Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Looking Ahead to 2018 for Nuclear Energy

Unread postby StarvingLion » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 21:26:27

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
AdamB wrote:
Each year this blog looks ahead to issues it will follow in the coming 12 months. What this look into the future does is to provide some check marks on the page of news about nuclear energy to return to from time-to-time to see what’s going on. Readers also know that this blog presents a “realist” perspective and, while pro-nuclear in perspective, it also faces facts as they are and not as some may want them to be. This list of issues is not exclusive nor does it represent a set of predictions. Here without further fudging is the 2018 list. China is outpacing all other countries except Russia in the development of advanced nuclear reactor technologies. The U.S. has lost its place as global leader in this field. China is placing multiple bets on advanced reactors including HTGR, Molten Salt, and other types of


Looking Ahead to 2018 for Nuclear Energy

Well, maybe success in China for something like Molten Salt reactors could wake people up to a better way to produce nuclear power as part of a greener portfolio to help meet insatiable global demand as green energy grows in coming decades?

On the other hand, LOTS of claims in the article, but the ONLY links I see are pointers to a "New Way" blog that is all about promoting this stuff.

So I'm disappointed in the lack of real substance and the big lack, apparently, in objectivity.


Gee, Outcast, the last time I looked Nuclear definitely was not a member of Team Green.

Makes you wonder, Saudia Arabia claims to building 17 nuclear reactors as well as going Total Solar Paradise. If nothing can compete with "cheap" solar, why is that?
Tesla Motors in the next Venezuela
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1152
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Looking Ahead to 2018 for Nuclear Energy

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 22:38:42

StarvingLion wrote:-snip-

Gee, Outcast, the last time I looked Nuclear definitely was not a member of Team Green.

Makes you wonder, Saudia Arabia claims to building 17 nuclear reactors as well as going Total Solar Paradise. If nothing can compete with "cheap" solar, why is that?


Nuclear has always been a member of Team Green. It only releases about 15% of the carbon as coal, and only 40% of the carbon as Natural Gas. This is fuel burned in mining and refining uranium. Then it's hands down the safest form of power generation.

What nuclear does well is "baseline" power generation, 24X7. It does not throttle up well for peak daytime loads - but solar shines there, and if you need A/C, solar putput conveniently peaks with the solar radiance heating up your living space.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4782
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Tue 05 Dec 2017, 13:40:02

More gridweenie problems.....

PSC staff says cancel Vogtle if project remains ‘uneconomic’

Analysts appointed by the Georgia Public Service Commission to evaluate progress at plant Vogtle in Augusta say the project should be cancelled as Georgia Power failed to manage it in a “reasonable manner.”

“Completion of the project is no longer economic given the additional costs and schedule delays,” the analysts said in written testimony to commissioners.

They recommended that a reasonable Total Project Cost be set at $8.3 billion, $3.9 billion less than what Georgia Power estimates for project completion.

The experts opposed Georgia Power and partner company requests to shift the projects financial risks resulting from contractor’s failures to customers as some costs “incurred by the company were not reasonable to allocate to customers.” Instead, they said Georgia Power and it’s shareholders should shoulder the risk.

The company has not provided justification in its requests to apportion ratepayers 100% of its forecasted costs, the analysts said.

Georgia Power through spokesperson John Kraft argued the company shared in the “financial risk of the Vogtle project,” citing “severe consequences for delays in place under an agreement with the Georgia PSC.”

The analysis, based on Georgia Power reports presented during the November commission hearings also showed the company was not “effective on a consistent basis in assuring that all the key project commitments were being met by the Contractor on a timely basis.”

The testimony comes weeks after Georgia Power CEO Paul Bowers’ assertion before commissioners that completing the project presented the best economic option for customers. CEOs of companies parterning with Georga Power — Oglethorpe Power, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG) and Dalton utilities — appealed to commissioners to approve the new project costs and have customers continue funding the project.

In November, Bowers asked commissioners to rule on whether the new estimates by Georgia power and its partners were reasonable, before the company, which owns 45.7 percent of Vogtle continues spending additional dollars on the project.

As of June, Total Project Costs incurred on the project stood at $5.85 billion. Georgia Power estimates Total Project Costs at completion to be $12.2 billion, with completion dates for units 3 and 4 set for November 2021 and 2022 respectively.....

more: http://www.myajc.com/business/psc-staff ... U5jgrPwKO/


The two new AP-1000 reactors at Vogtle were supposed to be state-of-the-art and help jump-start a new nuclear renaissance in the US.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2203
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby pstarr » Tue 05 Dec 2017, 13:50:39

"They recommended that a reasonable Total Project Cost be set at $8.3 billion, $3.9 billion less than what Georgia Power estimates for project completion."

What's a $billion here? What a $billion there? Sell a few shares of Apple and build the damn thing :x 8)
If you are not a curmudgeon. . . you are not awake.
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26850
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Tue 05 Dec 2017, 16:55:26

GHung wrote:The two new AP-1000 reactors at Vogtle were supposed to be state-of-the-art and help jump-start a new nuclear renaissance in the US.


These reactors along with the two units for South Carolina Electric and Gas were the first power reactors ordered in the US since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. With an entirely new reactor design and no recent experience in building power reactors, I am not surprised that these projects are over budget. That the cost overruns were enough to put Westinghouse into bankruptcy protection speaks volumes about how much the nuclear industry in the US has shrunk.

The two units for SCE&G have already been cancelled while the future of the two units at Vogtle is still in question. I am sure the shareholders and customers would have been happier if both companies had elected to go with natural gas generation instead of nuclear. However, just because gas is the cheaper option right now does not mean it would remain cheaper over the expected lifetime of the nuclear reactors. Natural gas generation also emits carbon dioxide and the production and transportation of natural gas involves some leakage of methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas.

To rejuvenate the US power reactor business, the Federal Government should have agreed to pickup the cost over-runs on the first few units. Loan guarantees clearly were not enough. However, neither political party is willing to provide strong support for nuclear power. Too many democrats are anti-nuclear. Republicans believe in leaving decisions to the market place. For most power companies, that means going with coal or natural gas as they are much cheaper in the short run than nuclear.

Phasing out nuclear in Germany has resulted in a greater dependency on burning lignite -- the dirtiest form of coal, despite the massive investment Germany has made in wind and solar power. If the US cannot resume construction of new nuclear reactors to replace those that are reaching their end of life, generation of power with coal and natural gas can only increase.
yellowcanoe
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 10:29:18

yellowcanoe wrote:
GHung wrote:The two new AP-1000 reactors at Vogtle were supposed to be state-of-the-art and help jump-start a new nuclear renaissance in the US.


These reactors along with the two units for South Carolina Electric and Gas were the first power reactors ordered in the US since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. With an entirely new reactor design and no recent experience in building power reactors, I am not surprised that these projects are over budget. That the cost overruns were enough to put Westinghouse into bankruptcy protection speaks volumes about how much the nuclear industry in the US has shrunk.

The two units for SCE&G have already been cancelled while the future of the two units at Vogtle is still in question. I am sure the shareholders and customers would have been happier if both companies had elected to go with natural gas generation instead of nuclear. However, just because gas is the cheaper option right now does not mean it would remain cheaper over the expected lifetime of the nuclear reactors. Natural gas generation also emits carbon dioxide and the production and transportation of natural gas involves some leakage of methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas.

To rejuvenate the US power reactor business, the Federal Government should have agreed to pickup the cost over-runs on the first few units. Loan guarantees clearly were not enough. However, neither political party is willing to provide strong support for nuclear power. Too many democrats are anti-nuclear. Republicans believe in leaving decisions to the market place. For most power companies, that means going with coal or natural gas as they are much cheaper in the short run than nuclear.

Phasing out nuclear in Germany has resulted in a greater dependency on burning lignite -- the dirtiest form of coal, despite the massive investment Germany has made in wind and solar power. If the US cannot resume construction of new nuclear reactors to replace those that are reaching their end of life, generation of power with coal and natural gas can only increase.


I agree with all of the above and will just add that Canada needs to stop changing its mind about building the next generation of CANDU units or it will find itself in the same situation within a decade.
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: 14599
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 09 Dec 2017, 12:49:19

The western nuclear industry is afflicted with the same price gouging disease as the US MIC and Big Pharma. And the reasons are rather similar. The MIC leverages fear of the "enemy", Big Pharma leverages "disease and death", and the nuclear industry leverages the irrational fear of nuclear accidents. The spineless western governments who oversee the expenditure of public money demonstrate no propensity to counteract these rackets. They can't even properly haggle down the prices but engage in BS bidding processes that are trivially easy to abuse when it comes to oligopolies (as opposed to actual free markets).
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5109
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 15:07:35

Tanada wrote:
I agree with all of the above and will just add that Canada needs to stop changing its mind about building the next generation of CANDU units or it will find itself in the same situation within a decade.


Ontario is so deeply in debt and hydro rates have increased so much due to privatization of generation and excessively high tariffs for renewable energy that it is extremely unlikely that any future government would commit to building new nuclear plants. It's already too late to prevent a reduction in nuclear capacity as two of the 550MW reactors at Pickering are scheduled to be shutdown in 2022 and the remaining 4 units in 2024. I expect the lost generating capacity will be replaced primarily with natural gas fired generators. A project to refurbish the four units are Darlington is underway and it is likely that the Bruce units will also be refurbished.
yellowcanoe
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 16:16:05

yellowcanoe wrote:
Tanada wrote:
I agree with all of the above and will just add that Canada needs to stop changing its mind about building the next generation of CANDU units or it will find itself in the same situation within a decade.


Ontario is so deeply in debt and hydro rates have increased so much due to privatization of generation and excessively high tariffs for renewable energy that it is extremely unlikely that any future government would commit to building new nuclear plants. It's already too late to prevent a reduction in nuclear capacity as two of the 550MW reactors at Pickering are scheduled to be shutdown in 2022 and the remaining 4 units in 2024. I expect the lost generating capacity will be replaced primarily with natural gas fired generators. A project to refurbish the four units are Darlington is underway and it is likely that the Bruce units will also be refurbished.


Ontario is on a one way ticket trip to massive energy problems in the future. What you describe is the usual kick the can down the road nonsense that impacts public infrastructure in general. What I want to know is how the government could afford anything in the past if it never had enough money. Of course, the real story is the entropy of obligations. Governments take more and more on with various do-gooder programs over time. But nobody rationalizes these programs by fully retiring obsolete ones, instead new ones are hammered on top. Both the federal and provincial governments are raking more money in real terms than ever before, but screech for more as if they are paupers.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5109
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 18:10:59

People, evil doin is happening within the nukular "industry"

U.S. energy chief says to start negotiations on nuclear pact with Riyadh

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saud ... E02KC?il=0

U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who this week visited Saudi Arabia on his first official trip to the region told Reuters that negotiations between the two allies will start soon to tackle the details of the pact - known as a 123 agreement. “We heard that message that ... ‘we want the United States to be our partner in this’,” Perry said, referring to discussions he had during his meetings with Falih and the top Saudi leadership. Perry met with Saudi King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman during his trip. But one potential sticking point could prove to be Riyadh’s ambitions to have the ability of one day enriching uranium - the process for producing fissile material which can have military uses. Riyadh has said it wants to tap its own uranium resources for “self-sufficiency in producing nuclear fuel” and it was not interested in diverting nuclear technology to military use. But under Article 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, a peaceful cooperation agreement is required for the transfer of nuclear materials, technology and equipment. Washington usually requires a country to sign a pact that blocks it from making nuclear fuel which has potential bomb-making applications. In previous talks Saudi Arabia has refused to sign up to any agreement that would deprive it of the possibility of one day enriching uranium itself. Perry declined to comment whether that issue was raised during his visit to Saudi Arabia.
Tesla Motors in the next Venezuela
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1152
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 18:14:35

Hahahaha...spend 30 years trying to pull apart one reactor. People, the nukular "industry" is a self-bankrupting total disaster.

Operator submits 30-yr plan to scrap trouble-prone Monju reactor in Japan

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Econom ... r-in-Japan

Under the latest proposal, the Monju operator -- the Japan Atomic Energy Agency -- plans to divide the 30-year period through 2047 into four phases. In the first phase, nuclear fuel will be extracted from the reactor core and other places by March 2022, followed by the second phase in which the operator prepares to decommission pipes and pumps where sodium coolant has circulated. The agency will begin scrapping the reactor in the third phase but has not disclosed detailed working processes from this point.
Tesla Motors in the next Venezuela
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1152
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 09 Dec 2017, 18:25:57

In a relatively ideal world managed by pragmatic and responsible entities and people, Nuclear could and should be an answer though probably not thy answer. But, we don't live in such a world and the clock is ticking on any form of energy transition.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8882
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Synergies Between Nuclear Energy and Coal

