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: The Silent Lie

Unread postby bobcousins » Sat 14 May 2005, 15:55:11

Wildwell wrote:I think we can finally put a lot of this to rest.


Great!

Wildwell wrote:Here are the basic facts.


"This is rumour control : here are the facts".

Wildwell wrote:1. In 1983, uranium cost $40 per pound. The known uranium reserves at that price would suffice for light water reactors for a few tens of years. Since then more rich uranium deposits have been discovered including a very big one in Canada. At $40 per pound, uranium contributes about 0.2 cents per kwh to the cost of electricity. (Electricity retails between 5 cents and 10 cents per kwh in the U.S.)


Ok - lemme stop you there. As cost of uranium is such a negligible part, clearly availability is not the issue. If cost of uranium was the only factor, then we should be awash with nuclear reactors. Its the whole host of other reasons that make nuclear problematic, the capital cost, disposal, weapon proliferation.

By claiming to have "solved the problem", then addressing completely the wrong issue, then admitting that you have no answer for the real issue, you are just making yourself look foolish.

I have seen this type of articles so many times, its really quite boring. The author says there is plenty of X to last Y million years. Then says the only problem is exploiting it cheaply and in large scale. Well DUH!
It's all downhill from here
User avatar
bobcousins
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1166
Joined: Thu 14 Oct 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Left the cult

Re: The Silent Lie

Unread postby Wildwell » Sat 14 May 2005, 16:46:17

bobcousins wrote:
Wildwell wrote:I think we can finally put a lot of this to rest.


Great!

Wildwell wrote:Here are the basic facts.


"This is rumour control : here are the facts".

Wildwell wrote:1. In 1983, uranium cost $40 per pound. The known uranium reserves at that price would suffice for light water reactors for a few tens of years. Since then more rich uranium deposits have been discovered including a very big one in Canada. At $40 per pound, uranium contributes about 0.2 cents per kwh to the cost of electricity. (Electricity retails between 5 cents and 10 cents per kwh in the U.S.)


Ok - lemme stop you there. As cost of uranium is such a negligible part, clearly availability is not the issue. If cost of uranium was the only factor, then we should be awash with nuclear reactors. Its the whole host of other reasons that make nuclear problematic, the capital cost, disposal, weapon proliferation.

By claiming to have "solved the problem", then addressing completely the wrong issue, then admitting that you have no answer for the real issue, you are just making yourself look foolish.

I have seen this type of articles so many times, its really quite boring. The author says there is plenty of X to last Y million years. Then says the only problem is exploiting it cheaply and in large scale. Well DUH!


All that is just the way you've read into it! A lot of the 'trouble' is us. With nuclear, many costs are safety worries, fear of nuclear power so on, as you've explained. I've never claimed to have 'solved the problem', not one single person on this planet can ever can! Problems on this scale are solved by a collective effort, in fact, this one by virtually everyone on the planet in some way. I wonder if people are looking for the 'ultimate answers', I don't think you'll get any, sadly, just a series of options for everyone to chew over.

There will never be a post on this forum that solves all the problems, because someone will think of a reason why something cannot be done or read into it in another way it was intended.


One reason we are not awash with Nuclear reactors is public fear, a combination of the World War two Japanese city bombings,. The pacific Hydrogen bomb tests, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Ever since then many of the programs have been suspended. Nothing to do with price. Will the policy change? In Europe, Britain and America I’m willing to bit it will, when the need comes, because the other option is even worse.
User avatar
Wildwell
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1965
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 03:00:00
Location: UK

Unread postby Dezakin » Mon 16 May 2005, 21:30:14

Attacking breeder reactors as being uneconomical as a strategy to prove their unscalable doesnt hold up to close inspection.

Why would I invest in a breeder reactor today when uranium is so incredibly cheap?
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 03:00:00

Re: What does work?

Unread postby nethawk » Thu 08 Jun 2006, 21:44:07

The IFR Works - The technology works. Whether or not the political or economic will does, I don't know. When we start to add the hidden costs of coal and petroleum to their already elevated prices, the IFR, PV, wind, geothermal, etc. look pretty enticing.

But the new reactors from Westinghouse are bing mass produced and the industry has incorporated lessons learned from these and other near misses. These problems indicate a need to move forward with newer safer next generation nuclear technologies like the Integral Fast Reactor and others.


Most of the nuclear waste issues, inefficiency issues, and many of the safety issues become irrelevant with the integral fast reactor. The IFR is a type of breeder reactor which converts non-fissile but abundant U-238 into fissile Pu-239 via neutron bombardment. The INTEGRAL fast reactor has a reprocessing plant built in, and nuclear fuels never need to leave the power plant.

The light-water reactors that we use now are incredibly inefficient and waste most of their fuel, and what is left over is a mixture of active but relatively short-lived transuranics, and long-lived but less active plutonium and uranium. Only 1% of the available heat is ever extracted. With an IFR, almost all of the uranium/plutonium is consumed and the nuclear waste that remains has a half-life of only a few decades.

The IFR design is set up so that if the core overheats, the fuel rods move farther apart due to expansion and the fission regulates itself.
The coolant is liquid sodium, which from a nuclear reactor standpoint is much less corrosive than water, and won't flash to steam and create hydrogen bubbles, etc. (like what happened at Three Mile Island). The sodium is volatile chemically, though, if it contacts water or air. The use of inert atmospheres and other safeguards can reduce the problems with sodium volatility.

Instead of meeting the demands for energy with coal, the IFR along with renewable energy sources would allow us to:

- Produce electricity with almost no CO2 emissions

- Dispose of existing uranium/plutonium stockpiles

- Dispose of exisiting nuclear waste from the light-water plants, sending it into electric trains, computers, compact fluorescent lights, and plug-in electric hybrid vehicles instead of into Yucca Mountain.
User avatar
nethawk
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu 23 Feb 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Selinsgrove, PA

Re: What does work?

Unread postby SolarDave » Thu 08 Jun 2006, 23:46:34

nethawk wrote:The IFR Works - The technology works. Whether or not the political or economic will does, I don't know. When we start to add the hidden costs of coal and petroleum to their already elevated prices, the IFR, PV, wind, geothermal, etc. look pretty enticing. ...


The French are my barometer for new Nuclear technology. Their current reactors are reaching the end of their licenses (whether they are also reaching the end of their useful lives is a different issue). What are they doing? Not building new reactors. Not yet. Their SuperPhoenix was a disaster financially. Perhaps just a single wrong turn. But where next?

If these new technologies are so good, why don't they even have a pilot plant operating, a showcase, pointing the way to the future for their already mostly convinced populace? I find it odd that in many discussions on this board pro-new-technology Nuke folks can list many, many benefits of the potential new technology, few to NO drawbacks at all, and yet the French are not gradually upgrading their reactors. Why? Do they enjoy calling the fire department to hose them down during heat waves? Could their ancient reactors actually be more economical than the new technologies? Why aren't they moving?

Some part of the cost/benefit or cause/effect equation is not compelling for the new technologies. What? Anyone care to guess?
100% of the electricity needed for this post was generated by ME.
http://www.los-gatos.ca.us/davidbu/pedgen/green_virtual_gym.html
Posted from a Pedal Powered Computer
User avatar
SolarDave
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Thu 19 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: What does work?

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Fri 09 Jun 2006, 05:35:31

SolarDave,
French may not, but Japanese do!
They are going to re-open soon their fast breeder facility in Moya.
It was shut down for few years but now it will work again.
You may note that Japanese are one of few nations willingful to use Pu-239 for energy generation.
I think that those, who complain less about irrational dangers and do more to implement useful technology will overally benefit most (having safe and realiable power generation sector).

All others (French included) will still build a lot of nukes in the future, but many of those will turn to be quicky & craply made facilities assembled in haste while last reserves of oil & coal are running out.

Renewables may well provide supplementary power source, but I really do not see how they could become a primary one.
Hydro may be an exception as it is also very realiable source.
Once FF are gone, fission will be the only way to provide realiable electricity supply for most of nations. Renevables may add 10-20% with a very great effort indeed.

It sounds pointless to talk about redesigning cities to reduce energy consumption.
We already have developed suburbs and other energy wasteful life arrangements. However "rebuilding" our cities to change it fast is unlikely to be possible as A LOT OF ENERGY (which we do not have!) is necessary to transform them.
Sustainable transition within 150-300 years is all, one can hope for.

Fusion is the energy of the future (and it may always stay this way) - I hope not. Fission we have now and it is ready to use.
It may not be long before running of civilization without fission power will not be possible.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5161
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 02:00:00

Re: What does work?

Unread postby Kez » Thu 15 Jun 2006, 13:33:12

Chicagoan wrote:What is achievable in the next twenty years (obviously assuming civilization is still here)?


Small cities and villages can maintain a nice lifestyle if better methods of collecting energy from the sun are discovered. The sun sends 6.3 billion watts per meter squared in one year where I live, but we don't take advantage of it. This is the equivalent of 48 gallons of gasoline, or 1,748 kWh per year. Technology so far has only been able to recover 10% of that or so using silicon, 20% and up using more expensive and hard to make chips. Hopefully in 20 years the efficiency will be closer to 30% using components that are not so hard to come by and that can be mass produced - only time will tell.

Obviously this type of power (solar, wind) won't be in liquid form, so transportation using gas will have to be the thing that drops to nearly nothing. This is fine for small cities because people can still get around, and the outskirts can all be used to soak up the sun and use wind power as well.

If oil is incredibly expensive or just impossible to get ahold of 20 years from now, then I don't see any way currently of supporting cities bigger than 50,000 people or so with electricity, running water, restaurants, lots of grocery stores full of food, etc. They just use up so much power, create so much waste and inefficiency, and provide nothing in terms of raw resources to keep it all going. Cities may pump out a lot of salesman, college graduates, computer professionals, teachers, doctors, etc., but they don't create any energy or food.

Nuclear plants are all meant for big cities, and to try and keep huge metroplexes going while all the infrastructure that relies on cheap oil is crashing down, will be a futile effort. The sun does work, and will continue to work, for millions if not billions of years.
Kez
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri 06 May 2005, 02:00:00
Location: North Texas

Re: Internet's days are numbered - Countering the gloom spin

Unread postby TheDude » Fri 10 Aug 2007, 00:36:39

Wind, feh. Give me (and my 20,000 neighbors) one of these puppies:

Image

SSTAR is an acronym for the "small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor" - being primarily researched and developed in the USA by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It is intended as a fast breeder reactor that is passively safe, has a self-contained fuel source of Uranium-238 and an operative life of 30 years, which provides a constant power source between 10 and 100 megawatts.

The 100 megawatt version is expected to be 15 meters high by 3 meters wide, and weigh 500 tonnes. A 10 megawatt version is expected to weigh less than 200 tonnes. To obtain the desired 30 year life span, the design calls for a moveable neutron reflector to be placed over a column of fuel. The reflector's slow downward travel over the column would cause the fuel to be burned from the top of the column to the bottom. Because the unit will be sealed, it is expected that a breeder reaction will be used to further extend the life of the fuel.

Crucially, SSTAR is also meant to be tamper resistant, which would prevent the leasing country from using the reactor to use the generated plutonium for nuclear weapons. The tamper-resistant features will include radio monitoring and remote deactivation. The leasing country will therefore have to accept the capability for remote foreign intervention in the facility.

Currently, no prototypes for SSTAR exist - one is expected by 2015, and they are being researched as a possible replacement for today's light water reactors. and as a possible design for use in developing countries (which would use the reactor for several decades and then return the entire unit to the manufacturing country).


Might not work, I know. I'm looking for a place with 4,000 neighbors, tops. Give me more money while you're at it, Fates.

Any way to localize the Net? Seems like in a powerdown situation, on a State wide level it could still serve useful purposes, mitigating a widespread problem with livestock say. This could just as well be 56K BBS stuff though. We could still get together after an evening's canning veggies and play some MUDs...

Also agree that it's good the crap slinging sprouted a nice turd blossom.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 02:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Thu 09 Feb 2017, 09:55:57

A mechanical fault in a non nuclear portion of the plant is news why? Its just an industrial accident like take place in hudreds of locations world wide every day.
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
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4288
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby vox_mundi » Wed 29 Mar 2017, 07:17:50

After Crippling Cost Overruns, Toshiba's Westinghouse Files for Bankruptcy

Toshiba Corp's U.S. nuclear unit Westinghouse filed for Chapter 11 protection from creditors on Wednesday, just three months after huge cost overruns were flagged, as the Japanese parent seeks to limit losses that threaten its future.

Bankruptcy will allow Pittsburgh-based Westinghouse, once central to Toshiba's diversification push, to renegotiate or even break its construction contracts, though the utilities that own the projects could seek damages. It could even pave the way for a sale of all or part of the business.

For Toshiba, the aim is to fence off soaring liabilities and keep the group afloat. Toshiba said Westinghouse-related liabilities totaled $9.8 billion as of December, making it one of the industry's most costly collapses to date; it had earlier estimated writedowns would swell to $6.3 billion.

The filing will now trigger complex negotiations between the Japanese conglomerate, its unit and creditors, and could embroil the U.S. and Japanese governments, given the scale of the collapse and U.S. government loan guarantees for new reactors.

... Activity stalled by the end of 2011 when the United States failed to adopt legislation curbing carbon emissions
“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
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3810
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

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
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2222
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
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3810
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
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2222
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
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10275
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: 14703
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
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3810
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: 5143
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
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4288
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: 11013
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
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3810
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests