Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Wed 29 Mar 2017, 08:27:02

Toshiba/Westinghouse is building the two new AP1000 units at Plant Vogtle in Georgia (US): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_El ... ting_Plant

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Plant ... 81.7713527

Seems the Wikipedia page has shrunk a bit. IIRC the project is,,, wait for it ,,, over budget and behind schedule. If Toshiba sells off Westinghouse, who'll finish and maintain these new reactors?
Why Ga.’s Plant Vogtle Project Continues, Despite Money Woes

Feb 22, 2017 By Denis O'Hayer

On Feb. 21, the state Public Service Commission, which regulates utilities, approved Georgia Power's request for an additional $141 million in expenses related to the construction of new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle near Augusta.
The project has been plagued by delays and cost overruns, but now there is the potential for even bigger worries. The reactors are being built by Westinghouse, which is a subsidiary of Toshiba. Recently, Toshiba reported giant losses, totaling some $6 billion – much of which was related to the construction at Plant Vogtle and another nuclear construction project in South Carolina.
On" Morning Edition," Denis O'Hayer got a look at how Toshiba's financial problems might affect the Plant Vogtle expansion – and the state's consumers – in a conversation with Kristi Swartz, an Atlanta-based reporter for EnergyWire, who covers the energy industry in the Southeast:

http://news.wabe.org/post/why-ga-s-plan ... money-woes


More: http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/29/investi ... index.html
U.S. nuclear company Westinghouse Electric is filing for bankruptcy, its Japanese owner Toshiba said Wednesday.

Westinghouse, which was bought by Toshiba in 2006, has suffered billions of dollars in losses due to delays and cost overruns at nuclear plants under construction in Georgia and South Carolina.

The bankruptcy filing is the latest embarrassment for the two industrial giants. Huge losses at Westinghouse have thrown its survival into doubt and raised questions about the future of the two U.S. nuclear power projects.

The financial disaster has spread to the Japanese firm, which last month wrote down the value of Westinghouse by 712.5 billion yen ($6.4 billion).

Toshiba (TOSBF) said the Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing will limit its exposure to future losses at Westinghouse. The U.S. company will no longer be under Toshiba's control and will be stripped out of its financial results, the Japanese conglomerate said.

Toshiba warns net loss could hit 1 trillion [yen]

"The environment of nuclear power is so severe at this moment, it was not a sustainable business," said Kazunori Ito, an equity analyst at Morning Star.

Westinghouse's bankruptcy filing "is the only way for Toshiba to limit or determine the amount of loss at this point," he said.

That loss is going to be huge. .....

....Dumping Westinghouse could drag Toshiba to a net loss of about 1 trillion yen ($9 billion) for the financial year ending this month, the Japanese company said Wednesday, nearly three times the 390 billion yen ($3.5 billion) loss it had flagged last month. ......

Image
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1881
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby vox_mundi » Wed 29 Mar 2017, 12:31:09

Trump admin is urged to help struggling nuclear giant

A former U.S. Navy commander is calling on the Trump administration to quickly intervene in the pending bankruptcy of nuclear giant Westinghouse Electric Co. LLC in the name of national security.

The crisis for Westinghouse and Toshiba coincides with President Trump’s effort to do away with former president Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan and with a continuing lack of interest in Congress and the administration in adopting a carbon tax. Either of those measures would have improved nuclear power’s competitiveness with renewables or cheap natural gas

When solar manufacturer Solyndra went belly up in 2011, it led to a full-blown Washington scandal, with congressional hearings and accusations of White House wrongdoing. Solyndra became a one-word expletive that tagged the young solar industry as a boondoggle.

The Department of Energy gave it a $545 million loan guarantee to help build a manufacturing plant in California. But a solar manufacturing boom in China crushed the price of conventional crystalline photovoltaic (PV) solar panels.

Republicans pounced, grilling Obama administration officials for picking a losing technology -- and waging a broader offensive against the clean energy investments President Obama had supported since 2009.


Department of Energy guaranteed $6.5 Billion in loans to Georgia Power Company (GPC) and Oglethorpe Power Corporation (OPC) for construction of the first new nuclear reactors at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia.

The Department will guaranteed $1.8 billion in loans to three subsidiaries of the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG Power) for the Vogtle project.

The $8.3 billion in total loan guarantees for the Vogtle project represent the program’s first advanced nuclear energy deal.
U.S. taxpayers could be on the hook thanks to a $8.3 billion guaranteed credit facility from the U.S. government.

That could also mean higher rates for consumers in those areas. Both South Carolina and Georgia allow utilities to charge ratepayers for power-plant construction still in progress. In most states, ratepayers don’t pay until they’re receiving some of the benefits.

Westinghouse had claimed that its new AP1000 model reactor had passive technology and modular design that was safer, cheaper and faster to build.

Although the AP1000 was supposed to be a standard design, changes were made in South Carolina. Moreover, Westinghouse plans included modules built in Lake Charles, La., that were supposed to fit together “like pieces of Lego,” a former regulator said. But Nuclear Regulatory Commission files say that the Lake Charles plant was shipping faulty modules, forcing Westinghouse to re-weld them at the reactor sites. An entire extra building was erected to do the welding because there was so much of it, said one person familiar with the construction.
As well as building civilian nuclear reactors, Westinghouse has been the leading supplier of reactors for nuclear-powered U.S. aircraft carriers, submarines and other warships.

India was negotiating to buy half a dozen AP1000s. In China, too, Westinghouse has struggled with alterations in its design, delays and cost overruns.
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3700
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Wed 29 Mar 2017, 15:36:17

From Vox's link:

"....called on Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in a letter today to urge the Japanese government to prop up Toshiba Corp. and its Westinghouse subsidiary..."

Right. Japan is up to its ass in the forever costs of containing the Fukushima mess, and Trump has vowed to gut the Dept. of Energy. That said, Southern Company (parent of Georgia Power) is a powerful entity with plenty of pull. Hasn't seemed to affect their stock much.
Anyway, maybe Trump will have as much luck getting the Japanese to bail out Toshiba as he's had getting Mexico to pay for the wall.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1881
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Cog » Wed 29 Mar 2017, 16:14:50

Border adjustment tax is coming. Mexico will pay for the wall in due time.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9689
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 04 Apr 2017, 14:48:03

Michael Shellenberger has a bit to say and he has references to back it all up. Nifty graphs at the link below the quote.

Michael Shellenberger wrote:In recent years, support for and fear of nuclear energy have both increased. A growing number of climate scientists and environmentalists have advocated for nuclear, which is the largest source of low-carbon electricity in the USA and other countries [1]. But the 2011 accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan also increased popular fears.

Experts have long recognized the negative impact of fossil fuel pollution on public health, and the relative safety of nuclear power. But prior studies have been limited in their ability to directly measure health trade-offs from moving from nuclear to fossil fuels.

Climate scientist James Hansen and Pushker Kharecha found 1.84 million lives were saved by nuclear displacing coal over the last half century.

Now, a new study in Nature Energy by a young economist at Carnegie Mellon University, finds that the temporary closure of two nuclear plants in the early 1980s led directly to lower birth weights — a key indicator of poor health outcomes later in life [3].

The author, Edson Severnini, took advantage of a natural experiment to use strict econometric methods to disentangle confounding variables.

Following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, the Tennessee Valley Authority, a federal electric utility, temporarily closed two nuclear power plants. Severnini shows that power lost from these plants was replaced entirely by coal-powered electricity generation, which increased air pollution.

Exploiting this structural break in the electricity mix, Severnini found both a decline in air quality, and a reduction in birth weights.

Severnini’s methods — which took into consideration the geographical and temporal variation in exposure to the additional pollution — could be used to estimate future health impacts in nations that are closing nuclear plants and replacing them with plants using coal and other fossil fuels such as Germany, Japan, and the USA.

Where the normal operation of coal plants results in significant, measurable health impacts, the Fukushima accident — the second worst in history — will have no quantifiable impact on public health. And yet, in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima accident, Japan closed its nuclear plants and has indicated it will build dozens of new coal plants to replace them [7].

Germany has followed Japan in replacing its nuclear plants with fossil fuels. As a result, Germany’s carbon emissions rose for the second year in a row last year, and coal accounted for 40% of its power generation [8].

While Germany’s solar panels and wind turbines grab headlines, they have proven too unreliable to replace either nuclear or fossil fuels. In 2016, Germany generated less electricity from the sun even after installing more solar panels, and generated just one percent more electricity from wind despite having increased wind capacity by 11% (ref. 9).

Notably, electricity in Germany in 2016 was nearly 10 times dirtier than in France, which receives about three-quarters of its power from nuclear [10].

Nuclear energy peaked as a percentage of global electricity in 1996 at 17.6%, and has since declined to 11.5%. If policymakers don’t act soon, the world could lose twice as much nuclear as it adds between 2017 and 2030 (Fig. 1).

As such, Severnini’s study could play an important role in catalysing further action to keep nuclear plants on-line, and growing their share of the electricity mix, as a way to protect the health of infants, children, and other vulnerable populations.

References

1. Gafney, J. S. & Marley, N. A. Atmos. Environ. 43, 23–36 (2009).

2. Markandya, A. & Wilkinson, P. Lancet 370, 979–990 (2007).

3. Severnini, E. Nat. Energy 2, 17051 (2017).

4. Black, S. E., Devereux, P. J. & Salvanes, K. G. Q. J. Econ. 122, 409–439 (2007).

5. Hack, M., Klein, N. K. & Taylor, H. G. Future Child. 5, 176–196 (1995).

6. Health Risk Assessment from the Nuclear Accident After the 2011
Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, Based on a Preliminary
Dose Estimation (World Health Organization, 2013); http://go.nature.com/2ndqml3

7. Japan plans to build 45 new coal power plants in next decade: EIA. S&P Global Platts (3 February 2017); http://go.nature.com/2nnbCQX

8. Appunn, K. Germany’s energy consumption and power mix in charts. Clean Energy Wire (7 March 2017); http://go.nature. com/2nCcdij

9. Shellenberger, M. German Emissions Increase in 2016 Due To Nuclear Plant Closure (Environmental Progress, 2017); http://go.nature.com/2nPw9Pa

10. German Electricity was Nearly 10 Times Dirtier than France’s in 2016 (Environmental Progress, 2017); http://go.nature.com/2o4QE6J

11. Energy Progress Tracker (Environmental Progress, 2017);
http://go.nature.com/2ndqml3 http://go.nature.com/2nS1nC5


http://www.environmentalprogress.org/bi ... lear-power
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14115
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby vox_mundi » Sat 08 Apr 2017, 13:01:16

Plan would charge FirstEnergy customers more to subsidize money-losing nuclear plants

Nuclear energy is clean energy and deserving of a big subsidy from electricity customers, according to a new proposal before the General Assembly, a bill supported by FirstEnergy.

If that sounds like a hard sell, it is, based on the reception the bill received when its language was released Thursday. And there are indications that Gov. John Kasich is among the opponents.

Senate Bill 128 mainly applies to the two nuclear power plants in Ohio: Davis-Besse, near Toledo, and Perry, east of Cleveland, both of which are owned by FirstEnergy.

The bill, if passed, would let FirstEnergy charge customers hundreds of millions of dollars per year to help make the plants profitable, with a limit of a 5 percent rate increase per year.

The bill seeks to counteract market forces that have pushed down the market price of electricity to the point that many nuclear plants cannot make enough money to remain viable.


Akron-based FirstEnergy serves a territory that stretches across northern Ohio and also includes areas to the north and west of Columbus.

The existence of a big subsidy would send reverberations across the multistate electricity market that includes Ohio. It would harm competition by providing unfair help to one company at the expense of all others, according to numerous critics. ... the bill “represents a catastrophic rate increase ... to bail out noncompetitive, old plants.

Image
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3700
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Sat 08 Apr 2017, 22:14:59

Ontario Hydro's debt was downloaded on the consumers of the province via an additional fee on their bills. Half of this 30 billion Canadian dollar debt was due to one nuclear power plant, Darlington. Nuclear plant construction is clearly a racket since the costs are beyond any sane level and clearly in the corruption category. Supposedly the calandria developed cracks after it was built, so it had to be replaced. Somehow a hunk of metal doubled the cost to 14 billion dollars. BTW, the wikipedia page does not even mention to calandria so it is not to be trusted, I clearly recall the excuses given during the 1980s.

Now they want to sink 13 billion dollars into refurbishment. This amount of money should buy them a whole new plant with four reactors.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/d ... -1.3395696

The above has nothing to do with the need for nuclear energy. It is says everything about the rotten system we live in.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4973
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Coal Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Fri 21 Apr 2017, 19:44:51

Nuclear has them all beat.