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 11 Dec 2017, 15:38:02



Some recent converts to nuclear energy advocacy are offended and confused by the fact that nuclear energy and coal have been lumped together in the Department of Energy’s recent effort to return profitable conditions to established power plants that do not depend on favorable weather or just-in-time natural gas fuel delivery. A segment of the offended advocates were initially stimulated to learn more about nuclear energy because of their legitimate concerns about climate change and air pollution. As they learned more about the under-developed potential of nuclear fission power sources that can provide vast quantities of reliable electricity without releasing any CO2 or “criteria air pollutants” they became stronger advocates. Many recognized that much of what they had been taught about nuclear energy was wrong. In some cases, they realized that some of the lessons that had been actively promoted were fabricated


Synergies Between Nuclear Energy and Coal
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4291
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Synergies Between Nuclear Energy and Coal

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 11 Dec 2017, 21:20:13

Silly premise. Nor is the nuclear fuel cycle carbon free. Mining uranium requires oil powered machines, and enriching uranium for fission requuires electricity, still mostly made from coal.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4782
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Tue 12 Dec 2017, 21:28:59

I don't know which is more hilarious: The Buffoonery of the Fission Industry or the Outright Hokum of the Fusion "Researchers"
Tesla Motors in the next Venezuela
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1152
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Synergies Between Nuclear Energy and Coal

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 03:19:07

KaiserJeep wrote:Silly premise. Nor is the nuclear fuel cycle carbon free. Mining uranium requires oil powered machines, and enriching uranium for fission requires electricity, still mostly made from coal.


You are being totally parochial in your outlook yet again KJ. France has been enriching Uranium for well over a generation now using fission produced electricity to produce fission reactor fuel. In addition due to the vast energy density of nuclear reactions compared to chemical reactions the carbon footprint for the currently oil powered machinery used to mine Uranium resources is tiny compared to the vast emissions that come from even Natural Gas, the lowest carbon emitting fossil fuel. Several modern mining operators are actually using in situ leaching to produce Uranium by drilling, fracking and then leaching the ore baring rock in the ground without extracting anything other than liquid containing the dissolved Uranium and the inevitable by products. Once the ore strata are stripped of economically recoverable Uranium the unwanted leachates can be reinjected back into the formation and the wells capped. This drill/frack/leach process not only allows vastly deeper strata to be easily exploited, it also has a very very small equipment footprint compared to a large open cast mine producing low grade ores which are the typical competing sources at this point in history.

48% of Uranium is mined by in situ leaching
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: 14599
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 dohboi » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 09:07:09

User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17095
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 10:05:48

Tanada, or anybody else who might know. If I may ask out of pure curiosity. Not taking a position either pro or con nuclear. If in fact over the course of a few decades, civilization declines precipitously, how or can all the current nuclear reactors be decommissioned safely and effectively? And also, can all the waste products being safely stored-reused for at least a few hundred years?
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8882
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 10:22:18

onlooker wrote:Tanada, or anybody else who might know. If I may ask out of pure curiosity. Not taking a position either pro or con nuclear. If in fact over the course of a few decades, civilization declines precipitously, how or can all the current nuclear reactors be decommissioned safely and effectively? And also, can all the waste products being safely stored-reused for at least a few hundred years?


There is a long list of chemical and nuclear sites that have simply been abandoned rather than be cleaned up, especially in the former USSR; This during relatively stable times for civilization. If things fall apart to any degree, does anyone really think we'll do any better?
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2203
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 11:49:07

GHung wrote:
onlooker wrote:Tanada, or anybody else who might know. If I may ask out of pure curiosity. Not taking a position either pro or con nuclear. If in fact over the course of a few decades, civilization declines precipitously, how or can all the current nuclear reactors be decommissioned safely and effectively? And also, can all the waste products being safely stored-reused for at least a few hundred years?


There is a long list of chemical and nuclear sites that have simply been abandoned rather than be cleaned up, especially in the former USSR; This during relatively stable times for civilization. If things fall apart to any degree, does anyone really think we'll do any better?

Maybe I have not read all the nuclear threads and Tanada's replies. We may be annoying to him and others if we keep rehashing the same questions. But apparently Ghung, you have been on this site for quite some time and have not been convinced at all about the safety of nuclear. I think I will bow out now and await the cogent reply of Tanada but I believe he believes we have the knowhow to do this and build safer nuclear power stations but the will is not their politically and people are too biased against nuclear. Let us see if his reply is different or more nuanced.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8882
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests