nwdiver
Well-Known Member
$35B (Units 3 & 4) for ~2.2GW. So ~$16/w. Still ~2x more than outrageously cost prohibitive. CCGTs, Solar and Wind are ~$1/w.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Nuclear power
- Thread starter eledille
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
$35B (Units 3 & 4) for ~2.2GW. So ~$16/w. Still ~2x more than outrageously cost prohibitive. CCGTs, Solar and Wind are ~$1/w.
The reactor design has been a financial disaster everywhere and yet the UK, which was slow to start, is still going ahead with it.
CrazyRabbit
Active Member
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Plus $30/MWh operating cost
U.S. nuclear power plant operating costs 2021 | Statista
The generation of electricity through nuclear power plants in the United States cost 29.13 U.S.
www.statista.com
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
$1/w CCGT produces 24/7/365 too. I prefer $1 vs $16 because math. Just use renewables to reduce how much fuel your CCGT consumes and once you have sufficient surplus renewables can produce fuel for CCGTs.
When you have sufficient surplus renewables AND a way to store the energy, sure. But right now, we need ways of generating energy that don't add CO2 to the atmosphere, and that's basically renewables and nuclear.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Not at $16/w. Not even at $8/w. Anything >$5 is just a black hole for capital that would be better invested in, I think the technical term is ‘almost anything else’.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Nuclear power corrupts
www.theguardian.com
Prosecutors alleged that Householder orchestrated a scheme secretly funded by Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp to secure his power in the legislature, elect his allies – and then to pass and defend a $1bn nuclear power plant bailout benefiting the electric utility. They alleged that Borges, then a lobbyist, sought to bribe an operative for inside information on the referendum to overturn the bailout.
Under a deal to avoid prosecution, FirstEnergy admitted using a network of dark money groups to fund the scheme and even bribing the state’s top utility regulator, Sam Randazzo.
Two leading Ohio Republicans found guilty in $60m bribery scheme
Ex-House speaker Larry Householder and ex-state Republican party chair Matt Borges convicted in Ohio’s largest corruption case
www.theguardian.com
Prosecutors alleged that Householder orchestrated a scheme secretly funded by Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp to secure his power in the legislature, elect his allies – and then to pass and defend a $1bn nuclear power plant bailout benefiting the electric utility. They alleged that Borges, then a lobbyist, sought to bribe an operative for inside information on the referendum to overturn the bailout.
Under a deal to avoid prosecution, FirstEnergy admitted using a network of dark money groups to fund the scheme and even bribing the state’s top utility regulator, Sam Randazzo.
CrazyRabbit
Active Member
We need to fund different technologies to produce green fuel for CCGT…. As of now, who know what the winning technology will be.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
We can make methane from H2. Worst case is we just make methane with H2. Those turbines have already been tested with a 20/80 mix H2/CH4. Point being ~100% of investment needs to be into wind and solar until there's enough curtailment that storage is economically viable. Everything else is just a distraction. Use demand response to reduce curtailment as much as possible.
Every remotely viable technology is dependent on a significant surplus of renewables to be remotely viable => getting to the point that we have a significant surplus of renewables needs to be the #1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th priority.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Restarting Michigan Nuclear Power Plant Risks 'Chernobyl-Scale Catastrophe,' Coalition Warns
"This more than $10 billion in ratepayer and taxpayer robbery would merely fund an insanely high-risk game of radioactive Russian roulette on the Lake Michigan shoreline," said one critic.
www.commondreams.org
A coalition of 191 individuals and 185 groups representing thousands of people on Wednesday implored the federal government for the third time not to fund the revival of a roughly 51-year-old nuclear power plant that was shut down last May in Covert, Michigan. In a letter to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the coalition warned that providing financial aid to Holtec International, which purchased the Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP) last June, could lead to a massive public health and environmental disaster that reverberates far beyond the shoreline of Lake Michigan—a source of drinking water for millions of people in multiple states. A little over a week after taking ownership of PNP "under the false pretense of decommissioning it," Holtec secretly applied for funding from the DOE's Civil Nuclear Credit (CNC) program in early July to reopen the plant, the coalition explained in a statement. A
Most importantly, PNP is unable "to operate safely due to a litany of chronic and acute problems associated with age-related degradation and neglected maintenance on safety-significant systems, structures, and components," the coalition argued in its statement. "This includes the worst neutron-embrittled reactor pressure vessel in the country and perhaps the world, at risk of pressurized thermal shock through-wall fracture, which would lead to reactor core meltdown."
"But additional pathways to catastrophic meltdown include a reactor lid, as well as steam generators, that have needed replacement for 17 years or longer," the coalition continued. "Palisades' control rod drive mechanism seal leaks have been uniquely bad in all of industry, for more than a half-century. Now added to this long list is Holtec's neglect of vital maintenance, such as of the turbo-generator, bending under its own immense weight, as well as the steam generators, to name but two examples."
mspohr
Well-Known Member
European Tiny Modular Reactor Deal Starts With Absurdly Expensive Electricity - CleanTechnica
Already 2.4 times as expensive as Hinkley. First of a kind, so very likely to double or more in price. Unlikely to be built before 2040.
cleantechnica.com
Small modular reactors won’t achieve economies of manufacturing scale, won’t be faster to construct, forego efficiency of vertical scaling, won’t be cheaper, aren’t suitable for remote or brownfield coal sites, still face very large security costs, will still be costly and slow to decommission, and still require liability insurance caps. They don’t solve any of the problems that they purport to while intentionally choosing to be less efficient than they could be. They’ve existed since the 1950s and they aren’t any better now than they were then.
However, at 2.4 times the cost per MWh of one of the most expensive nuclear generation projects on the planet, clearly they are nowhere near the field, never mind anywhere near the goal. As Flyvbjerg points out several times, first of a kind projects have massive long-talked risks, and Last Energy’s announcement has first of a kind in big neon screaming signage over every part of the deal.
IiRC they plan to sell as PPA for electricity and heat for industrial customers so that article is absolutely stupid comparing incomparable solutionsEuropean Tiny Modular Reactor Deal Starts With Absurdly Expensive Electricity - CleanTechnica
Already 2.4 times as expensive as Hinkley. First of a kind, so very likely to double or more in price. Unlikely to be built before 2040.
Small modular reactors won’t achieve economies of manufacturing scale, won’t be faster to construct, forego efficiency of vertical scaling, won’t be cheaper, aren’t suitable for remote or brownfield coal sites, still face very large security costs, will still be costly and slow to decommission, and still require liability insurance caps. They don’t solve any of the problems that they purport to while intentionally choosing to be less efficient than they could be. They’ve existed since the 1950s and they aren’t any better now than they were then.
However, at 2.4 times the cost per MWh of one of the most expensive nuclear generation projects on the planet, clearly they are nowhere near the field, never mind anywhere near the goal. As Flyvbjerg points out several times, first of a kind projects have massive long-talked risks, and Last Energy’s announcement has first of a kind in big neon screaming signage over every part of the deal.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
IIRC this is stupidity expensive heat and electricity. Also dangerous.
I don't think we need to worry, though. So many problems to overcome that it will never get built.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Leaks from Minnesota nuclear power plant raise safety fears across US
This leak, even though it was contained and poses no danger”, according to the official reports, “it should be used as some sort of wake-up call”, said Najmedin Meshkati, an engineering professor who specializes in nuclear safety at the University of Southern California. While some scientists see increasing nuclear energy as a crucial, safe way to reducing carbon emissions and increasing the country’s energy independence, the disasters at the Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima nuclear power plants continue to cause fears of the power source.
This leak, even though it was contained and poses no danger”, according to the official reports, “it should be used as some sort of wake-up call”, said Najmedin Meshkati, an engineering professor who specializes in nuclear safety at the University of Southern California. While some scientists see increasing nuclear energy as a crucial, safe way to reducing carbon emissions and increasing the country’s energy independence, the disasters at the Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima nuclear power plants continue to cause fears of the power source.
18 years... At least they are now divorced from Russian power and gas. Lots of eggs in one basket though. Many scenarios where that reactor might not last for 60 years.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/RZFR2VRW3BNKVHMSCJHH64JUBI.jpg)
www.reuters.com
After 18 years, Europe's largest nuclear reactor starts regular output
Finland's much-delayed Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) nuclear reactor, Europe's largest, began regular output early on Sunday, its operator said, boosting energy security in a region to which Russia has cut gas and power supplies.
www.reuters.com
Last edited:
mspohr
Well-Known Member
At a recent news conference in Berlin, Lemke noted that building new nuclear plants in Europe, such as Hinkley Point C in Britain, has faced significant delays and cost overruns. Funds spent on maintaining ageing reactors or building new ones would be better spent on installing cheap renewables, she argued.Many of Germany's power plants will still be undergoing costly dismantling by then. The question of what to do with highly radioactive material accumulated in the 62 years x the country's first reactor started operating remains unsolved. Efforts to find a final home for hundreds of containers of toxic waste have faced fierce resistance from local groups and officials, including Soeder, the Bavarian governor.
"Nuclear power supplied electricity for three generations, but its legacy remains dangerous for 30,000 generations," said Lemke, who also pointed to previously unconsidered risks such as the targeting of civilian atomic facilities during conflicts.
Tiger
Active Member
Is it true that from climate change perspective the amount of fuel available on earth (cost effectively) for Nuclear fission restricts its usefulness to a max 2% reduction in greenhouse gases?
Similar threads
