dismissing nuclear) at this point. All that will happen is when the rubber hits the road, they will have eggs on their faces. We don't discuss politics here, but one would think such would not be good for their re-election prospects.

Thanks
Bill

 

[artis]

This is why at the current stage of the debate of transitioning to low-carbon power sources, or even if we should, engineers and engineering economists should have much more involvement. I find the lack of their current involvement somewhat disturbing. For example, a simple analysis of the current Australian government policies showed what they want to do would cost trillions - way beyond what we can afford, plus multiple wind farms the size of Tasmania in the Simpson desert. This is just early stages in the debate, but I don't think governments should be saying what they will be doing (e.g. relying mostly on wind and solar but dismissing nuclear) at this point. All that will happen is when the rubber hits the road, they will have eggs on their faces. We don't discuss politics here, but one would think such would not be good for their re-election prospects.

Thanks
Bill

But then again we are at a point where a teenager from Sweden can yell at grown ups at the UN and everybody just accepts that as normal.
These public stunts won't change a damn thing, we need to find a couple of engineers who could yell some sense into energy politics, maybe then we could balance our carbon emissions with carbon free sources so much so that we can buy ourselves time and have a rather decent living too.

 

[bhobba]

we need to find a couple of engineers who could yell some sense into energy politics, maybe then we could balance our carbon emissions with carbon free sources so much so that we can buy ourselves time and have a rather decent living too.

Just a couple? This is getting more into politics than I, as a mentor, am comfortable with, but will try and stay clear of politics. We need an informed public conversation on the whole issue. We can help here by giving the facts. There are some experts in this area that regularly post here. On other forums, if it doesn't degenerate into the use of the Ad Hominem fallacy, I point those who want the facts to this forum. I know the cost of electricity here in Australia is rising enormously. There are multiple reasons, but regardless of the cause, there will likely be some public backlash - we will see. I have seen discussion shows, the premier one here in Australia, called Q&A, where they occasionally have an engineer and other participants' claims get challenged on engineering grounds. We need more of that, IMHO. Also, the public must understand you can't have it all. Public polling has now been done that confirms people want something done on climate change but are only willing to pay a pittance (I could give the link, but contains stuff that I would judge as political - suffice to say it is from a well-respected news outlet the Australian ABC):

'More than 54,000 Australians took part in the nationally representative Australia Talks National Survey, and climate change was one thing they said was keeping them up at night. When we asked how much more they’d be personally willing to spend to help prevent climate change, the numbers varied. Some people wouldn’t spend anything more (21 per cent), and some were happy to spend thousands (9 per cent) — but most of us sit somewhere in the middle. On average, we’re willing to chip in at least $200 each year*.'

The plans of the current government will cost MUCH more than that. Interesting times ahead are all I can say.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Astronuc]

Bloomberg - How to Tear Down a Nuclear Power Plant in Vermont and Bury It in Texas
https://news.yahoo.com/tear-down-nuclear-power-plant-110007719.html

The Vermont Yankee power plant sits on the bank of a scenic river in Vernon, Vermont, and for more than 40 years, the atoms split in its reactor generated as much as 70% of the state’s electricity. But then natural gas prices undercut the plant’s electricity and local anti-nuclear protesters worried about safety marched with signs that read “Hell no, we won’t glow.” Entergy Corp., the big Louisiana-based power company that owned Vermont Yankee, shut the plant down in 2014. It then sold the site to NorthStar Group Services Inc., which is now responsible for the decommissioning.

Decommissioning the plant, which NorthStar estimates will cost about $600 million, is being paid for by a massive trust fund that the plant’s customers contributed to when the plant was generating electricity.

Nuclear plants are required to set aside a 'decommissioning fund' as well as a fund to store the spent nuclear fuel, since they cannot ship it to a federal repository.

The article brings up the irradiated fuel rods, which are known as "spent fuel" not "fissile material", and they are part of the high level waste (HLW). It's actually the fission products and the transuranic elements (isotopes) from transmuted uranium that are highly radioactive. The reactor vessel (and its internal structure) is either high or medium level was since it has become radiocative from the neutrons that leak out of the reactor core and into the stainless steel and pressure vessel. There are also corrosion products that circulate in the cooling water, which are collected by filters (a separate disposal issue) during operation, but also at the end of operation where the cooling system is flushed to remove remaining corrosion products.

 

[russ_watters]

For example, a simple analysis of the current Australian government policies showed what they want to do would cost trillions - way beyond what we can afford, plus multiple wind farms the size of Tasmania in the Simpson desert. This is just early stages in the debate, but I don't think governments should be saying what they will be doing (e.g. relying mostly on wind and solar but dismissing nuclear) at this point. All that will happen is when the rubber hits the road, they will have eggs on their faces. We don't discuss politics here, but one would think such would not be good for their re-election prospects.

I was with you until the end. Solar and wind are sexy and nuclear is not, so supporting solar and wind is how you get votes. And who cares how much it costs when you're buying votes with other peoples' money? Sure, it will fail eventually, but when? Before the next election?

 

[bhobba]

Solar and wind are sexy and nuclear is not, so supporting solar and wind is how you get votes. And who cares how much it costs when you're buying votes with other peoples' money? Sure, it will fail eventually, but when? Before the next election?

Good point. The debate is in the early stages, and it is only recently that nuclear was even in the discussion. Whenever I discussed it elsewhere, I often got ill-informed vitriol. At least that has now stopped.

Thanks
Bill

 

[russ_watters]

Nuclear plants are required to set aside a 'decommissioning fund' as well as a fund to store the spent nuclear fuel, since they cannot ship it to a federal repository...

...which they also paid for but didn't get.

 

[anorlunda]

I was with you until the end. Solar and wind are sexy and nuclear is not, so supporting solar and wind is how you get votes. And who cares how much it costs when you're buying votes with other peoples' money? Sure, it will fail eventually, but when? Before the next election?

I second that. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, allowing politics to have decision making power over electric supply is a recipe for failure. Such decisions need to be in the hands of engineers.

 

[artis]

I second that. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, allowing politics to have decision making power over electric supply is a recipe for failure. Such decisions need to be in the hands of engineers.

Exactly. Somehow everybody understands this when it comes to medicine, whether a politician or a climate activist, once your lungs get inflammation or your heart begins to fail you seek the best doctor to buy you the most time and get the highest chance of survival and getting back to normal.

When it comes to energy policy and solving the climate problems , all of a sudden it's like watching a hockey match, everybody suddenly becomes and expert.

Just today I watched a Greta interview, I don't want to talk her down but I really don't get the idea, why is she famous? Has she said anything new or given us a better plan ?
All I see is a arrogant teenager who skipped school and got some rich sponsors.
Basically the corporate world is trying to stay in power by simply switching rhetoric and buying up famous people to lobby on their behalf. Much like the tobacco industry did back in the day to keep smoking popular.

Meanwhile real engineers and real companies have already given us practically all the products actual science can come up with to use for energy production, all we need to do is get smart and sane people to cut out a plan on how much to use of each type of energy source.Basically we have two options, either we shut down and all sit in a silent and dark circle eating nothing but carrots to be carbon neutral or we go back to using nuclear and then balance it with everything else we can get like solar and wind and natural gas etc.
I think eventually people will settle back to nuclear once they realize that trying to power the modern world with just renewables skyrockets the energy prices.

Actually we are seeing this in Europe now, once we cut Russian oil and gas which was cheap, we now have left only our own baseload + renewables, but guess what, their not enough so we buy and buy and our electricity price has climbed and continues to do so and nobody knows when it will stop.

 

[Rive]

Just today I watched a Greta interview ... All I see is a arrogant teenager who skipped school and got some rich sponsors.

An opinion, then: I too can't really sense the sincerity and will from politics to address the climate change according to its importance and weight. And I can tell that most here might agree. And teenagers around the world might miss the matching education and experience yet, but they do sense that their future got openly exploited and abandoned.
So while the whole Greta phenomenon is very controversial, it has deep roots. And in case it won't get proper and sincere response, it may just open up the next generation for radicalization.
We are just at the point where the old green dogmas finally got questioned, and I really don't think we need a new wave of radical ideas.

The issue might not belong here but dismissal is just not a good idea at this point.

 

[artis]

An opinion, then: I too can't really sense the sincerity and will from politics to address the climate change according to its importance and weight. And I can tell that most here might agree. And teenagers around the world might miss the matching education and experience yet, but they do sense that their future got openly exploited and abandoned.
So while the whole Greta phenomenon is very controversial, it has deep roots. And in case it won't get proper and sincere response, it may just open up the next generation for radicalization.
We are just at the point where the old green dogmas finally got questioned, and I really don't think we need a new wave of radical ideas.

The issue might not belong here but dismissal is just not a good idea at this point.

Fair point , but keep in mind I never said I dismiss Greta and that whole agenda outright, I perfectly realize the data and what it shows. But I myself prefer a scientific/engineering approach to this not a political/slogan/hype approach.

It is true that the climate problems have been talked over at least since the 90's and yet little has been done. But here is the crucial part that I actually believe Greta might not understand or at least many of her followers don't.
The reason why so little has been done on climate is not because all politicians and societies are inherently evil and selfish. It is simply because quite honestly we don't have that many options to use in order to continue to supply our modern way of life.
Let's not forget that most of what we have is because thanks to oil and gas.
When we found out CFC's harmed ozone we moved rather quickly and now the problem is largely solved, but that worked so nicely only because CFC could be easily swapped out for other less damaging agents, oil and gas is a different story.

Changing away from that as every engineer will know is really not that easy.

So this is the part that I dislike and find controversial, Greta and company is asking for the right thing but at the same time they refuse to understand the complexity and deep rooted dependence that we have on fossil fuels. Shouting and waving flags won't help here.

And the fact that so many climate activists are also against nuclear really leaves us with not many options.

I'd say both sides need to get real and drop the act and pretending. The people in charge need to sense the urgency and once in a while rely on professionals not public opinion while the activists need to stop the childish wishful thinking and come to the table and accept some harsh realities, probably the most important of them all is that the west and US will have to get back in nuclear otherwise this is not sustainable.
Closing off nuke plants and building what in their place?
Hydro is already used almost as much as it can, building a 1GW wind farm takes up a lot of land and when it comes to it not that many people actually want to live right next to a wind turbine.
So there is some hypocrisy also in the green climate side.

 

[anorlunda]

I think it is important to stress that allowing rules to be designed by engineers does not change public vs private, brown vs green, large vs small, central vs distributed sectors of interest. The system operator I worked for is governed by stakeholders (listed below). The voting power of stakeholders was negotiated. The rules which govern markets and operation of the grid were designed by committees representing all stakeholders. However, the stakeholders sent their engineers and economists to the committee meetings, not managers or politicians or lawyers. Many stakeholders engage specialized consulting engineers to represent their interests. So you can still have public versus private interest sectors, but the actual design work is done by engineers.

In contrast, places like Texas, California, and apparently Tasmania. Legislators are writing the rules, not engineers. Those have been mostly disasters. It is like @artis' analogy to medicine, where legislators pass a law saying which pill must be prescribed for which symptom.

Categories of stakeholders include: End-Use Consumer, Investor-Owner Transmission Owners, Public Power Party, Energy Service Co., Large Consumer, Residential Consumer, Environmental Party, Large Energy Using Governmental Agency, Small Consumer, Generator, Load, State Public Power Authority, Generator Owner, Load Serving Entity, Supplier, Industrial Consumer, Other Supplier, Transmission Owner, Commercial Consumer, Parties to the ISO Agreement, Demand Response Provider, Distributed Generator. State regulating agencies, and public interest groups may represent certain stakeholders.