[Subjectivist]

Bill Gates is now the new boogeyman (largely supplanting George Soros) courtesy of QAnon. So no, people won't listen.

Who the heck is Qanon anyhow? I hear people spouting off blaming this so called mysterious group for all sorts of stuff but I have yet to actually see them or her or him or it post a single message on any group I am a member of. You would think such an influential organization would be working a lot harder to spread their message around.

As for the attacks on Bill Gates, the guy is far from a saint but the attacks on him are from the anti-nuclear faux greens not the same people who despise Soros for funding their political opponents. If you want folks to buy into your conspiracy theories you should at least TRY and make them sound a bit more logical and believable.

[jedrider]

but the answer is No!

'Every euro invested in nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse'
https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-climate-mycle-schneider-renewables-fukushima/a-56712368

I don't quite understand what lies behind the 'Generation Costs' estimates, but it does
explain the buildout of gas, wind and solar over coal and nuclear.

[Tanada]

but the answer is No!

'Every euro invested in nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse'
https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-climate-mycle-schneider-renewables-fukushima/a-56712368

I don't quite understand what lies behind the 'Generation Costs' estimates, but it does
explain the buildout of gas, wind and solar over coal and nuclear.

Gosh I am Shocked, Shocked I say that an Anti-Nuclear activist who leads an anti-nuclear organization says nuclear power is not good for anything!

Less than 30 seconds web search turned up this identification,

Mycle Schneider (pronounce Michael, /ˈmaɪkəl/) (born 1959 in Cologne) is a Paris-based nuclear energy consultant and anti-nuclear activist.

[JuanP]

Nuclear power is already making a huge comeback in China, which started selling commercial electricity from its first fully domestically developed third generation reactor a few weeks ago. The Chinese will most likely build hundreds of these, both in China and abroad; at least those are their plans. And as fossil fuels become increasingly scarce and expensive every single day, I expect ALL other sources of energy to experience growth in the future. Nuclear energy can be used in a smart way, the only reason many chose to use it in a stupid way was to create weapons grade nuclear byproducts to build nuclear arsenals. By the way, all those bombs could be used for fuel, too.

[The_Forbin_Project]

Comparisons help

rough calculations as follows

date 08/03/2020

The total investment in the Dogger Bank wind farms project is estimated to be £9bn

3 x 1.2GW capacity farms covering 8,660km²

9 /3.6 = £ 2.5 Billion per GW capacity

delivery

load factor of 0.42 for off shore wind

so 3.6GW x 0.42 x 8760 hours = 13.24512 TWh ( annual)

we use 260TWh in 2019 so thats 5.1 % which is what the Dogger Bank project claim .

nuclear cost per KW, data is historical on 2018 prices

The first is based on recent EIA figures for new nuclear plants in the USA, which yields
$5946/kW. This figure is historically high.

The second case is the work of Lovering et. al. which considers
historical global nuclear industry in various countries, this gives a
lower average cost for nuclear of $2273/kW in today’s dollars. ( 2018)

thirdly the cost target of $2500/kW that China has for the export of its indigenous Hualong One technology, apparently they can acheive this (!).

2018 data so I'll use a 2018 dollar conversion to GBP of 1.3349 USD

$2273/kW / 1.3349 = £1700 /kw approx .
$5946/kW / 1.3349 = £4453 /kw approx .
$2500/kW / 1.3349 = £1873 /kw approx .

load factors are now variable with nuclear since EU directives for load following of 50-100%

France is 77% average but can be 90% if allowed.

take the mean as 84% load factor this raises the cost of 1GW delivered by 16%

£1.700 b x 1.16 = 1.972
£4.453 b x 1.16 = 5.165
£1.873 b x 1.16 = 2.173

To match the delivered power of 3.6 GW wind capacity we need 1.512 GW output , which is as stated 13.24512 TWh annual.

£1.700 b x 1.16 = 1.972 x 1.512 = £ 2.98 billion
£4.453 b x 1.16 = 5.165 x 1.512 = £ 7.81 billion
£1.873 b x 1.16 = 2.173 x 1.512 = £ 3.29 billion

£9 billion for a power generator with a fickle fuel supply .

Hinkley costs too much, but it appears to be a one on flagship project .

Fell free to correct the costings

Yes waste is not taken into account , neither has backup storage for wind.

[Tanada]

Comparisons help

rough calculations as follows

date 08/03/2020

The total investment in the Dogger Bank wind farms project is estimated to be £9bn

3 x 1.2GW capacity farms covering 8,660km²

9 /3.6 = £ 2.5 Billion per GW capacity

delivery

load factor of 0.42 for off shore wind

so 3.6GW x 0.42 x 8760 hours = 13.24512 TWh ( annual)

we use 260TWh in 2019 so thats 5.1 % which is what the Dogger Bank project claim .

nuclear cost per KW, data is historical on 2018 prices

The first is based on recent EIA figures for new nuclear plants in the USA, which yields
$5946/kW. This figure is historically high.

The second case is the work of Lovering et. al. which considers
historical global nuclear industry in various countries, this gives a
lower average cost for nuclear of $2273/kW in today’s dollars. ( 2018)

thirdly the cost target of $2500/kW that China has for the export of its indigenous Hualong One technology, apparently they can acheive this (!).

2018 data so I'll use a 2018 dollar conversion to GBP of 1.3349 USD

$2273/kW / 1.3349 = £1700 /kw approx .
$5946/kW / 1.3349 = £4453 /kw approx .
$2500/kW / 1.3349 = £1873 /kw approx .

load factors are now variable with nuclear since EU directives for load following of 50-100%

France is 77% average but can be 90% if allowed.

take the mean as 84% load factor this raises the cost of 1GW delivered by 16%

£1.700 b x 1.16 = 1.972
£4.453 b x 1.16 = 5.165
£1.873 b x 1.16 = 2.173

To match the delivered power of 3.6 GW wind capacity we need 1.512 GW output , which is as stated 13.24512 TWh annual.

£1.700 b x 1.16 = 1.972 x 1.512 = £ 2.98 billion
£4.453 b x 1.16 = 5.165 x 1.512 = £ 7.81 billion
£1.873 b x 1.16 = 2.173 x 1.512 = £ 3.29 billion

£9 billion for a power generator with a fickle fuel supply .

Hinkley costs too much, but it appears to be a one on flagship project .

Fell free to correct the costings

Yes waste is not taken into account , neither has backup storage for wind.

You skipped a crucial step in life cycle. A modern high capacity windmill is hoped to last 25 years while a modern newly built Fission power station will be good for 60+ years assuming both types receive regular maintenance. Therefore the Windmill plan will require at least a doubling in cost to replace the 2021 generation of windmills with the 2046 generation of windmills.

[jedrider]

You skipped a crucial step in life cycle. A modern high capacity windmill is hoped to last 25 years while a modern newly built Fission power station will be good for 60+ years assuming both types receive regular maintenance. Therefore the Windmill plan will require at least a doubling in cost to replace the 2021 generation of windmills with the 2046 generation of windmills.

Did you include decommissioning costs of the nuclear plant?

Also, I was unable (or unwilling) to follow all the accounting, so what were the calculation results in some easy to understand metric? Thanks.

[The_Forbin_Project]

lets see

$2273/kW nuclear low.
$5946/kW nuclear high
$2500/kW chinese nuclear

Wind Dogger bank project offshore wind farm

$5952/kW delivered not capacity , what you get from it .
plus NAT gas back up of $882 /kW when the wind doesnt blow or blow hard enough.

basically on getting the same deliverable power just building the generators then nuclear high cost is just as expensive as wind/gas combi.

China thinks they can deliver nuclear at apparently half that cost .....

I note that the UK government hopes that offshore wind will reach a load factor of 0.63 by 2050. which is pretty good but a projection .

[jedrider]

lets see

$2273/kW nuclear low.
$5946/kW nuclear high
$2500/kW chinese nuclear

Wind Dogger bank project offshore wind farm

$5952/kW delivered not capacity , what you get from it .
plus NAT gas back up of $882 /kW when the wind doesnt blow or blow hard enough.

basically on getting the same deliverable power just building the generators then nuclear high cost is just as expensive as wind/gas combi.

China thinks they can deliver nuclear at apparently half that cost .....

I note that the UK government hopes that offshore wind will reach a load factor of 0.63 by 2050. which is pretty good but a projection .

Basically, the math is:

$6000/kW delivered for wind power
$2500/kW delivered for nuclear (as only the Chinese seem able to do)
$1000/kW delivered for nat. gas (which is trading at a very low price currently, I suspect)

If one factors in nuclear decommissioning costs (which I suspect were not) and the fact that natural gas is incredibly cheap NOW, but not later,
then a good case CAN be made for going wind and solar, I think. Only China appears to be looking ahead on this and they have obviously decided upon growth at all costs.

[eclipse]

New generation nuclear plants are being designed with cheaper decommissioning in mind. Most nukes will just sit in their energy park in SafStor mode for the next 50 years anyway, and who knows what future tech will be able to do in terms of decommissioning?

Today's Gen3 reactors should be standardised and mass produced. Take a CAP1400, standardise and mass produce it in a nation-wide assembly line building say 10 a year (the French with 60 million people achieved something like 15 reactors a year at the height of the Mesmer plan, so 10 a year is easy for the USA), and the cost per reactor could drop to $3 billion / GW. At 1.4 GW per reactor it's about $2.1 billion / GW, baseload, winter, overcast, etc.

Future breeder reactors in development like the Molten Salt MCSFR could come in as cheap or cheaper, get 90 times the energy out of the 'waste', they'll also have got 90 times the PROFIT. It bypasses the uranium mining and refining process - and MCSFR's are vastly cheaper than today's complex fuel recycling systems. MCSFR's could be the cheapest fuel source yet.

This means they can MORE than pay for the decommissioning. However, in my political economic spectrum I'm OrdoLiberal / Social Liberal and think energy is a national security infrastructure. I support nuclear being government owned as per James Hansen's friend and colleague Tom Blees and his free book "Prescription for the Planet."

It's an unscientific myth that nuclear waste is a problem for 100,000 years. Put it in a breeder reactor, get 90 times the energy out of it, and the final waste only stays hot for about 300 years. This real waste (called fission products) should be vitrified. This means melting it down into strong ceramic bricks that chemically bond the waste in the brick. If an accident drops the bricks or a truck smashes into the bricks, there is no radioactive dust to spread about. Bury the bricks under the reactor park for 300 years, and it's safe.

America has enough nuclear 'waste' to run her for 1000 years without mining any more uranium, and the UK has enough for 500 years. Today's nuclear 'waste' is not a problem - but the SOLUTION to climate change! This 4 minute Argonne Labs video explains. https://youtu.be/MlMDDhQ9-pE

[Tanada]

New generation nuclear plants are being designed with cheaper decommissioning in mind. Most nukes will just sit in their energy park in SafStor mode for the next 50 years anyway, and who knows what future tech will be able to do in terms of decommissioning?

Today's Gen3 reactors should be standardised and mass produced. Take a CAP1400, standardise and mass produce it in a nation-wide assembly line building say 10 a year (the French with 60 million people achieved something like 15 reactors a year at the height of the Mesmer plan, so 10 a year is easy for the USA), and the cost per reactor could drop to $3 billion / GW. At 1.4 GW per reactor it's about $2.1 billion / GW, baseload, winter, overcast, etc.

Future breeder reactors in development like the Molten Salt MCSFR could come in as cheap or cheaper, get 90 times the energy out of the 'waste', they'll also have got 90 times the PROFIT. It bypasses the uranium mining and refining process - and MCSFR's are vastly cheaper than today's complex fuel recycling systems. MCSFR's could be the cheapest fuel source yet.

This means they can MORE than pay for the decommissioning. However, in my political economic spectrum I'm OrdoLiberal / Social Liberal and think energy is a national security infrastructure. I support nuclear being government owned as per James Hansen's friend and colleague Tom Blees and his free book "Prescription for the Planet."

It's an unscientific myth that nuclear waste is a problem for 100,000 years. Put it in a breeder reactor, get 90 times the energy out of it, and the final waste only stays hot for about 300 years. This real waste (called fission products) should be vitrified. This means melting it down into strong ceramic bricks that chemically bond the waste in the brick. If an accident drops the bricks or a truck smashes into the bricks, there is no radioactive dust to spread about. Bury the bricks under the reactor park for 300 years, and it's safe.

America has enough nuclear 'waste' to run her for 1000 years without mining any more uranium, and the UK has enough for 500 years. Today's nuclear 'waste' is not a problem - but the SOLUTION to climate change! This 4 minute Argonne Labs video explains. https://youtu.be/MlMDDhQ9-pE

The only part of your excellent post I differ with is vitrification of "waste". Despite media hype 90% of fission fragments are either stable or become stable within 3 years of being created. Among these 90% are a handful of precious metals (Silver, Rhenium, Palladium, Ruthenium) rare earth elements vital to modern industry (Neodymium, Lanthanum, Cerium) and even relatively common materials that are useful to industry like (Xenon & Krypton) noble gasses for NASA and (Molybdenum & Tellurium) which are alloyed with iron to make specialty steels. Just vitrifying and burying these valuable resources is a really really dumb idea IMO, especially when selling them on the commodities market would help offset the cost of processing the waste in the first place. In terms of silver alone while it is not a huge fission product once you process out the heavy trans-thorium elements that are breeder fuel the silver in the "waste stream" is more concentrated than you can currently find it in most ores being mined to produce it today. For the "rare earths" they won't generate a huge income stream, but every little bit helps and the same is true for the alloy steel elements, but NASA is currently near the begging point in terms of getting Xenon and Krypton which are the preferred reaction mass to power ion thrusters, and now that NASA has proven the technology they are also entering the Satellite market as course adjustment thrusters. A small pressure tank of either gas can let a satellite stay active and useful for decades beyond what a chemical fueled thruster can accomplish.

Recycling to claim useful materials out of the waste stream really is a "no brainer" when all of these chemicals are effectively as stable as the natural supply you can mine after three years in storage, and most American "spent" fuel has been in storage far longer than 3 years. Just processing the back log would take a decade and let any newly "spent" fuel age sufficiently to make recovering these valuable materials perfectly safe.



All of the elements shown on this graph are the major products of fission reactions from Thorium-232 all the way up to the rare ones like Californium. In each case you on average get two fragments which are in the range of 35% and 65% of the mass of the parent nucleus creating the typical double hump distribution curve. Each element is given with a yield from reprocessing after 1 year, 10 years, 100 years and 1,000 years. The ones that are basically flat across all four date ranges are either mostly stable after 1 year of storage, or so long lived that even after 1,000 years they are virtually unchanged. In either case they are less radioactive than the Carbon-14 in your body and the food you eat which would show a significant drop on the 1000 year scale because it has a half life of 5,730 years which would be about a 18% drop on the 1,000 year part of the graph. Some of them like Strontium, Cesium and Iodine you want to avoid because they are easily absorbed by humans and other life forms but reprocessing is done with all sorts of dangerous acids and alkali chemicals and you want to be well protected from the chemicals even if they are not biologically absorbed. After refining from the waste stream the eight elements I mentioned are both commercially valuable and with the exceptions of the two noble gasses used in all sorts of common everyday materials you are exposed to all the time like your head phones, cell phone and stainless steel flatware in your kitchen drawer.

Last point, in the USA a very small surcharge on every kWh of nuclear electricity sold is sitting in a government trust fund to pay for decommissioning, which makes so called concerns about decommissioning funds nothing but a false flag attack. Decommissioning is already paid for by any plant which has been in use for more than a very short time and Uncle Sam sits on those funds until the plant owner declares they are defueling the plant and starting the decommissioning process. In some ways this has backfired as a few companies have decommissioned perfectly working plants to get access to the funds held in trust by the Federal Government.

[Tanada]

BN-800 fast reactor has first full refuelling with MOX fuel : Uranium & Fuel

Unit 4 of the Beloyarsk nuclear power plant, Russia's BN-800 reactor, has been connected to the grid and resumed operations upon completion of scheduled maintenance. For the first time the refuelling has been carried out with uranium-plutonium fuel only.

Distinct from traditional nuclear fuel with enriched uranium, mixed oxide (MOX) fuel pellets are based on the mix of nuclear fuel cycle derivatives, such as oxide of plutonium bred in commercial reactors, and oxide of depleted uranium which comes from defluorination of depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF6), the so-called secondary tailings of uranium enrichment facilities.

The first batch of 18 MOX fuel assemblies was loaded into the BN-800 reactor core in January 2020, and now 160 assemblies more with fresh MOX fuel have been added. These replace the fuel assemblies with enriched uranium. Thus, the BN-800 core is now one-third filled with MOX fuel. From now on, only MOX fuel will be loaded into this reactor.

The development moves the Beloyarsk plant a step closer to Rosatom's strategic goal to close the nuclear fuel cycle, Ivan Sidorov, director of Beloyarsk NPP, said.

"This means that using MOX fuel will make it possible to involve the uranium that is not currently used in the fuel manufacturing and expand the resource feed-stock of the nuclear power industry. In addition, the BN-800 reactor can re-use spent nuclear fuel from other nuclear power plants and minimise radioactive waste by 'afterburning' long-lived isotopes from them. Taking into account the schedule, we will be able to switch to the core fully loaded with MOX fuel as early as 2022,” he said.

The fuel assemblies were manufactured at the Mining and Chemical Combine (MCC), in Zheleznogorsk, in the Krasnoyarsk region of Russia.

In parallel with loading the BN-800 core with MOX fuel, Rosatom is developing technologies of such fuel fabrication at the MCC site, said Alexander Ugryumov, vice president for research, development and quality at TVEL, Rosatom's nuclear fuel subsidiary.

"In particular, the manufacturing of fresh fuel with high-background plutonium extracted from the irradiated fuel of VVER reactors has been mastered. All technological operations are fully automated and are performed without staff presence in vicinity. The first 20 MOX assemblies with high-background fuel have already been manufactured, passed acceptance, and are scheduled to be loaded in 2022. Advanced technologies of fissile materials recycling and re-fabrication of nuclear fuel in the future will make it possible to process irradiated fuel instead of storing it, as well as to reduce the accumulated volumes of waste," Ugryumov said.

The BN-800 reactor was initially launched with a hybrid core, partially loaded with uranium fuel produced by Elemash, TVEL’s fabrication facility in Elektrostal, in the Moscow region, and partially with experimental MOX fuel bundles manufactured at the Research Institute of Atomic Reactors in Dimitrovgrad, in the Ulyanovsk region.

Serial batch-production of MOX fuel started at the MCC site in late 2018.

Researched and written by World Nuclear News

WNN

[Newfie]

And the cost of reducing consumption is?

[dissident]

And the cost of reducing consumption is?

A non sequitur question.

The cost of operating fossil fuel power plants is always lowballed for petty political reasons. This cost includes the CO2 payback down the line.

Russia's nuclear power is not luxury excess power, it is core power. And the prices simply have no comparison with the insanity in the west. According to Wikipedia the BN-800 cost 2.17 billion US dollars (more like 5 billion with PPP taken into account). That is for a pilot plant designed to enable the BN-1200 which is going to be the final commercial design.

If hydroelectric capacity existed it would be used. Not everywhere is like Quebec.

[Tanada]

TVO cleared for fuel loading at Finnish EPR : New Nuclear

Finnish utility Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (TVO) has been granted a permit by the country's Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) to load fuel into the reactor of the Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) EPR. The unit, construction of which began in 2005, is scheduled to enter commercial operation early next year.

STUK said that by issuing the permit, it has verified that OL3 meets the safety requirements set for it, and TVO's security and emergency arrangements and procedures are sufficient for loading nuclear fuel into the reactor.

The fuel for OL3 arrived in Olkiluoto in 2018. A total of 241 fuel assemblies manufactured in Framatome's plants in Germany and France will be transferred from storage and loaded into the reactor vessel to constitute the first core. To carry out the loading operations, an integrated team of about 40 employees from TVO, Areva and Framatome has been formed. It includes around 15 fuel handlers, personnel specialised in fuel handling operations, and four neutronics engineers in charge of monitoring the core during loading.

"This is the most significant step in the commissioning of the plant unit so far," said TVO's OL3 project director, Jouni Silvennoinen. "OL3 is one of the world's largest and most modern nuclear power plants. The systems have now been rigorously tested, and we will be able to begin fuel loading soon."

Marjo Mustonen, senior vice president for electricity production at TVO, added: "Our skilled nuclear professionals are now ready to deploy Finland's greatest act for the climate."

The loading of fuel will be followed by a commissioning phase lasting several months during which TVO will conduct a new series of hot functional tests to verify the plant's systems work correctly. These must be completed before the unit achieves first criticality and commissioning for commercial operation. TVO requires authorisation from STUK before advancing from one commissioning phase to another. TVO was granted an operating licence by the Finnish government for OL3 in March 2019.

Under the most recent schedule, announced in August 2020, OL3 will be connected to the grid in October this year, with regular electricity production due to start in February 2022. According to the commissioning programme, the plant will produce 1-3 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity with varying power output during the period between grid connection and the start of regular electricity production.

The OL3 plant supplier consortium - Areva GmbH, Areva NP SAS and Siemens AG - is constructing the unit under a fixed-price turnkey contract. They have joint liability for the contractual obligations until the end of the guarantee period of the unit. The consortium began construction of Olkiluoto 3 in 2005. Completion of the reactor was originally scheduled for 2009, but the project has had various delays and setbacks.

TVO said Areva continues to prepare a financial solution for the completion of the project until the end of the guarantee period. The utility continues negotiations with the Areva-Siemens consortium about the terms of the project's completion.

Once operating at full capacity, the OL3 plant will produce about 13 TWh of electricity annually and increase annual domestic electricity production to nearly 80 TWh. At the same time, the share of nuclear power in Finland's electricity generation mix will rise to more than 40%.

Minister of Economic Affairs Mika Lintilä said the new unit will increase the share of the country's carbon-free electricity production to 90%.

In December 2018, unit 1 of the Taishan plant in China's Guangdong province became the first EPR to enter commercial operation, and was followed by Taishan 2 in September 2019. The loading of fuel into the Flamanville EPR in France, construction of which began in December 2007, is now scheduled for the end of 2022. Two EPR units are also under construction at Hinkley Point C in Somerset, England.

Researched and written by World Nuclear News

WNN

[AdamB]

And the cost of reducing consumption is?

Degrowth?