Nuclear power

[stopcrazypp]

Storage is always assumed to be needed in a renewable heavy grid, but I think the core takeaway is that people do tend to overestimate the amount that is needed, esp. at the current stage.

As for nuclear, I think the core issue is that unlike renewables, they don't really have a pathway to dramatically decreased costs (rather it is slowly growing, albeit much slower than fossil fuels), while solar and wind have largely delivered on promises of decreased costs. And while solar/wind is not immune to NIMBY, nuclear is one of the most susceptible (even more so than coal in a lot of cases, despite how horrible coal is).

 

[macpacheco]

Storage is always assumed to be needed in a renewable heavy grid, but I think the core takeaway is that people do tend to overestimate the amount that is needed, esp. at the current stage.

As for nuclear, I think the core issue is that unlike renewables, they don't really have a pathway to dramatically decreased costs (rather it is slowly growing, albeit much slower than fossil fuels), while solar and wind have largely delivered on promises of decreased costs. And while solar/wind is not immune to NIMBY, nuclear is one of the most susceptible (even more so than coal in a lot of cases, despite how horrible coal is).

You really should look into nuclear costs outside the NATO influence zone.
Nuclear isn't expensive in China, India, Russia, South Korea.
The key factor is they are willing to innovate, here innovation is stiffled due to a NRC prescriptive and heavy handed regulatory model.
The Indians have a 200MWe reactor pressurized heavy water reactor.
They licensed Canadian CANDU technology and started making it better.
Meanwhile, CANDU R&D is next to dead in Canada and not a single one was adopted in the USA. Rarely we see countries that have any locally designed reactors purchasing outside technology.
Its same old not invented here, nationalistic, protectionism, pork barrel politics.
That's the side about nuclear that I think is the really nasty one.
This has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the technology.
But this could be fixed. If we could get over the nuclear's unsafe antics.

For instance DOE Sec Moniz states Thorium is a bad idea, but never quite explain why. Isn't that because Thorium is bad for bombs ? Isn't that because DOE nuclear energy policy is a result of a revolving door promiscuous influences ?
Isn't that the same reason for the NRC adopting a prescriptive model instead of a performance model ?

 

[stopcrazypp]

You really should look into nuclear costs outside the NATO influence zone.
Nuclear isn't expensive in China, India, Russia, South Korea.

The problem is that a lot of those results are not reproducible in many countries because of dramatically different material, labor, financing, and insurance costs. While the plant can't just be "shipped" from another country with lower costs. I remember reading the EPR plant being drastically less expensive to build in China even though it is practically the same as the one in other countries. Politics only plays one part.

If we examine solar PV for example, there also a lot of politics involved (including very strong protectionism), but the difference is they can easily be shipped to other countries and the costs have dropped so much that it smashes anything that protectionism and petty politics can get in the way of. Same thing with wind (which is doing even better).

 

[macpacheco]

The problem is that a lot of those results are not reproducible in many countries because of dramatically different material, labor, financing, and insurance costs. While the plant can't just be "shipped" from another country with lower costs. I remember reading the EPR plant being drastically less expensive to build in China even though it is practically the same as the one in other countries. Politics only plays one part.

If we examine solar PV for example, there also a lot of politics involved (including very strong protectionism), but the difference is they can easily be shipped to other countries and the costs have dropped so much that it smashes anything that protectionism and petty politics can get in the way of. Same thing with wind (which is doing even better).

The same Westinghouse AP1000 being build for Vogtle-3/4 is being built in China (Haiyang-1/2).
Even with US designs we can see the difference.
The issue isn't shipping, it's certification/regulatory requirements, politics behind certifying a foreign reactor in the US, massive construction hurdles. NRC require frequent signoffs on a bunch of things. Not necessarily bad, but costly.
Greenpeace can't sue a nuclear construction in China. They will sue every nuclear construction in the USA, knowing full well they will loose.
The most rabid NRC critics claim they are shills of the fossil fuel industries. Or simply another example of the problems in USA regulatory agencies. FAA is much the same on the aviation industry. Safety at any cost.

 

[macpacheco]

Light Bridge claims a huge deal.
Claiming 30% power uprate for new reactors, 15% power uprate for existing ones.
A 30% power uprate converts an AP1000 from 1100MWe to the size of a typical large reactor of 1400MWe.
Longer burnup means reactors have longer interval between refueling outages. Some reactors might go for 24 months between outages.
Very bold claims. Fuel testing will being in Halden. Same reactor Thor Energy is testing on. Wonder if both tests can run at the same time.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

For instance DOE Sec Moniz states Thorium is a bad idea, but never quite explain why. Isn't that because Thorium is bad for bombs ? Isn't that because DOE nuclear energy policy is a result of a revolving door promiscuous influences ?
Isn't that the same reason for the NRC adopting a prescriptive model instead of a performance model ?

When did he say it was a bad idea?

March 4th 2014:

Energy Sec. Predicts 30-40 Pct. Renewable Energy By 2030 | Here Now

On whether thorium should be used as a nuclear power source

“Thorium is certainly an alternative. I personally don’t see a strong motivation for the United States to move to thorium at the moment. We certainly are not constrained by a lack of uranium, first of all. Second of all, if we go to thorium we would have to go to what’s called a recycling approach because thorium itself does not produce energy. You have to make uranium 233 out of it. So personally, I believe that right now the issue is to see how these new plants perform, in particular in terms of their cost performance[/u][/b]. And we have plenty of uranium to continue with our current cycle.”

That says nothing more than "prove it".

Cheap batteries are necessary to decarbonize transportation, and cheap batteries would radically change electricity grid economics and the overall economics of the renewables that continue to fall in price. Asking a country with huge renewable resources like the USA aggressively to push thorium and other fission is just wasted effort.

 

[beeeerock]

Light Bridge claims a huge deal.
Claiming 30% power uprate for new reactors, 15% power uprate for existing ones.
A 30% power uprate converts an AP1000 from 1100MWe to the size of a typical large reactor of 1400MWe.
Longer burnup means reactors have longer interval between refueling outages. Some reactors might go for 24 months between outages.
Very bold claims. Fuel testing will being in Halden. Same reactor Thor Energy is testing on. Wonder if both tests can run at the same time.

These guys have been around for a long time and have changed their name at least once, maybe twice since I first stumbled upon them over a decade ago. Thorium Power was the name they went by for some time before Lightbridge. They have been testing their designs in Russian reactors for many years and it was only with the instability exhibited by Putin that they moved to a Western reactor to continue their work. They've been scaling up the fuel rod design for years and are at the point where the full size rods should be ready to go.

Yes, they do make some big claims, but I've seen no reason to doubt them. They've attracted some big names in the nuclear industry to their board of directors and have so far stood the test of time... the fact that they still exist so many years from inception, having not sold a single rod, is interesting in itself.

I don't consider myself pro-nuclear, only anti-oil, so my interest in them isn't biased, only curious. Their vision of a proliferation-resistant fuel design that can also burn plutonium is somewhat more enticing that typical uranium rods in use today.

 

[macpacheco]

Very rational and logical position on what to do about existing nuclear in Japan:
Japan should restart more nuclear power plants | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

 

[nwdiver]

Very rational and logical position on what to do about existing nuclear in Japan:
Japan should restart more nuclear power plants | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

.... except for the part where they said wind blows radiation... wind blows contamination... not radiation :wink:

 

[nwdiver]

Nuclear industry targets 30% cost reduction by 2018 to remain competitive

I wish them luck.... seriously; I would love to see cost-effective nuclear power... I'm just not expecting it.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Nuclear industry targets 30% cost reduction by 2018 to remain competitive

I wish them luck.... seriously; I would love to see cost-effective nuclear power... I'm just not expecting it.

Same thought. If nuclear is to survive it really should focus on demonstrating cost reduction. If it continues the same trend of gradual increase in costs, it's only going to continue to shrink in share, esp. given public fear (rational or not). And I hope the reduction targets includes countries with higher labor and material costs too (the methods should be reproducible across countries).

 

[SmartElectric]

Ontario looking to spend big $ on refurbishing existing Nuclear, with no cost justification:
Choosing a green future: Notes from the renewables transition | rabble.ca

Renewables are cheaper and more flexible than Nuclear. Right now, every evening in the winter, Ontario exports 2 GW of continuous Nuclear power to NY State at a loss from the hours of 1AM - 4AM.

2GW would power a lot of electric car charging, but until those EV's hit the road, we're spending a lot of money on surplus power in Ontario.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Ontario looking to spend big $ on refurbishing existing Nuclear, with no cost justification:
Choosing a green future: Notes from the renewables transition | rabble.ca

Renewables are cheaper and more flexible than Nuclear. Right now, every evening in the winter, Ontario exports 2 GW of continuous Nuclear power to NY State at a loss from the hours of 1AM - 4AM.

2GW would power a lot of electric car charging, but until those EV's hit the road, we're spending a lot of money on surplus power in Ontario.

I'm not sure what you mean by "exporting power at a loss". Overnight power prices in New York are positive, so Ontario is getting paid for the nuclear power, which has approximately $5 marginal cost to generate. Overnight day-ahead energy prices in New York are in the mid-teens typically, so Ontario is earning something on the order of $10/MWh of profit on these sales. How are you arriving at a loss? Moreover, nuclear units CAN be ramped down; they aren't usually because it's silly to waste nearly-free power.

The primary non-hydro renewable resource in Ontario is wind, and wind is generally strongest overnight. If wind is being paid a FIT over the New York export price, then buying wind power to reexport it is directly costing Ontario ratepayers for providing renewable power to New York. While the wind could be curtailed, that would just waste perfectly good power.

 

[SmartElectric]

I'm not sure what you mean by "exporting power at a loss". How are you arriving at a loss? Moreover, nuclear units CAN be ramped down; they aren't usually because it's silly to waste nearly-free power. While the wind could be curtailed, that would just waste perfectly good power.

The Ontario IESO power price overnight is indeed negative, and has been the last week or so. NY is effectively getting paid to accept our surplus power.
There is no profit earned, as Ontario needs to pay plants for idle standby, regardless of if power is purchased, this means we are losing money to NY.
The IESO has already implemented curtaining of wind power in surplus conditions, has been doing so since 2013.
Nuclear is curtailed, as is done often in Ontario see this IESO graph in my blog article on the subject:
Smart Electric Drive: Choose one : boil steam or recharge a million electric cars

The truth/fact is that Ontario is paying for massive Nuclear infrastructure improvements at a time when we are paying others to take out surplus.

- - - Updated - - -

Clean Power Shoots Down Russia Nuclear Energy Option

Other countries are getting it wrong with Nuclear as well...

 

[nwdiver]

Yep... nuclear plants in markets with high levels of wind generation also get hit by negative wholesale prices from time to time... although IMO this is mostly due to poor policy it would likely still occur 'naturally' just less frequently.

 

[mspohr]

The Ontario IESO power price overnight is indeed negative, and has been the last week or so. NY is effectively getting paid to accept our surplus power.
There is no profit earned, as Ontario needs to pay plants for idle standby, regardless of if power is purchased, this means we are losing money to NY.
The IESO has already implemented curtaining of wind power in surplus conditions, has been doing so since 2013.
Nuclear is curtailed, as is done often in Ontario see this IESO graph in my blog article on the subject:
Smart Electric Drive: Choose one : boil steam or recharge a million electric cars

The truth/fact is that Ontario is paying for massive Nuclear infrastructure improvements at a time when we are paying others to take out surplus.

- - - Updated - - -

Clean Power Shoots Down Russia Nuclear Energy Option

Other countries are getting it wrong with Nuclear as well...

That's another problem with nuclear... it can't be throttled to meet demand.
People always criticize wind and solar because the output varies through the day. Nuclear has the opposite problem in that you can't adjust the output of the plant. It's either full on or off. At least solar has a generation curve which approximately matches demand during the day.

 

[nwdiver]

Nuclear has the opposite problem in that you can't adjust the output of the plant. It's either full on or off. At least solar has a generation curve which approximately matches demand during the day.

Well... sort of... they're not as dynamic as a gas turbine but commercial reactors are very flexible between ~40-100% output. But it is hard to maintain a reactor at 'idle'. Due to the design of light water reactors the power output of the reactor has an inverse relationship to the temperature of the coolant (water). Cooler water is more dense which acts as a more effective moderator which increases the thermal neutron population which increases reactor power. Lowering output from the steam generators increases coolant temperature and has the opposite effect. This is known as a negative temperature coefficient and makes light water reactors pretty stable.

Fun Fact... the chernobyl accident occurred during a test to see how low of a power they could maintain a critical reactor... they had to disable multiple automatic shutdowns since they were operating in a way the reactor was never intended to be operated.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say they are either on or off... you really can't generate 20MW from a 1GW nuclear plant... at some low power level... probably around ~200MW or so... you have to increase power or shutdown.

 

[Johan]

Well... sort of... they're not as dynamic as a gas turbine but commercial reactors are very flexible between ~40-100% output. But it is hard to maintain a reactor at 'idle'. Due to the design of light water reactors the power output of the reactor has an inverse relationship to the temperature of the coolant (water). Cooler water is more dense which acts as a more effective moderator which increases the thermal neutron population which increases reactor power. Lowering output from the steam generators increases coolant temperature and has the opposite effect. This is known as a negative temperature coefficient and makes light water reactors pretty stable.

Fun Fact... the chernobyl accident occurred during a test to see how low of a power they could maintain a critical reactor... they had to disable multiple automatic shutdowns since they were operating in a way the reactor was never intended to be operated.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say they are either on or off... you really can't generate 20MW from a 1GW nuclear plant... at some low power level... probably around ~200MW or so... you have to increase power or shutdown.

Can't you just flush the hot water out and replace with cool water? (If you need to stop the turbine or for some reason want to throttle your electrical power output)

 

[nwdiver]

Can't you just flush the hot water out and replace with cool water? (If you need to stop the turbine or for some reason want to throttle your electrical power output)

Yeah... you can bypass the turbines and dump steam directly into the condenser... so I guess you could produce ~20MW of electricity and 200MW of steam... kinda wasteful but it would work...

I've never worked at a commercial nuclear plant... I think this sort of operation would be manual and a bit 'clunky'... not something the plant is designed to do on a regular basis. The setup of the condenser is also optimized to take steam from the turbines... not the steam dump. Dumping steam into the condensers would likely cause excessive wear due to vibration. If I remember my navy days... testing the steam dump was a scary evolution... not something the plant was intended to do on a regular basis.

The only way to get cooler water into the steam generators is to let steam out; Keep in mind that the condenser is at a vacuum and the steam generators are >800#... that energy is intended to be absorbed by the turbines... dumping steam from 800# => vacuum is very hard on piping, valves and condenser tubes.

It's weird to think of electricity as a 'waste product' but I fully expect this to become much more common in the next ~10 years. There are a lot of grid-tie inverters installed out there that cannot regulate their output. What would be more attractive financially... pay $3k for an upgraded inverter or pay $10/mo to export surplus power certain hours of the day?

 

[mspohr]

Well... sort of... they're not as dynamic as a gas turbine but commercial reactors are very flexible between ~40-100% output. But it is hard to maintain a reactor at 'idle'. Due to the design of light water reactors the power output of the reactor has an inverse relationship to the temperature of the coolant (water). Cooler water is more dense which acts as a more effective moderator which increases the thermal neutron population which increases reactor power. Lowering output from the steam generators increases coolant temperature and has the opposite effect. This is known as a negative temperature coefficient and makes light water reactors pretty stable.

Fun Fact... the chernobyl accident occurred during a test to see how low of a power they could maintain a critical reactor... they had to disable multiple automatic shutdowns since they were operating in a way the reactor was never intended to be operated.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say they are either on or off... you really can't generate 20MW from a 1GW nuclear plant... at some low power level... probably around ~200MW or so... you have to increase power or shutdown.

Thanks for this info. Good to know that the newer light water reactors can modulate their output somewhat. However, from what I read (Wikipedia is as far as I got), they are very inefficient at lower power and due to the high fixed cost of the power plant, you don't really save anything by reducing output; you just avoid overloading the grid.
Does anyone know if the Ontario nuclear plants that are being rehabilitated are light water designs?