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 Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby EdwinSm » Tue 01 May 2018, 05:30:55

StarvingLion wrote:Bankrupt America can no longer keep the lights on...they are admitting TOTAL COLLAPSE IS IMMINENT.


I was just wondering if your (non-screen) name is Richard C Duncan?

Anyway the news of economic problems in the nuclear industry is interesting.



ps. Maybe I am old fashioned, but I am still concerned about nuclear waste. I just haven't seen the breakthrough in handling this in the years since I demonstrated against nuclear power back in the 1970s. Maybe I am getting too old to worry about this for myself, but it still does not looked solved for my children and any children they may have (and any children they may have...........).
EdwinSm
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu 07 Jun 2012, 03:23:59

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Cog » Tue 01 May 2018, 06:39:29

Dry cask storage of nuclear waste at Yucca mountain was the solution to storage of waste generated from nuclear power plants. But here again anti-nuclear protests and the usual NIMBY folks shut that project down. IMO if you are anti-nuclear you are anti-environment.
User avatar
Cog
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10576
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Tue 01 May 2018, 11:36:54

EdwinSm wrote:
StarvingLion wrote:Bankrupt America can no longer keep the lights on...they are admitting TOTAL COLLAPSE IS IMMINENT.


I was just wondering if your (non-screen) name is Richard C Duncan?

Anyway the news of economic problems in the nuclear industry is interesting.



ps. Maybe I am old fashioned, but I am still concerned about nuclear waste. I just haven't seen the breakthrough in handling this in the years since I demonstrated against nuclear power back in the 1970s. Maybe I am getting too old to worry about this for myself, but it still does not looked solved for my children and any children they may have (and any children they may have...........).


EdwinSim is concerned with nuclear waste but not the obvious fact that America cannot afford reliable electricity generation. LOL.

You know why Nuclear is a bad guy, EdwinSim? Its because a nuclear buildout (and continuing operating maintenance) would require MORE oil consumption, NOT LESS thus causing the price of oil to go to $300 and collapse the Housing Ponzi. Ponzi Shale Gas is the new "solution" except for the small problem that nobody can afford that either.
There is no escaping The Oil Apocalypse and there will be no survivors.
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Yonnipun » Tue 01 May 2018, 13:27:49

ps. Maybe I am old fashioned, but I am still concerned about nuclear waste. I just haven't seen the breakthrough in handling this in the years since I demonstrated against nuclear power back in the 1970s. Maybe I am getting too old to worry about this for myself, but it still does not looked solved for my children and any children they may have (and any children they may have...........).


There are no solutions to handle the nuclear waste. Reinforced concrete only last 50-100 years. Concrete without reinforcement could theoretically last pretty long but compared to the hundreds of thousands or even millions of years which is the time for the nuclear waste to lose its toxicity it is clear that there are no solutions to handle the waste. Just remember - the first sarcophagus for the chernobyl lasted only 30 years. They build the new one but the question is- who is going to build the next one? Without fossil fuels the answer is - nobody.
Yonnipun
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat 07 Apr 2018, 03:29:19

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Cog » Wed 02 May 2018, 09:32:28

Romans used a form of concrete using volcanic ash. Those structures still stand today exposed to weather. Dry cask storage of used fuel rods in a dry place of either a salt mine or Yucca mountain in volcanic glass(ash) extends the useful life of those storage places into thousands of years.

If you do not expose concrete to freeze/thaw cycles, it lasts far longer than the 50 years you suggest. Hoover Dam was built in 1933. Has it fallen apart yet?

https://www.history.com/news/the-secret ... n-concrete
User avatar
Cog
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10576
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Wed 02 May 2018, 12:09:17

Bankrupt America is going out of bidness. The Idiocracy will get to vote on turning off the lights forever...LOL.

https://www.power-eng.com/articles/2018 ... close.html

By Editors of Power Engineering

The fight over renewable energy in Arizona rages on, with Arizona Public Service Co. saying a renewable energy measure up to voters could force Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station to close.

The Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona measure would require utilities to generate or acquire half of all electricity from renewable sources by 2030, Arizona Central reported. The measure goes to voters in November.

APS claims the measure would cause so much renewable development it would generate too much electricity during months with milder weather.

"The way we see this, it will force the closure of all our baseload facilities," said Jeff Burke, APS' resource planning director. "This really closes the door on a lot of different resources."

The company estimated the ballot measure would directly require it to build 3 GW of solar capacity, up from the 1.6 GW it operates today.

However, APS believes the renewable generation would cause other traditional plants such as Cholla and Four Corners to close, requiring it to eventually hold 8 GW of renewable capacity.

The 3.3-GW Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is the largest power plant in the United States.

Arizona lawmakers are already working to counteract the measure and has already passed a law that lowers the penalties for not complying with the measure to between $100 and $5,000. An additional measure being considered by lawmakers would allow the Arizona Corporation Commission to ignore the requirements if it would push electricity costs too high or otherwise cause trouble.
There is no escaping The Oil Apocalypse and there will be no survivors.
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Cog » Wed 02 May 2018, 13:20:45

We are all doomed. Run for your lives. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


LOL
User avatar
Cog
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10576
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Yonnipun » Thu 03 May 2018, 17:27:57

Cog wrote:Romans used a form of concrete using volcanic ash. Those structures still stand today exposed to weather. Dry cask storage of used fuel rods in a dry place of either a salt mine or Yucca mountain in volcanic glass(ash) extends the useful life of those storage places into thousands of years.

If you do not expose concrete to freeze/thaw cycles, it lasts far longer than the 50 years you suggest. Hoover Dam was built in 1933. Has it fallen apart yet?

https://www.history.com/news/the-secret ... n-concrete


It does not matter, compared to millions of years a few thousand years is nothing. Also nobody knows what happens to climate or what kind of seismic acticity will take place in the future. All those uncertainities together make it impossible to storage nuclear waste safely.
Yonnipun
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat 07 Apr 2018, 03:29:19

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 03 May 2018, 17:58:16

Yonnipun wrote:nobody knows .... what kind of seismic acticity will take place in the future. All those uncertainities together make it impossible to storage nuclear waste safely.


Actually, we have a very good idea of what kind of seismic activity will happen in the future, thanks to scientific studies of the geology and geophysics of the tectonics of the earth.

We know very well what areas of the earth are seismically active---and which areas aren't.

Image
tectonics and seismic activity of the earth

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21418
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Mon 07 May 2018, 11:40:04

Bankrupt UK cannot afford nuclear. The Shitty of London will soon be burnt to the ground.

UK in last ditch new nuclear crunch talks as ageing power plants falter

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... ts-falter/

Quote:
The Japanese conglomerate behind plans to build a new reactor at the Wylfa nuclear site in Wales is expected to call on the Government to take a direct stake in the new plant, or risk the £27bn project falling through. The last-ditch talks between Hitachi chairman Hiroaki Nakanishi and the prime minister were scheduled for the same day that fresh cracks in one of the UK’s oldest nuclear plants underlined the need for new investment in low-carbon power.
There is no escaping The Oil Apocalypse and there will be no survivors.
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Mon 07 May 2018, 20:05:07

Bankrupt Japan is failing badly. Its nuclear dreams are turning into a nightmare...

https://neutronbytes.com/2018/05/07/jap ... eed-bumps/

Japan’s Plans for Nuclear Exports Hit Speed Bumps
Posted on May 7, 2018 by djysrv

Hitachi seeks to reduce equity stake in UK nuclear project by 50%
Soaring costs for Turkey’s Sinop project cause a key investor to pull out
Japan’s best chances for new nuclear reactor projects may be at home

Nikkei, a Japanese business wire service, reports that Hitachi CEO Toshiaki Higashihara is asking the UK government to take a 50% direct stake in the Horizon nuclear power project. The project located at Wylfa in Wales is expected to be composed of two 1350 MW Hitachi ABWRs. Currently, it is 100% owned by Hitachi. What the firm’s CEO would like to see is a consortium of UK firms and the government take half of the risk of financing the project.
There is no escaping The Oil Apocalypse and there will be no survivors.
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Mon 07 May 2018, 20:08:01

scaryjello says the only hope for nuclear is to get rid of the jarheads...abandon ye nuclear plants people, HAHAHAHAHA....

https://atomicinsights.com/waste-issue- ... /#comments

scaryjello says

May 5, 2018 at 6:50 AM

It would be nice to see some PRISM reactors built, although they are a little scary. It would take some [more] years of operations/refueling experience before these units could transition from labcoat and pocket-protector led operations to blue collar IBEW led operations. Also, physical security needs to be built into these plants from go; the current levels of security staffing at commercial LWRs, which were built as undefended industrial sites, is a very visible burden that hurts competitiveness. We must get the jarheads OUT of the next generation nuclear plant.
There is no escaping The Oil Apocalypse and there will be no survivors.
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Fri 17 Aug 2018, 08:30:04

Georgia Power May Have To Supply More Information On Financial Risks Of Nuclear Expansion
https://www.wabe.org/georgia-power-may- ... expansion/

Georgia Power may have to start providing regulators more information on financial risks with its nuclear power expansion. It’s in response to the revelation the project will cost billions of dollars more.

The two nuclear units being built at Plant Vogtle, near Augusta, are already years behind schedule and billions over budget. On its earnings call last week, Southern Company, the parent of Georgia Power, said costs have gone up by another $2.3 billion. That makes the total cost of the new reactors at least $25 billion.

At a Thursday hearing, staff from the state Public Service Commission said they want Georgia Power to supply more information in its Vogtle construction progress reports, an idea supported by some critics of the project, too.

“We’d like to have more information sooner,” said Jill Kysor, an attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. “We’re really pushing for more transparency at the commission, so that the public has more information earlier.” ......


How high can it go? The mess involving the first two new reactors in the US in decades doesn't bode well for new fission energy for Americans. Perhaps a series of smaller cookie-cutter modular reactors would have been a smarter move.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 17 Aug 2018, 09:59:28

The ridiculous thing is eastern nations don't have problems building units within contract time or at least fairly close to it. Korea, China, even Japan when they actually commit to building a project treat it like any other heavily engineered structure. they k now what has to be done and the order it needs to be done and they just do it. Western Europe and North America seems to have somehow lost the capacity to 'Just Build It Already'!

Even France where the nation built themselves 70 reactors in 20+ locations from 1975-1985 is now struggling and years behind building their first EPR, which was designed in France to be easy to build!

At the same time China is finished building its first EPR unit, they loaded fuel two months ago and are going through the fine tuning process right now with it scheduled to enter commercial level baseload power production in another month to six weeks.

The French reactor build is well over a billion Euro's over budget and years behind schedule.
French utility EDF announced today that fuel loading at the Flamanville EPR will now take place in the fourth quarter of 2019, instead of the previously scheduled fourth quarter of this year. Meanwhile, the cost of the 1650 MWe pressurised water reactor (PWR) has increased from EUR10.5 billion (USD12.3 billion) to EUR10.9 billion.

How pathetic is it that China which was firmly anti-technology until the Communist victory in the 1940's is able to run rings around the country that designed what they are building?

At this rate perhaps the Chinese will start getting construction contracts for future units. They will end up shipping in parts and management and hiring skilled trades locally to assemble projects on time and on budget rather than playing these games modern western companies seem to love to play.
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: 14831
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Fri 17 Aug 2018, 13:09:01

Tanada wrote:The ridiculous thing is eastern nations don't have problems building units within contract time or at least fairly close to it.


Nuclear energy proponents often cite the seeming ongoing support for nuclear energy in China and Russia when arguing that the western world is being left behind by its move away from the electricity generation modality. What they don’t tell you, though, is that the projects in question are in general running way behind schedule, and are repeatedly unnerving regulators due to the presence of unresolved “safety concerns.”

With that in mind, the China Daily has now reported that fuel-loading at the Sanmen nuclear energy project on the coast — to be the world’s first Westinghouse-designed AP1000 nuclear reactor — has again been delayed. This time due to the aforementioned “safety concerns.” Delays have been a common occurrence on the project, as the original plan was for the project to go online in 2014. Before moving on, it should be stated bluntly here that regulators in China haven’t approved any new nuclear energy projects in over two years. Clearly, the government there is beginning to become skeptical of the technology, and the timelines presented by project creators.

Elsewhere, the situation regarding nuclear energy project delays and cost-overruns is similar, with the technology seemingly not capable of supporting the grandiose claims often made by those hawking it to governments around the world.
Safety Problems Again Delay China’s Sanmen Westinghouse AP1000 Nuclear Energy Project

The latest commissioning delay at CGN Power’s nuclear project in Taishan, in Guangdong province – the third in two years – will lead to a further deferral of 5 billion yuan (US$770 million) in annual revenues and potentially more cost overruns. The delay is another setback for China’s ambitious development programme.

The project was originally expected to come on line in 2015. The firm in early 2015 cited a “comprehensive evaluation” of the construction plan and risks for its first delay. In the second delay early last year, it said it needed to conduct “more experimental verifications in respect of its design and equipment”.
CGN Power’s latest project delay deals another blow to China’s nuclear energy ambition

Korea delays completion of Shin Hanul-1-2 nuclear reactors
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4210
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Fri 17 Aug 2018, 14:18:42

Meanwhile, there's the huge problem of decommissioning and dismantling older plants. Even dismantling old aircraft carriers is more problematic than originally expected:

The U.S. Navy Is Having a Hell of a Time Dismantling the USS Enterprise
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... -disposal/

Nobody has ever disposed of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier before. Turns out it's not easy.

Six years after decommissioning USS Enterprise, the world's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the U.S. Navy is still figuring out how to safely dismantle the ship. The General Accounting Office estimates the cost of taking apart the vessel and sending the reactors to a nuclear waste storage facility at up to $1.5 billion, or about one-eighth the cost of a brand-new aircraft carrier.

The USS Enterprise was commissioned in 1961 to be the centerpiece of a nuclear-powered carrier task force, Task Force One, that could sail around the world without refueling. The fleet was a symbol of the Navy’s global reach and its nuclear future. During its 51 years in operation, the Enterprise served in the Cuban Missile Crisis blockade, the Vietnam War, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Navy decommissioned Enterprise in 2012 (don’t worry, the third carrier of the new Gerald R. Ford class will be named Enterprise, so the name will live on) and removed the fuel from the eight Westinghouse A2W nuclear reactors in 2013. The plan was to scrap the ship and remove the reactors, transporting them by barge from Puget Sound Naval Base down the Washington Coast and up the Columbia River, then trucking them to the Department of Energy’s Hanford Site for permanent storage.

However, after decommissioning the cost of disposing of the 93,000-ton ship soared from an estimated $500-$750 million to more than a billion dollars. This caused the Navy to put a pause on disposal while it sought out cheaper options. Today the stripped-down hull of the Enterprise sits in Newport News, Virginia awaiting its fate.

Now, according to a new General Accounting Office report (PDF), the Navy has two options. The first is to have the Navy manage the job but let the commercial industry do the non-nuclear work. The Navy would allow industry to scrap the non-nuclear parts of the ship but preserve a 27,000-ton propulsion space containing the reactors. The propulsion space would then be transported to Puget Sound Naval Base, where the reactors would be removed and sent to Hanford. This is the most expensive option, costing a minimum of $1.05 billion up to $1.55 billion and taking 10 years to complete, starting in 2034. ............

Compounding the issue is a “not my problem” intergovernmental dispute. The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, the arm of the Navy concerned with nuclear power, says the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission could oversee a commercial effort. But the NRC says Navy nuclear reactors are not its job. It’s not clear exactly why NNPP doesn’t want the job, although it currently has a backlog of 10 submarine reactors and two cruiser reactor to deal with (which is probably why a Navy effort won’t start until 2034). Ultimately, according to the GAO, it may take Congress to make a decision. ....


Congress? Really? Or maybe the Russians will take a few hundred million to let us sink them off their northern coast.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby diemos » Sat 18 Aug 2018, 09:27:49

Tanada wrote:How pathetic is it that China which was firmly anti-technology until the Communist victory in the 1940's is able to run rings around the country that designed what they are building?


As I always say, the chinese ruling class is composed of engineers, ours is composed of lawyers.

I have much greater confidence that the chinese will recognize the reality of the situation and take concrete steps to mitigate and prepare for their future.
User avatar
diemos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 774
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby diemos » Sat 18 Aug 2018, 09:33:35

As I also always say, Mao Lenin and Nehru should be considered heroes of western capitalism. By keeping half the population of the earth poor and backward they freed up resources for the west to exploit. Convincing them to abandon communism was the worst thing we ever did. We should have been encouraging them to "stay the course".
User avatar
diemos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 774
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Sat 18 Aug 2018, 09:54:56

NATO anti-Russian brainwashing is strong. Not a single reference to the global leader in nuclear technology and loads of fawning over China. China buys Russian reactors like Iran. And Russian reactors are built on time and budget. NATO MSM lying 24/7 is not going to alter reality (e.g. their convolution of massive infrastructure spending for the "Russian Riviera cum Alps" and the Sochi winter olympics which cost $9.2 billion and not $54 billion).

China does not have a viable domestic fast neutron breeder reactor program. France was ahead of the curve in the 1970s with the Superphenix but enviro-tards killed the project by the 1990s. This included actual terrorism with bombs. It is suspicious that the enviro-tards went after the cleanest nuclear process and left the "waste" generating obsolete reactors off their hysteria list. The only country with an actual, deployable design is Russia. Don't invoke experimental prototypes with Thorium and whatnot as if they are just around the corner. Japan closed its fast breeder program. The US does not have one (the past is not the present and the designs from the 1960s cannot be commercialized). China is way behind the curve and I bet that they are using stolen Russian designs:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Ch ... 12174.html

Such projects take more than a couple of years to generate viable commercial products. This includes fuel reprocessing which is not trivial since new types of pyrochemistry processes have to be developed for customized fuels. By contrast, the BN-800 is the transitional design from the prototype regime to the commercial stage (the BN-1200).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor

Typical BS anti-Russian spin about delays. Making the economics of the BN-1200 the same as the VVER-1200 (pressurized boiling conventional type) would be an enormous achievement considering that conventional reactors do not spend money dealing with fuel reprocessing.

http://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsrus ... 19-4933888

Delays developing new technology are not "delays", they are development time.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5234
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Previous

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests