Nuclear power

[mspohr]

Looks like Hinckley Point C will cost even more than advertised.
New documents unearthed by The Guardian show the taxpayers will be on the hook for nuclear waste storage, disposal and clean up.
Secret government papers show taxpayers will pick up costs of Hinkley nuclear waste storage

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-costs?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Bangor Bob]

Hey, they can't put updated warheads for the Tridents in the actual budget, you know...

 

[iwannam3]

Remember when nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter"? Nuclear energy is basically a storage media for energy inputs from the diesel used to mine it, the diesel used to transport it, the huge amounts of electricity to refine and concentrate it. It takes huge amounts of energy to make the concrete and steel for the reactor facility. Then there is a lot of energy to dismantle, scrap and recycle the plant at the end of its lifetime.

The subsidy of the nuclear fuel cycle is many (hundreds?) of orders of magnitude compared to subsidies of solar, wind and EVs.

 

[nwdiver]

Nuclear energy is basically a storage media for energy inputs from the diesel used to mine it, the diesel used to transport it, the huge amounts of electricity to refine and concentrate it. It takes huge amounts of energy to make the concrete and steel for the reactor facility.

Um... no... but thank you for giving me the opportunity to defend nuclear and provide another post that I hope supports the fact that I'm not really anti-nuclear but pro-reality.

The reality is that a nuclear power plant produces ~100x as much energy over 40 years (most nuclear plants should last ~60 years) as is required for it's construction and all other associated activities.

Nuclear Power is not 'one of' it is statistically speaking the safest and most energy dense form of energy we have. Too bad it's also cost prohibitive. It's ironic that the page I linked to from 'world-nuclear' begins with 'The economics of electricity generation are important.' Yes... yes they are... wouldn't it be nice for nuclear if they weren't...

 

[3mp_kwh]

'The economics of electricity generation are important.' Yes... yes they are... wouldn't it be nice for nuclear if they weren't...

They aren't, really that much. If they were, more rate-payers would show up at hearings. Electricity makes up barely 2% of consumer expenditures, vs. things like gasoline at 3-4. The US electric market swings wildly on fuel source if you adjust 10% of that 2%. It simply isn't worth polluting CO2, among others, for all the technology we have at our disposal, including nuclear. It's the natural gas plants whose cost-recovery is apt to become challenging, as CO2 prices and battery peakers start denting their franchise (and capacity factors).

 

[nwdiver]

They aren't, really that much. If they were, more rate-payers would show up at hearings. Electricity makes up barely 2% of consumer expenditures, vs. things like gasoline at 3-4. The US electric market swings wildly on fuel source if you adjust 10% of that 2%. It simply isn't worth polluting CO2, among others, for all the technology we have at our disposal, including nuclear. It's the natural gas plants whose cost-recovery is apt to become challenging, as CO2 prices and battery peakers start denting their franchise (and capacity factors).

I personally don't believe in coincidences. IMO the reason most new generation that build is the most cost effective form is generation is because it was the most cost effective form of generation. I'll grant that a few slip through for political reason like Vogtle, Summer and Hinkley but those are the exceptions.

CO2 emissions become far less relevant when your primary concern is providing kW vs kWh. Gas plants can still be profitable since they can sit idle for weeks or months until energy spot prices hit $400/MWh then spool up in minutes for a quick profit. I agree that Demand Response and Storage will eliminate these events but those gas plants will likely remain in service as an insurance policy. They're already there, don't cost much to maintain and are zero emissions if they're not online.

 

[SmartElectric]

Ontario-Quebec electricity deal a breakthrough for renewables expansion

During a massive rebuild of Nuclear in Ontario where the price will go up 50% for the future Nuclear production, they also hedge their bets by expanding electricity trade with Quebec to shift excess renewable production from wind/solar in trade for hydro when nuclear base load is not sufficient for power needs.

Recent wind power deals are cheaper than Nuclear, recent solar is cheaper than gas, and now trading for power cheaper than everything else.

 

[macpacheco]

Thor Energy testing reportedly going fine. Will enable 15-30% power uprates (old/new PWR/BWR).
BN800 reactor achieved full commercial operation, able to fission almost any fissile/fertile gunk you throw at it.
China continues to achieve milestone after milestone on the dozens of reactors under construction.
First AP1000 in construction in USA and China seem to be past their rocky moments, first one should be operating end of 2017.
The bad news is China seems to be moving forward with all under construction projects, but not starting much new constructions so far.
Wish I could give news about Terrestrial Energy IMSR, but they mostly only report about the bigwigs joining their board, which does suggest they have plenty of funding. I think they'll be reporting concrete news until end of 2017 on permission to build and operate their demonstration (first) reactor.

On the other hand, I look forward to hear Tesla finished converting one of the smaller Hawaii islands to solar+powerpack (where it makes every sense in the world to do that).
I'm taking no money bets on when 99% of Hawaii will be solar.

 

[S'toon]

Japan is a scrapping an experimental reactor which has worked for just 250 days of its 22-year lifespan and cost $9bn (£7.2bn).

The Monju reactor, in western Japan's Fukui city, was designed to burn most of its own spent fuel, eliminating the need to deal with the nuclear waste.

But it suffered its first problems months after it went live, and has not worked properly since.

It would now need billions more for safety upgrades to be restarted.

"We have decided to decommission Monju because restarting it would require significant time and cost," chief cabinet secretary Yoshihide Suga said.

<snip>

Full article at:
Japan cancels failed $9bn Monju nuclear reactor - BBC News

 

[Noneduck]

Until the 'temporary' storage facility near me (among others) gets a permanent home, it IS an issue.

As far as I know, the only permanent deep storage site in the US for nuclear waste is in my state of New Mexico. Most of the waste can be handled without protective gear, they said, and the risk of accident was touted as less than one per 10,000 years. Instead the Waste Isolation Pilot Project suffered an explosion and radiation leak three years ago and a recent roof collapse that made an enormous area off limits to future storage. So yeah, storage is a real problem, and an increasingly costly one that is subsidized by taxpayers.

 

[nwdiver]

As far as I know, the only permanent deep storage site in the US for nuclear waste is in my state of New Mexico. Most of the waste can be handled without protective gear, they said, and the risk of accident was touted as less than one per 10,000 years. Instead the Waste Isolation Pilot Project suffered an explosion and radiation leak three years ago and a recent roof collapse that made an enormous area off limits to future storage. So yeah, storage is a real problem, and an increasingly costly one that is subsidized by taxpayers.

You're confusing different types of nuclear waste. WIPP is a DOE site intended to store waste generated from weapons programs. Significantly higher levels of enrichment >80% vs <2%... and weapons grade plutonium. The waste stored at WIPP is >100x more hazardous than spent fuel.

Not that spent fuel rods are benign... but they don't tend to be very reactive since they spend a lot of time decaying in a spent fuel pool before they're even shipped and a criticality is virtually impossible.

 

[Noneduck]

You're confusing different types of nuclear waste. WIPP is a DOE site intended to store waste generated from weapons programs. Significantly higher levels of enrichment >80% vs <2%... and weapons grade plutonium. The waste stored at WIPP is >100x more hazardous than spent fuel.

Not that spent fuel rods are benign... but they don't tend to be very reactive since they spend a lot of time decaying in a spent fuel pool before they're even shipped and a criticality is virtually impossible.

You are right. There is no functioning permanent repository for waste from the nuclear energy industry. Since WIPP is closed because of the radiation accident, there is no storage for transuranic waste from Los Alamos and elsewhere. The take home points are: 1) waste is an unsolved and growing problem 2) the public was misled about the safety of WIPP 3) dealing with weapons legacy waste alone is massively expensive 4) the government will someday pick up the tab for nuclear industry waste, e.g. a huge subsidy.

 

[neroden]

Scotland decided that burying the stuff in the ground was wrong and decided to store it in casks in secure warehouses basically permanently, to retain the ability to repack it when it became necessary. They were right. The US government is still pretending that they can bury it "permanently" and forget about it. They tried this in the 1950s and had to dig it up again, then reburied it with more layers of wrapping.

 

[ohmman]

Scotland decided that burying the stuff in the ground was wrong and decided to store it in casks in secure warehouses basically permanently, to retain the ability to repack it when it became necessary. They were right. The US government is still pretending that they can bury it "permanently" and forget about it. They tried this in the 1950s and had to dig it up again, then reburied it with more layers of wrapping.

I would not categorize the effort and science that went behind it as "pretending." While there are questions about the ability of salt deposits to contain nuclear waste, work continues to be done to solidify a storage solution.

You may be right, and we may not have a good stable solution. But looking back is easy. If we'd had no trouble with the original storage plans, someone would be complaining about Scotland's terrible idea to house it above ground in warehouses. I find it unfair to use the word "pretend" when people are doing serious work to find a real solution.

 

[Topher]

I find it unfair to use the word "pretend" when people are doing serious work to find a real solution.

The 'pretending' is when they say they HAVE (present tense) a solution, as opposed to working on a (future) solution. It would be nice to have had a solution BEFORE the stuff started accumulating.

Thank you kindly.

 

[ohmman]

The 'pretending' is when they say they HAVE (present tense) a solution, as opposed to working on a (future) solution. It would be nice to have had a solution BEFORE the stuff started accumulating.

If your science gives you a high confidence level, you do have a solution. Continuing the work and learning from previous error is precisely what science is about.

 

[neroden]

We don't have a permanent solution. We *know* we don't have a permanent solution. The salt cavern idea is shot through with holes already; they know that the massive amount of natural gas drilling in the area has destabilized the salt and that it'll likely end up with water flowing through it taking radioactive waste into the aquifer which the New Mexico site ultimately drains through. The Yucca Mountain idea was almost as bad and possibly worse.

This is why Scotland's plan makes so much sense. All of the history since the 1940s tells us that we are likely to have to reprocess and repack and often relocate most nuclear waste (including 'spent fuel', though not including very-low-level waste) repeatedly. Therefore making it as accessible as possible to *repack it* 20 or 40 or 60 years down the road makes perfect sense.

I personally favor using a site which is already severely contaminated and mostly no-go, but also very dry, such as the Nevada Test Site. But *unlike* the deep underground "bury it and forget about it until it poisons people in 1000 years" insanity of WIPP or Yucca, I support making it more like the standard low-level waste vaults or the better uranium mill tailing impoundments: using lots of concrete on all six sides, and going a few feet underground to deter casual looters (a problem at the Semipalatinsk Test Site) but basically keeping it at the surface and accessible so we can get the stuff out if we come up with a better solution. Or decide that it's a valuable resource for extracting medical isotopes or something.

As you can see I have spent an unreasonable amount of time studying the history of attempts to clean this stuff up. "Pretending to have a permanent solution" is an accurate description of the continuing behavior of (parts of) the US government. Better that they be honest.

If WIPP goes as badly as the worst predictions say, we may have to try to empty out WIPP sometime. That'll be a nightmare. Put it closer to the surface, you have insurance in case you need to move everything.

 

[Topher]

If your science gives you a high confidence level, you do have a solution. Continuing the work and learning from previous error is precisely what science is about.

What does that have to do with current topic? There is no facility available, nor has there ever been one as far as I know. I am not even convinced that any work is 'continuing'.

Thank you kindly.

 

[RubberToe]

Toshiba shares plunge on nuclear issues:

[URL=http://s882.photobucket.com/user/RubberToe420/media/toshiba_zpszcgusvjf.jpg.html][/URL]

Here is the WSJ article:
Toshiba Shares Plunge Over Problems at Nuclear Power Subsidiary

I wonder if there is any possibility that the Vogtle and Summer plants might not get completed? These are the kind of stories you read that are precursors to work stopping and lawyers taking over. Reminds me of the Mitsubishi debacle at the San Onofre reactor.

If nothing else, these kinds of cost overruns and mismanagement probably mean there will be no more U.S. reactors built.

RT

 

[nwdiver]

Here is the WSJ article:
Toshiba Shares Plunge Over Problems at Nuclear Power Subsidiary

I wonder if there is any possibility that the Vogtle and Summer plants might not get completed? These are the kind of stories you read that are precursors to work stopping and lawyers taking over. Reminds me of the Mitsubishi debacle at the San Onofre reactor.

If nothing else, these kinds of cost overruns and mismanagement probably mean there will be no more U.S. reactors built.

RT

Imagine if Tesla and BYD were the same company... and that company was going bankrupt by building EVs... that's what this is.... oh, and there were other zero emissions transport technologies that were cheaper...

Time to face reality... with thermal nuclear power success simply isn't one of the possible outcomes All ahead FLANK on solar, wind and storage. Enough time and money has been wasted chasing unicorns.