Image
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Coal Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 21 Apr 2017, 21:56:16

Sub - "Nuclear has them all beat.". Only if existing plants are retained/expanded or new ones built. From

http://www.world-nuclear.org/informatio ... power.aspx

"Despite a near halt in new construction of more than 30 years, US reliance on nuclear power has grown. In 1980, nuclear plants produced 251 billion kWh, accounting for 11% of the country's electricity generation. In 2008, that output had risen to 809 billion kWh and nearly 20% of electricity, providing more than 30% of the electricity generated from nuclear power worldwide. Much of the increase came from the 47 reactors, all approved for construction before 1977, that came on line in the late 1970s and 1980s, more than doubling US nuclear generation capacity. The US nuclear industry has also achieved remarkable gains in power plant utilisation through improved refuelling, maintenance and safety systems at existing plants. Average generating cost in 2014 was $36.27 per MWh ($44.14 at single-unit sites and $33.76 at multi-unit sites), including fuel and capital, and average operating cost was $21/MWh.

The country's 100 nuclear reactors produced 805 billion kWh in 2016, almost 20% of total electrical output. There are four reactors under construction.
Following a 30-year period in which few new reactors were built, it is expected that four more new units will come online by 2021, these resulting from 16 licence applications made since mid-2007 to build 24 new nuclear reactors. Government policy changes since the late 1990s have helped pave the way for significant growth in nuclear capacity.

Some states have liberalized wholesale electricity markets, which makes the financing of capital-intensive power projects difficult, and coupled with lower gas prices since 2009, have put the economic viability of some existing reactors and proposed projects in doubt.

In 2016, the US electricity generation was 4079 TWh (billion kWh) net, 1380 TWh (34%) of it from gas, 1240 TWh (30%) from coal-fired plant, 805 TWh (19.7%) nuclear, 266 TWh from hydro, 226 TWh from wind, and 117 TWh from other renewables (EIA data). Annual electricity demand is projected to increase to 5,000 billion kWh in 2030, though in the short term it is depressed and has not exceeded the 2007 level."
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10673
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby vox_mundi » Sat 22 Apr 2017, 11:37:30

Paying Nuclear Losers for ‘Clean’ Power Upends U.S. Markets

Some U.S. states are trying to save money-losing nuclear plants -- and disrupting America’s electricity markets in the process.

New York and Illinois have cleared the way for nuclear power to be subsidized with higher fees on buyers -- aid normally reserved for renewable energy like solar and wind.

Image

All that cheap fuel has cut electricity prices, creating financial problems for aging nuclear plants. Five have closed in the past five years and more shutdowns are planned, primarily for economic reasons, according to the Energy Information Administration.

The industry calculus began to change in August when New York handed nuclear plants so-called credits for supplying carbon-free power to the state, which means the generators can raise an additional $500 million a year from higher rates. Four months later, Illinois created similar credits to keep money-losing reactors open and 1,500 people employed. (Solar or Wind would have employed twice as many)

Only the newest and largest nuclear plants can sell power for $25 a megawatt hour, which is the price offered by most gas plants, according to Bloomberg Intelligence. Wholesale power at a major trading hub within PJM averaged $23.90 a megawatt-hour at 11:28 a.m. Friday in New York, grid data compiled by Genscape show.


Low Costs of Solar Power & Wind Power Crush Coal, Crush Nuclear, & Beat Natural Gas

Russia's Secretive Floating Nuclear Power Plant Making Waves In St. Petersburg

Image

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia -- Ecologists in Russia's northern capital are raising the alarm over government plans to fuel a floating nuclear power plant just 2 kilometers from the heart of the city.

Officials have been saying since December that they are nearly ready to begin fueling the Akademik Lomonosov, the country's first-ever ship-borne nuclear-power station, which is scheduled to be deployed at Vilyuchinsk on the Far Eastern Kamchatka Peninsula in 2019. Because the process is shrouded in secrecy and the government has ignored requests for information, it is unclear what the status of the fueling process currently is.

In a public statement, the regional office of Yabloko warns against the loading of nuclear fuel into the two reactors while the experimental floating installation is located in downtown St. Petersburg.

It could pose a serious threat against the five million people of St. Petersburg, they warn. Also environmental organization Greenpeace is skeptical towards the operation.

"From this floating nuclear power plant to the city's mining institute [for example] is probably only about 500 meters," Rashid Alimov, director of energy programs for Greenpeace Russia, told RFE/RL. "The historical center is densely populated. We have to exclude even the thought of an accident. That is why we have written to the governor. … According to the law, carrying out such operations at the Baltic Shipyard must be approved by the city, evacuation plans have to be drawn up. We have asked the municipal authorities about this."

Environmentalists are also concerned that Russia might just dump a stricken plant into the ocean, as Moscow did with the reactors of numerous Soviet-era nuclear submarines.
The government acknowledged one accident in 1972 in which a reactor shield was breached but, according to improbable official reports, no radiation was released. In another incident in 1979, an entire building was destroyed in an explosion and two workers were killed. Both incidents were classified as secret at the time and only made public many years later.

With some improvements, the reactor of the KLT-40s type is similar to the reactors on board Russia’s fleet of nuclear powered icebreakers. The plan is to put the nuclear power plant into operation on site in the Arctic in November 2019. Construction of infrastructure in Pevek is already in full swing, and ground works with the protection dam to surrond the plant is reportedly already 79 percent finished.

Image]
Last edited by vox_mundi on Sat 22 Apr 2017, 12:15:47, edited 1 time in total.
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3700
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby GASMON » Sat 22 Apr 2017, 12:10:03

Out of interest I never thought I would see this day

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39675418

Britain went a full day without using coal to generate electricity for the first time since the Industrial Revolution, the National Grid says.
The energy provider said Friday's lack of coal usage was a "watershed" moment.
Britain's longest continuous energy period without coal until now was 19 hours - first achieved last May, and again on Thursday.
The government plans to phase out Britain's last plants by 2025 in order to cut carbon emissions.
Friday is thought to be the first time the nation has not used coal to generate electricity since the world's first centralised public coal-fired generator opened in 1882, at Holborn Viaduct in London.

Gas
The truth is sometimes incorrect
User avatar
GASMON
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat 29 Mar 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Lancashire England

Re: THE Coal Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Zarquon » Sat 22 Apr 2017, 14:47:44

According to what I've read about EDF (the French nuke company, basically state-owned), the reason why they can sell electricity for 14 cents is that EDF sucked up huge losses for decades. Today they don't even have enough money to dismantle the aging reactors which will have to go offline in the next decade, let alone build replacements. EDF is a financial black hole. So, if I understand it correctly, cutting down nuclear power in France is not so much a courageous policy decision as simply acknowledging the facts.
Zarquon
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Fri 06 May 2016, 19:53:46

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Sat 22 Apr 2017, 15:51:35

@vox_mundi

The usual western media anti-Russian drivel. "Secretive" that the whole world knew about these plants long before actual construction started. Last time I checked public tours aren't common of nuclear power plant construction sites. So, no shit Sherlock, they are "secretive".

As for the photograph. As usual no context. Yet more masturbatory, chauvinist BS designed to propagate stereotypes for brain dead biggots. Clearly the fuse has been unscrewed from this shell (there are no hollow point shells) and they are trying to detach the threaded fuse housing which is probably seized. This procedure is 100% safe since without the detonator the explosive does not explode even if you put a match to it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonator). This is an ordinance disposal activity being used by retards to produce internet forum cheese.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4973
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sat 22 Apr 2017, 19:37:38

GASMON wrote:Out of interest I never thought I would see this day

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39675418

Britain went a full day without using coal to generate electricity for the first time since the Industrial Revolution, the National Grid says.
The energy provider said Friday's lack of coal usage was a "watershed" moment.
Britain's longest continuous energy period without coal until now was 19 hours - first achieved last May, and again on Thursday.
The government plans to phase out Britain's last plants by 2025 in order to cut carbon emissions.
Friday is thought to be the first time the nation has not used coal to generate electricity since the world's first centralised public coal-fired generator opened in 1882, at Holborn Viaduct in London.

Gas



Too bad they achieved this marvel by burning a nassive quantity of wood pellets imported from Canada instead of the coal they were designed for.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4158
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Sat 22 Apr 2017, 20:35:47

dissident wrote:Ontario Hydro's debt was downloaded on the consumers of the province via an additional fee on their bills. Half of this 30 billion Canadian dollar debt was due to one nuclear power plant, Darlington. Nuclear plant construction is clearly a racket since the costs are beyond any sane level and clearly in the corruption category. Supposedly the calandria developed cracks after it was built, so it had to be replaced. Somehow a hunk of metal doubled the cost to 14 billion dollars. BTW, the wikipedia page does not even mention to calandria so it is not to be trusted, I clearly recall the excuses given during the 1980s.

Now they want to sink 13 billion dollars into refurbishment. This amount of money should buy them a whole new plant with four reactors.

The cost over run in building the four reactor Darlington facility was largely due to the refusal of Ontario Hydro to pay any of the construction costs up front. The entire construction cost over the long period of construction was financed entirely with borrowed money at a time when interest rates were in the double digits. Thus a good portion of the final bill was interest costs, not construction costs.

I've never heard about a cracked calandria in one of the Darlington reactors. My impression is that the Darlington reactors have performed flawlessly since they were brought into service. Earlier CANDU reactors experienced premature cracking in the pressure tubes, something that had not been seen in the smaller development reactors. CANDU reactors require a refurbishment after 30 years and the Darlington reactors are approaching that point. $13 billion to refurbish Darlington is cheaper than building four new reactors. The project to refurbish Darlington was started several years ago. OPG constructed a full size replica of one of the reactors so all steps in the process could be tested before work is done on any of the real reactors. All existing reactor components have been studied to determine if they can be used "as is" for another 30 years, can be refurbished or require complete replacement. The level of planning and preparation that has been put into the refurbishment project greatly increases the chances that it will be completed on time and on budget.

My understanding is that OPG and Bruce Nuclear are receiving 6.5 cents per Kwh. That's a lot less than the regulated price for power and less than half what wind power producers receive. 60% of Ontario's electricity comes from our nuclear plants.
yellowcanoe
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: THE Coal Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 22 Apr 2017, 20:44:48

Zarquon wrote:According to what I've read about EDF (the French nuke company, basically state-owned), the reason why they can sell electricity for 14 cents is that EDF sucked up huge losses for decades. Today they don't even have enough money to dismantle the aging reactors which will have to go offline in the next decade, let alone build replacements. EDF is a financial black hole. So, if I understand it correctly, cutting down nuclear power in France is not so much a courageous policy decision as simply acknowledging the facts.


180 degrees backwards like most anti-nuclear claims. Like most state owned enterprises all the considerable money generated by EDF has gone into the national budget as if it were pure tax and then been spent by the irresponsible politicians. EDF has only 'lost money' in the same sense that the Mexican and Venezuelan oil companies have 'lost money', in each case the politicians spent it as fast as the money came in.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14115
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Sat 22 Apr 2017, 21:07:02

yellowcanoe wrote:
dissident wrote:Ontario Hydro's debt was downloaded on the consumers of the province via an additional fee on their bills. Half of this 30 billion Canadian dollar debt was due to one nuclear power plant, Darlington. Nuclear plant construction is clearly a racket since the costs are beyond any sane level and clearly in the corruption category. Supposedly the calandria developed cracks after it was built, so it had to be replaced. Somehow a hunk of metal doubled the cost to 14 billion dollars. BTW, the wikipedia page does not even mention to calandria so it is not to be trusted, I clearly recall the excuses given during the 1980s.

Now they want to sink 13 billion dollars into refurbishment. This amount of money should buy them a whole new plant with four reactors.

The cost over run in building the four reactor Darlington facility was largely due to the refusal of Ontario Hydro to pay any of the construction costs up front. The entire construction cost over the long period of construction was financed entirely with borrowed money at a time when interest rates were in the double digits. Thus a good portion of the final bill was interest costs, not construction costs.

I've never heard about a cracked calandria in one of the Darlington reactors. My impression is that the Darlington reactors have performed flawlessly since they were brought into service. Earlier CANDU reactors experienced premature cracking in the pressure tubes, something that had not been seen in the smaller development reactors. CANDU reactors require a refurbishment after 30 years and the Darlington reactors are approaching that point. $13 billion to refurbish Darlington is cheaper than building four new reactors. The project to refurbish Darlington was started several years ago. OPG constructed a full size replica of one of the reactors so all steps in the process could be tested before work is done on any of the real reactors. All existing reactor components have been studied to determine if they can be used "as is" for another 30 years, can be refurbished or require complete replacement. The level of planning and preparation that has been put into the refurbishment project greatly increases the chances that it will be completed on time and on budget.

My understanding is that OPG and Bruce Nuclear are receiving 6.5 cents per Kwh. That's a lot less than the regulated price for power and less than half what wind power producers receive. 60% of Ontario's electricity comes from our nuclear plants.


Thanks for the information about the absurd financing model. But I am quite sure about the calandria cracking excuses since I personally heard them. The financing model was never used as an excuse. But I doubt it accounts for all the costs since the refurbishment is being tagged initially as 14 billion dollars. This means the final bill will be much higher and even accounting for inflation vs. 1980 this figure is insane.

If the workers were making $100,000 per year then you would need 14,000 of them working for 10 years to cost this much. There will not be even 1,000 of them and they will not work for 10 years. They must be using platinum and palladium by the ton.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4973
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Coal Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Zarquon » Sun 23 Apr 2017, 00:00:53

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood these:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/edf- ... -z3dgd6tb0

"The French state group building Britain’s new nuclear plant does not have enough cash to dismantle its domestic reactors, according to an official study. A French parliamentary committee said that EDF would need a public bailout to meet the cost of closing ageing power stations. The warning was issued after unions expressed fury about an announcement that EDF plans to cut 3,900 jobs in France over the next three years. Jean-Marc Sylvestre, an economics commentator, said that the group was on the “edge of a precipice” and faced a choice between privatisation and bankruptcy. He described EDF’s situation as a “catastrophe foretold”. EDF’ s critics say that the company, which has debts of more than 37 billion euros lacks the financial resources to meet its commitments in France, let alone embark upon the Hinkley Point scheme. Their concerns were fuelled with the publication of a report by the committee for sustainable development, which accused EDF of failing to plan for the dismantling of its plants. EDF has set aside has 36 billion euros to pay to clean up reactors at the end of their working lives."

https://nuclear-news.net/category/2-wor ... orld-area/

"A French Parliamentary report from the National Assembly’s Commission for Sustainable Development and Regional Development says the clean-up of French reactors will take longer, be more challenging and cost much more than French nuclear operator EDF anticipates. Whereas Germany has set aside €38 billion to decommission 17 nuclear reactors, and the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority estimates that clean-up of UK’s 17 nuclear sites will cost between €109?250 billion over the next 120 years, France has set aside only €23 billion to decommissioning its 58 reactors. In other words France estimates it will cost €300 million per gigawatt (GW) of generating capacity to decommission a nuclear reactor, Germany estimates €1.4 billion per GW and the UK estimates €2.7 billion per GW.

EDF says it wants to set aside a €23 billion fund to cover decommissioning and waste storage for an estimated €54 billion final bill - and the difference between these two figures will be closed through the appreciating value of its equities, bonds and investments - in other words, ‘discounting’. Unfortunately, recent experience has taught us that markets can go up and down over time - especially the very long-time periods involved in radioactive waste management. But for a company that has huge borrowings and an enormous debt of €37 billion, €23 billion is a large sum of money to find. Any significant change in the cost of decommissioning would have an immediate and disastrous impact on EDFs credit rating - something that the debt-ridden corporation can simply not afford. EDF is already in financial trouble. Along with bailing out collapsing AREVA, EDF also has to bear the huge financial burden of the failing reactor newbuild at Flamanville. It will also have to pay for extending the life of France’s existing nuclear power stations (to 2025), at a cost of €55 billion.

On top of all this the French authority tasked with disposal of all the countries vast and increasing waste burden (Andra) has recently ramped up the estimated cost for the planned national nuclear waste repository at Cigéo, to €25 billion - and EDF must pay for most of Cigéo’s construction. Although €5 billion more than EDF anticipated, it still seems a gross underestimation, and the costs are likely to rise considerably."

This one puts the mess in a larger perspective:

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_a ... epens.html

"Nuclear giant EDF could be heading towards bankruptcy, writes Paul Brown, as it faces a perfect storm of under-estimated costs for decommissioning, waste disposal and Hinkley C. Meanwhile income from power sales is lagging behind costs, and 17 of its reactors are off-line for safety tests. Yet French and UK governments are turning a blind eye to the looming financial crisis.
..."
Zarquon
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Fri 06 May 2016, 19:53:46

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 23 Apr 2017, 03:42:05

dissident wrote:Thanks for the information about the absurd financing model. But I am quite sure about the calandria cracking excuses since I personally heard them. The financing model was never used as an excuse. But I doubt it accounts for all the costs since the refurbishment is being tagged initially as 14 billion dollars. This means the final bill will be much higher and even accounting for inflation vs. 1980 this figure is insane.

If the workers were making $100,000 per year then you would need 14,000 of them working for 10 years to cost this much. There will not be even 1,000 of them and they will not work for 10 years. They must be using platinum and palladium by the ton.


What an odd way of looking at things, as if all the money will be spent on labor and none on the specialized highly tested and certified materials used in the refurbishing.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14115
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Coal Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 23 Apr 2017, 04:30:12

Nope, you understood the propaganda message of the anti-nukes and bought into the narrative picture they drew you hook line and sinker. Things like the long term cost of waste storage are directly influenced by political opportunists who delay projects for no reason other than political expediency. Propagandists also love to stretch out timelines to make things appear either much cheaper or much more expensive than they are. If you claim nuclear waste has to be guarded forever then even at a cost a 1 euro a day forever adds up to a LOT of money.

Here is an example for you. What does 'clean up of a nuclear site' mean? In reality it means the spent nuclear fuel and easily portable waste are hauled off to facilities intended for those things. Then uncontaminated materials, steel scrap and machinery for the most part, is hauled away. Once all that is done which only requires a few months you have the reactor vessel and its containment structure plus the portions of the power production equipment that was 'contaminated'.

The next step is to put a padlock on the building and ignore it for 10-25 years depending on your planning and budget. Why? The remaining structures that are 'contaminated' are not going anywhere. It requires some pretty heavy duty work to do so and people notice when other people show up with heavy machinery and start tearing structures apart. By ignoring the 'contaminated' structures the residual radiation caused by neutron activation has time to decay away to nothing, and the longer you wait the less remaining radioactivity it has.

Finally 10-25 years after the 'contamination' has had time to decay away heavy machinery is brought in, the remaining structures are demolished and the very slightly radioactive steel and concrete is hauled away for permanent disposal. In 99 percent of cases you could move into the containment building a few months after they had hauled away all the portable materials and you would get a lower dose living inside their the rest of your natural lifespan than you would laying on the beach in Brazil for an hour a week during that same lifespan.

So what it costs to 'decontaminate' a nuclear site in the western way of doing things is a huge charge that is completely unnecessary for any location where normal practices were followed for the 60 year or less period the plant operated. Civilian radiation standards are insanely tight. For example a Nuclear worker is permitted to receive hundreds of times the civilian permitted dosage during a 40 year working career. With rare exception few workers ever receive those permitted levels of exposure. Yet the cancer rate for nuclear workers is much LESS than that of the general public who receive fractions of a percent of the permissible worker dose.

Politicians and anti-nuclear propagandists make all sorts of claims that are disproven by science constantly, and yet the anti-science left takes those claims at face value in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Then after accepting those disproven claims as truth the politicians use the propaganda to justify passing regulations and laws that reflect unfounded fear that place an enormous technological and financial burden on nuclear power suppliers. Meanwhile in countries where science is used instead of fear mongering the expense of nuclear power is much lower.

Take everyone's favorite anti-nuclear example of Chernobyl. A huge territory was marked off on maps by political fiat and declared unsuitable for human habitation 31 years ago. Since that time the governments of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus have changed significantly. In Russia and Belarus actual scientists have tested the marked off territory and much of it has been found to be suitable for human habitation and put back into productive use. In the Ukraine on the other hand the political leadership from several different parties over that 31 years has used Chernobyl as a scapegoat. They use it to cry on the world stage about how poor they are and how badly they were treated under the former USSR regime and make tons of excuses about why they can't accomplish much of anything useful. Real world testing has shown that not only does a good slice of the 'exclusions zone' now meet reasonable exposure limits for human habitation, many locations that were never part of the zone have equal or stronger background dose rates. This is true for a few 'hot spots' inside the Ukraine but is especially true of places where tens of thousands of people live perfectly normal lives around the world. Iran, India and Brazil all have significant and populated areas with higher background radiation levels than most of the 'exclusion zone'. Propaganda says the 'exclusion zone' is unfit for human habitation forever, or at least a thousand years. Reality says most of it is as safe as anywhere else TODAY. What are you going to believe, the Propaganda, or the scientific reality?
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14115
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron