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 Doly » Wed 17 Aug 2022, 16:05:17

So you like an idea, the credibility of the author being irrelevant, and then...you study it? Research it? Decide if the, in this case, previous discredited conclusions were drawn in error because of the data, or suppositions, or poor thinking on the part of the original claiment?


I study and research the idea. And if I see a study that seems to be in error, I try to figure out what the error was. Or whether the study can be considered to be correct, within the limitations of the study.

Do you know why Charlie missed all this? Because to those of us who aren't amateur researchers (which alleged includes Charlie), the most likely answer CAN'T be "I was too conservative".


No, I don't know. Are you suggesting that Charlie was deliberately alarmist?

Well, then we can discuss your ideas and arguments rather than pretending they are first principles just because you call it that, giving a priority it certainly may not have.


The labor theory of value is highly respected in Russia and China. Just because Western economists don't usually give it priority, it doesn't mean they are right in not giving it priority.

Define "crunch".


A supply crunch is a period during which supply is lower than demand.

If I insert "high price" as a substitute for what you are calling "crunch", I would say no, I do not expect high prices to continue into the foreseeable future.


Why not?

Who do you use for your research reviews? Folks in your area of expertise, or experts in the research field the idea you like is in?


I published and was reviewed in The Oil Drum, back when it was active. I'd call them experts in the research field of the idea I was interested in.

As for my area of expertise, I would describe it as an emerging field that isn't well developed yet. At the time when I published in The Oil Drum, I didn't even know that its real-world name is cliodynamics (at least, by one school of thought - I think it's new enough that when it's better developed it may be commonly known by a different name). That makes it difficult to find good places to send research to.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4365
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 17 Aug 2022, 16:14:07

vtsnowedin wrote:
theluckycountry wrote:I think mini reactors are great, as long as they keep them the hell away from Australia. Preferably North of the equator.

If the economies of the Northern hemisphere go toes up due to nuclear accidents how do you think Australia would get along without having them to trade with?


Or build their cars for them, let them buy military hardware that isn't just hammered pot metal boomerangs, or give them an intellectual, economic and technological ideal to aspire to when the 1 in a 1,000,000 yearns to not be a Chinese serf?
What does a science denier look like?

Armageddon » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 10:47:28
whales are a perfect example as to why evolution is wrong. Nothing can evolve into something that enormous. There is no explanation for it getting that big. end of discussion
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 8207
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 17 Aug 2022, 16:55:46

Doly wrote:
So you like an idea, the credibility of the author being irrelevant, and then...you study it? Research it? Decide if the, in this case, previous discredited conclusions were drawn in error because of the data, or suppositions, or poor thinking on the part of the original claiment?


I study and research the idea. And if I see a study that seems to be in error, I try to figure out what the error was. Or whether the study can be considered to be correct, within the limitations of the study.


So did you use Charlie's interesting idea, and correct for his mistakes when you used it?

Doly wrote:
Do you know why Charlie missed all this? Because to those of us who aren't amateur researchers (which alleged includes Charlie), the most likely answer CAN'T be "I was too conservative".


No, I don't know. Are you suggesting that Charlie was deliberately alarmist?


I'm suggesting that doing research, amateur, independent, or otherwise, involves more than liking an idea. And I've demonstrated that your statement from Charlie proves only that he didn't correct for known, published and quantified geoscience state of the art work at its time.

And while Charlie's idea might be terribly interesting, the work referenced was GIGO, because of what he told you. I assume as a modeler you know what GIGO is, and the explicit consequences of it.

Doly wrote:
Well, then we can discuss your ideas and arguments rather than pretending they are first principles just because you call it that, giving a priority it certainly may not have.


The labor theory of value is highly respected in Russia and China. Just because Western economists don't usually give it priority, it doesn't mean they are right in not giving it priority.


Well, I can't argue with where it may or may not be valued. But your examples are a failed communist state now totalitarian and headed back to Second World status (with nukes), and the ChiComs who aren't abashed at all about how great Communism is. So if this labor theory of value is respected by them, it is because the state requires it and it meets their ends in some way. No one should discount Chinese brain power, or the power of the Communists to use whatever theory, truncheon or forced sterilization they see fit on their people to achieve their ends.

How well did this labor theory of value work out during The Great Leap Forward?

Doly wrote:
Define "crunch".


A supply crunch is a period during which supply is lower than demand.


So...an upward price pressure. Fine. And? As one example, we've had an upward price pressure since Covid ended and suddenly everyone wanted to fly and cruise and drive. So a "crunch" arrived. And? As fuel prices seem to be mitigating, we are no longer in a fuel crunch. Good news for the consumer.

Doly wrote:
Who do you use for your research reviews? Folks in your area of expertise, or experts in the research field the idea you like is in?


I published and was reviewed in The Oil Drum, back when it was active. I'd call them experts in the research field of the idea I was interested in.


Well, some did confuse them with experts back in the day. In a different world of review, you don't hand off an idea to those who already support it. You hand it off to your intellectual enemies who want to see the idea destroyed. Only the enemy shows you where you are weak. Mazer Rackham. Enders Game. Good PhD's understand this because if they are getting it from a decent university, it's called defending your thesis. Nowadays I suppose in our PC world that might no longer exist. Can't have someone crying when they can't defend their work in front of experts in the field, better to pat them on the head and pass them along.

Doly wrote:
As for my area of expertise, I would describe it as an emerging field that isn't well developed yet. At the time when I published in The Oil Drum, I didn't even know that its real-world name is cliodynamics (at least, by one school of thought - I think it's new enough that when it's better developed it may be commonly known by a different name). That makes it difficult to find good places to send research to.


I'm old and fuddy duddy, I had to look cliodynamics up. Sounds sort of like psychohistory supposed by Asimov in the Foundation series?
What does a science denier look like?

Armageddon » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 10:47:28
whales are a perfect example as to why evolution is wrong. Nothing can evolve into something that enormous. There is no explanation for it getting that big. end of discussion
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 8207
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Wed 17 Aug 2022, 18:31:31

AdamB wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:
theluckycountry wrote:I think mini reactors are great, as long as they keep them the hell away from Australia. Preferably North of the equator.

If the economies of the Northern hemisphere go toes up due to nuclear accidents how do you think Australia would get along without having them to trade with?


Or build their cars for them, let them buy military hardware that isn't just hammered pot metal boomerangs, or give them an intellectual, economic and technological ideal to aspire to when the 1 in a 1,000,000 yearns to not be a Chinese serf?

I do not understand your hatred for all things Australia. Perhaps you got your ass beat to a pulp in an Aussie bar fight. ???
Australia has shown up and done more then it's part in every conflict that mattered for more then a century.
Their economy suits them and does not try to build a product there that can be had cheaper elsewhere as that would be a stupid business decision.
But in the trenches if you have the Aussies on your left and the Scottish Black watch on your right your enemy in front of you has much more to worry about then you do.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14438
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 17 Aug 2022, 19:43:12

vtsnowedin wrote: I do not understand your hatred for all things Australia.


I love Aussies. Worked with their government geoligists back during the early days of the shale revolution, great folks.. I only bash banana benders who buy expensive motorcycles while lacking either the roads to use them on or the talent, and then brag about that here. All the other Aussies I've ever met seem quite nice.
What does a science denier look like?

Armageddon » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 10:47:28
whales are a perfect example as to why evolution is wrong. Nothing can evolve into something that enormous. There is no explanation for it getting that big. end of discussion
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 8207
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 01 Sep 2022, 10:33:45

Nuclear power stations could be fast-tracked to help solve energy crisis



Nuclear power stations could be fast-tracked under a planning shake-up to try to alleviate the country’s energy crisis.

Greg Clark, the Levelling Up Secretary, unveiled new rules to speed up approval for major infrastructure projects as part of an effort to enhance energy security.

The plans could also slash the amount of time it takes to get offshore wind projects approved.

Energy costs are soaring thanks to the disruption caused by the war in Ukraine, with warnings that UK bills could reach almost £7,000 by April.

On Tuesday, Ursula von der Leyen blamed Vladimir Putin’s threats to Europe’s gas supply for breaking the electricity market.

The European Commission president said: “The electricity market is no more a functioning market because there's one actor – Putin – who is systematically trying to destroy it and manipulate it.”

Russian gas giant Gazprom on Tuesday night announced it had made a record 2.5 trillion roubles (£36 billion) in net profit in the first half of the year.

Liz Truss, the frontrunner in the Tory leadership contest, is expected to unveil short-term help with people’s energy bills soon after taking office on Sept 6.

She is also looking at ways to increase the UK’s energy independence by extracting more gas from the North Sea.
Planning process 'often moves too slowly'

Mr Clark said the new rules would help speed up the approval of large projects.

“Particularly in a time of high inflation, things need to be done more quickly or costs of major infrastructure projects will rise,” he said.

“These changes will help deliver new infrastructure more quickly by speeding up the planning process, which often moves too slowly.”

It comes amid uncertainty over plans to refill Britain's largest gas storage facility - a way to increase Britain’s energy security - as talks drag on over taxpayer funding.

On Tuesday, the Rough facility under the North Sea was given final approval by regulators to begin filling up within days, but it was not clear when the process would start.

Also on Tuesday, Boris Johnson said he would be saying more later in the week about his Government’s plans to build more nuclear power stations.

The Prime Minister said: “People want to know that we are going to have a long-term British energy security strategy. And we are. We are putting in more nuclear. You are going to be hearing more about that later this week.

“And we are putting in absolutely shedloads of wind power as well.”

The Prime Minister is expected to make a speech about energy security on Thursday. Last year, 38 per cent of the UK's overall energy supply was imported from abroad.

Mr Johnson hopes he can give the go-ahead for the new Sizewell C nuclear power station before he leaves office next Tuesday.

The plan is understood to have the backing of Kwasi Kwarteng, the Business Secretary, who is expected to be Ms Truss’s chancellor.

But there is always the concern that any new power station will take years to be approved and built.

The new powers announced by Mr Clark will mean shorter deadlines can be set for examinations of “nationally significant infrastructure projects”, speeding up decisions and getting projects built more quickly.

A spokesman for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said this could include strategic roads, offshore wind farms and nuclear power stations.

The relevant secretary of the state – for example for energy, transport, environment or levelling up – will decide whether to put the shorter deadline in place.

It is hoped this will reduce the amount of time to approve offshore wind farms from four years to one, and also significantly reduce the amount of time to give the go-ahead to nuclear power stations.

The Government wants to ensure that the seven years it took to approve the Sizewell B nuclear power station is significantly reduced in future.

The policy, however, does not cover onshore wind farms, as they are not considered a “nationally significant infrastructure project”.

Ministers will make the changes to the process through amendments to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.
Nadhim Zahawi: Nick Clegg meme 'broke my heart'

Last week, in an interview with The Telegraph, Nadhim Zahawi, the Chancellor, said he wanted to see Britain follow France - which incentivises people to accept nuclear power stations locally by offering them free energy.

“They did that very successfully in France with nuclear, so people living within a certain radius of a nuclear project get power to their homes for life,” he said.

Mr Zahawi said the Government needed to get better at “holding risk” to ensure large-scale infrastructure projects, such as nuclear, go ahead.

He said: “It broke my heart seeing that meme on social media of Nick Clegg saying there's no point investing in nuclear because it won’t come online until 2021-22.

“And you think if we'd done that, then where would we be today in our resilience and being able to withstand this pressure from Putin? You’ve got to be comfortable holding risk.”

He also spoke about his support for tidal power.

“The beauty of tidal, of course, is that it is predictable,” he said. “So it helps with baseload.

“Unlike wind or solar, when the sun is not shining or it's very cold and there's no wind, it’s more challenging. Nevertheless, we continue to invest in offshoring where we're doubling down on our capacity offshore wind more so.”

The owner of the Rough facility in the North Sea, British Gas's parent company Centrica, is understood to be in talks with ministers over how to fund the refill of the facility. It would not comment on when the process would begin.

Chris O’Shea, Centrica’s chief executive, has previously said it could re-open this winter, and that is understood to remain the plan. However, it remains in talks with the Government over some form of long-term taxpayer support for the site.

A Whitehall source said: “Discussions on an appropriate financial mechanism that shares the risk and reward over the longer-term are ongoing.”


LINK
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16783
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 01 Sep 2022, 15:09:05

Several pictures are mixed with the text if you follow the link below the quoted material.
Why even environmentalists are supporting nuclear power today

The Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant was scheduled to be shuttered in 2025. But California Governor Gavin Newsom now wants to expand its lifespan.

Resistance to nuclear power is starting to ebb around the world with support from a surprising group: environmentalists.

This change of heart spans the globe, and is being prompted by climate change, unreliable electrical grids and fears about national security in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

In California, the state's last remaining power plant — Diablo Canyon, situated on the Pacific Coast between San Francisco and Los Angeles — long scheduled to be scrapped, may now remain open. Governor Gavin Newsom, a longtime opponent of the plant, is seeking to extend its lifespan through at least 2029.

It's a remarkable turnaround in a state where anti-nuclear activists and progressive Democratic lawmakers have fought with great success to rid the state of nuclear power.

Last week, Japan's prime minister said the country is restarting idled nuclear plants and considering building new ones. This is a sharp reversal for the country that largely abandoned nuclear after the tsunami-led disaster at the Fukushima plant in 2011.

Germany pulled the plug on nuclear after Fukushima, too. But this summer there's been an intense debate in Germany over whether to restart three plants in response to the country's severe energy crisis prompted by the Russia-Ukraine war.

Backers of nuclear power note that it is a source of emissions-free reliable power. And they believe their case has been strengthened due to the threat of climate change and the need to stabilize unreliable electrical grids.

In California the moment of truth came in 2020 when residents had to endure a series of rolling power outages, said Michael Shellenberger, an environmentalist and author who supports nuclear.

"The state is constantly on the verge of blackouts," Shellenberger said.
Environmentalists for nuclear power

The turnabout on Diablo Canyon is noteworthy because California is the birthplace of America's anti-nuclear movement. The case against nuclear power stems primarily from fears about nuclear waste and potential accidents as well as its association with nuclear weapons.

The two operating generators at Diablo Canyon had been set to shut down by 2025. And for years the momentum to shutter the plant seemed inevitable, with anti-nuclear sentiment in California remaining high. Even the utility that operates Diablo Canyon, PG&E, wanted to pull the plug.

So it is striking that the most vehement arguments to keep Diablo Canyon running haven't come the nuclear industry. Instead, they have been put forward by a most unlikely collection of pro-nuclear advocates.

It seemed quixotic, even hopeless, in 2016, when Shellenberger along with the pioneering climate scientist James Hansen and Stewart Brand, founder of the crunchy Whole Earth Catalog, began advocating to save Diablo Canyon.

"We were basically excluded from polite conversation for even talking about keeping the plant open," recalled Shellenberger. Promoting nuclear as an important tool in fighting climate change would get him dismissed by fellow environmentalists as a conspiracy theorist or, falsely, as a corporate shill, he added.
Two moms — a scientist and an engineer — join hands to save nuclear

At the same time, Kristin Zaitz and Heather Hoff were forming an advocacy group called Mothers for Nuclear, a local grassroots effort to keep Diablo Canyon operating. To say their views were not widely embraced would be a serious understatement.

"We felt like we were on an island all by ourselves," said Zaitz. "We had people wishing that we would die, wishing we would get cancer...making weird videos about us that made me feel like, am I unsafe, is my family unsafe?"

In many ways Zaitz and Hoff are also the most unlikely of nuclear advocates. They both describe themselves as eco-friendly liberals, moms concerned about preserving wild spaces, recycling and climate change.

At Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, not far from Diablo Canyon, they both studied engineering and both took jobs at the plant – Hoff is a materials scientist and Zaitz is a civil engineer – despite misgivings about nuclear energy.

"I was nervous about nuclear before I started working there," said Hoff. "And it took a lot of years to change my mind...and eventually realize that nuclear really aligned with my environmental and humanitarian goals."

To promote those goals Zaitz and Hoff talk to community groups and professional societies, they promote nuclear power on social media and generate conversations walking around their hometowns wearing t-shirts that say, "Why nuclear? Ask me."

They see their role as going beyond just facts to make an emotional connection to people suspicious of nuclear, especially fellow environmentalists.

"It's the largest source of carbon free electricity in the United States," said Zaitz. "Most people don't know that it produces a lot of electricity on a relatively tiny land footprint."
Overcoming the stigma of "The Simpsons"

It's only reasonable to push back and say it's not surprising that Zaitz and Hoff support Diablo Canyon – after all, they work there. And, yes, they acknowledge they want to keep their jobs. But they say with their skills and experience they could find similar jobs elsewhere.

"This is how we feel we can contribute as environmentalists," said Hoff of their advocacy.

A lot of their work involves trying to combat a longstanding stigma against nuclear power, especially in popular culture, where its image is abysmal. Like on "The Simpsons," where Homer Simpson works in a slipshod plant and nuclear waste is dumped in a children's playground.

"We need to point people to accurate information so they can make up their own minds," said Zaitz.
Nuclear power has a safer track record than coal or natural gas

They don't shy away from the fact that for many people nuclear power is scary. "We say we were scared too," said Hoff. "It's okay to be scared. But that doesn't mean it's dangerous."

In terms of deaths from accidents or pollution, nuclear is far safer than coal or natural gas - the largest sources of electricity in the U.S.

Diablo Canyon got a boost last year when researchers from MIT and Stanford said keeping the plant open until 2035 would cut carbon emissions from California's power sector by more than 10% and save $2.6 billion in electricity costs.

The most important reason to keep the plant running is to help assure the reliability of the state's power grid, said John Parsons of MIT's Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research and one of the study's co-authors. "And it's a zero carbon source of power so it can keep emissions low while also providing low cost power and reliable power."
Diablo's storied history of arrests & more

Despite recent gains by the plant's backers, opposition to Diablo Canyon remains stout and has a storied history dating back decades. In 1981 singer-songwriter Jackson Browne was arrested at the plant with some four dozen anti-nuclear protestors.

Governor Newsom's plan to keep Diablo Canyon operating still faces a number of obstacles, including opposition from some of his fellow Democrats in the state legislature. It must clear state and federal funding and regulatory obstacles. And diehard grass roots opponents of the plant are not giving up.

"Diablo Canyon is not safe and it's old, too. It's almost 40 years old," said Linda Seeley, a spokesperson for San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, a watchdog group that has opposed the plant for decades.

She said that it's especially risky because of its location in an earthquake prone area. Critics like Seeley also also call Governor Newsom's plan to keep the plant operating a corporate giveaway, noting that it includes a $1.4 billion forgivable loan to the plant's operator, PG&E.

And finally she said it's unwise to forget the nuclear disasters of the past. While Japan just announced it is restarting idled nuclear plants, Naoto Kan, the prime minister at the time of the Fukushima accident, has a different perspective, she said. In May, he wrote to Governor Newsom advising him to shut down Diablo Canyon as soon as possible.


NPR
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16783
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Doly » Thu 01 Sep 2022, 15:53:09

I only bash banana benders who buy expensive motorcycles while lacking either the roads to use them on or the talent, and then brag about that here.


It's the first time I come across anyone suggesting that Australia doesn't have plenty of roads.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4365
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 01 Sep 2022, 16:18:11

The world turns slowly in California. Instead of debating keeping one old plant open they should be planing six to eight new ones that would serve as the CO2 free base of their electric grid for the next fifty years.
" None are so blind as those that refuse to see."
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14438
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 01 Sep 2022, 16:18:55

Now for something I personally got a pleasant surprise about. The Federal USA Government has updated their Nuclear Energy page for what seems like the first time in a long time and the new lay out is actually very pro-nuclear energy. For most of the time the page has existed the feel of the layout and descriptions was very blase' about the uses and advantages of fission over fossil fuels. The new page feels like something I could have written myself and has a lay out that is very professionally presented, far better than the old layout. Please check it out for yourselves!
Office of Nuclear Energy
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16783
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 12 Sep 2022, 20:52:05

Should NC's clean energy future include more nuclear power? Duke Energy thinks so

When Duke Energy filed its carbon plan with the N.C. Utilities Commission in May, there was the usual focus on retiring dirty coal-fired power plants and embracing more renewable energy sources.

The company's proposal was in response to legislation hashed out by Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, the GOP-controlled General Assembly, and Duke Energy that committed the Tar Heel State to reduce carbon emissions by 70% from 2005 levels by 2030 and to reach carbon neutrality by 2050. Duke, as the state's largest utility, has submitted several "pathways" to meet the requirement.

But raising some eyebrows was the utility giant's plan to incorporate 570 megawatts of new nuclear power into its future portfolio. These new reactors, however, wouldn't be like the giant plants the company already operates north of Southport on the N.C. coast or in southwestern Wake County.

Growth:With offshore wind projects set to increase, is NC ready to capitalize on the opportunity?

How to keep the lights on in the future:Duke, environmentalists jostle over future grid

They would be much smaller and simpler reactors.
Duke Energy is interested in adding more nuclear power to its North Carolina grid in the coming decades. But any new reactors would be much smaller and simpler than today's nuclear plants, like the Brunswick Nuclear Plant north of Southport.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), small modular reactors (SMRs) are advanced nuclear reactors that have a power capacity of up to 300 megawatts per unit, which is about one-third of the generating capacity of traditional nuclear power reactors.

"Small nuclear reactors are essential for Duke Energy’s transition to a cleaner energy future," company spokesperson Jennifer Sharpe said via email. "The low-carbon, dispatchable energy of SMRs allows us to ensure reliable service for customers as we add more renewables to our system."

Duke is the largest regulated nuclear plant operator in the country and plans to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

But the idea of adding additional nuclear power to North Carolina's grid isn't sitting well with everyone.

"The biggest thing is we just don't need them," said Jim Warren, executive director of NC WARN, a Durham-based nonprofit that promotes a swift move to clean energy options. "They are way too risky in a number of ways and just too expensive for the company and rate-paying customers to get them built."
Reliable and scalable

Depending on who you talk to, the rush by countries to shift away from fossil fuel power plants either represents the last gasp for nuclear power, which remains expensive to develop, or the renaissance of an often misunderstood industry through the development of safer, smaller less complex reactors.

Backers of nuclear power note that it is a source of emissions-free reliable power, and they believe their case has been strengthened due to the threat of climate change and the need to stabilize unreliable electrical grids.

Recent world events, notably the invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the subsequent upheaval in energy markets, has even convinced "green" governments like Germany, Japan and California to take another look at retaining or even expanding their nuclear power portfolios.

According to the IAEA, nuclear power provides about 10% of the world’s electricity, with thirty countries currently operating nuclear power plants and more than two dozen others looking at the power source as a way to meet their energy needs as they transition away from traditional fossil fuel power sources.

The Brunswick Nuclear Plant, located north of Southport, is expected to remain operational for decades to come.

Unlike wind and solar, nuclear power plants can also adjust output to meet demand throughout the day, allowing them to be paired with renewables to create a hybrid power generation system.

"Renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, are intermittent, and while batteries can support them for a few hours, modeling clearly demonstrates the need for generation that can overcome extended weather conditions," Duke's Sharpe said. "SMRs are readily available and can be turned on anytime we need them."

Since they are small, SMRs also are viewed as easier to deploy than traditional reactors, which are often built to be site-specific, driving up their design time and costs. And because they are modular, a plant can also be scaled up by adding additional reactors to meet growing demand.

'Just not economical'

Three Mile Island. Chernobyl. Fukushima.

Accidents at those nuclear plants, in the United States, Ukraine and Japan, respectively, are seared into many people's memories.

Along with fears of potential radiation leaks, worries about what to do about nuclear waste produced by the plants and the energy source's association with nuclear weapons also makes many nervous.

But Warren said there's a more basic reason why North Carolina needs to move beyond nuclear energy.

"It's just not economical," he said.

Warren said nuclear plants have proven over and over again to be fiscal black holes, running into unforeseen development and construction problems that leaves utilities throwing more bad money after bad money as the cost and time lines for the projects balloon. While several new plants have been proposed in the past two decades only one is currently under construction, by Southern Company in Georgia.

"Duke Energy has already dragged us through this horror movie, and we can’t let them do it again," Warren said, referring to the utility's own efforts to build additional big nuclear plants earlier this century.

And as utilities across the world embrace renewable energy sources like offshore wind and solar, the price of those is dropping quickly.

In 2021, Wall Street financial consulting firm Lazard estimated that the cost of electricity from new nuclear plants would be between $131 and $204 per megawatt hour. That compares to between $26 and $50 per megawatt hour for utility-scale solar and wind plants.

Aside from public perceptions, the economics of developing and constructing new reactors also remain question marks.

"Significant technology development and licensing risks remain in bringing advanced SMR designs to market and government support is required to achieve domestic deployment of SMRs by the late 2020s or early 2030s," states the U.S. Department of Energy.

Unfair heat:Why Wilmington's neighborhoods aren't created equally when it comes to handling the heat

Tidal woes:'Undergoing a transformation': How increased high tide flooding could reshape the NC coast
Homegrown nuclear reactors?

As utilities, environmentalists and regulators debate the merits of adding new nuclear power to power grids, the impact for Wilmington residents could be more than just how the electricity to keep their lights on is produced.

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, based in Castle Hayne, is one of the leading companies working on a new SMR reactor.
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy is headquartered in Castle Hayne, north of Wilmington. It is one of several companies developing new small modular nuclear reactors.

The company, which employs more than 2,000, has announced several agreements with utilities to explore the potential deployment of its new BWRX-300 small modular reactor. That list includes the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and utilities in Poland, Sweden and Canada. Company spokesman Jonathan Allen said a reactor in Ontario could be completed as early as 2028.

So is Duke Energy interested in GEH's new reactor?

Allen said he couldn't discuss talks GEH might have had with customers that haven't been formally announced. Duke also declined to say if GEH would be the company's favored partner if more nuclear is in the utility's future — something that will be decided by the N.C. Utilities Commission.

"As outlined in Duke Energy’s carbon plan, we are evaluating all available SMR designs and will choose the option most complementary to our system and our goal to reach net zero," Sharpe said.

The utilities commission is expected to rule on Duke's proposed carbon plan by the end of the year. A coalition of clean energy and environmental groups have also submitted an alternative carbon-reduction plan that includes more renewable power and no additional nuclear reactors.


LINK
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16783
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 21 Sep 2022, 08:56:47

Coal plant sites could host 265 GW of advanced nuclear, costing 35% less than greenfield projects: DOE

Dive Insight:

The report comes as states and the federal government are looking for ways to take advantage of transmission lines and other equipment that was built to serve coal-fired power plants, in part to support the communities around the retired or soon-to-be shuttered generating facilities.

Illinois, for example, intends to install a mix of solar and battery storage at 11 retired coal-fired power plant sites while TerraPower is planning an advanced nuclear reactor demonstration project near the coal-fired Naughton plant in Wyoming.

DOE researchers from the Argonne, Idaho and Oak Ridge national laboratories found 190 operating coal plant sites that could host nearly 200 GW of nuclear capacity and 125 recently retired plant sites that could handle about 65 GW of nuclear capacity. There are about 100 GW of existing nuclear capacity in the United States, which account for 8.2% of all U.S. generating capacity, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Coal-to-nuclear, or C2N, projects appear to perform better economically than stand-alone, greenfield nuclear projects, the researchers said.

Also, building nuclear plants at retired coal plant generating stations may provide an economic boost to disadvantaged communities, according to the report.

“The study results suggest economic potential for communities and firms that pursue C2N transitions,” the DOE researchers said. “An implication of this is that there is a potential advantage for interested coal communities to be first movers in what could be a series of many C2N transitions across the United States.”

The researchers’ economic and environmental impact analysis was based on a hypothetical 1,200-MW coal-fired power plant in the Midwest that is replaced with a 924-MW nuclear plant.

That analysis suggests jobs in the region could increase by more than 650 permanent jobs, up from an estimated 150 jobs connected to the coal-fired power plant, the researchers said.

“Swapping out retiring coal-fired power plants with advanced nuclear reactors reduces carbon emissions, improves air quality, and provides economic benefits to communities,” Greenwald said. “It also minimizes siting challenges, reduces or eliminates community and economic impacts due to asset retirement while producing clean and reliable energy.”

LINK 1

Why Nuclear Energy Is Now Part of The Road to Renewables

What do Microsoft founder Bill Gates, climate scientist James Hansen, legendary venture capitalist Fred Wilson and the governments of Germany and Japan have in common? They are all exploring how nuclear power can be a part of the transition to a net zero world.

What a difference a decade makes. After the 2011 Fukushima crisis, nuclear power seemed to be facing possible extinction after Japan and Germany pledged to phase out nuclear energy. Now, everything is changing for three main reasons; a global energy crisis caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, an evolving understanding of the role nuclear power can play in helping battle climate change, and advances in technology enabling smaller nuclear plants.

In late August, Japan said it will restart idled nuclear plants and may develop next-generation reactors, something unimaginable after a tsunami caused a nuclear meltdown at Fukushima. Japan’s short-term motive is ending its reliance on Russian oil. Long-term, it’s a step toward a fossil fuel-free world. And, in a policy reversal, Germany is expected to prolong the use of three nuclear power plants because bans on Russian oil and natural gas have made it possible that millions of Europeans may be unable to afford to heat their homes this winter.

Many in Generation X and Baby Boomers — the generations of my parents and most of their peers — understandably think of nuclear energy with dread. They grew up in a Cold War society fearing nuclear annihilation, and have vivid memories of nuclear accidents near home at Three-Mile Island, and in far away places like Chernobyl.
Putting Past in Perspective

But for many of my generation, the kids of Gen X, harnessing nuclear energy is an idea worth consideration. We can put those earlier nuclear disasters in perspective, mindful that the larger, looming catastrophe we face is climate change. Long after the Baby Boom generation has passed on, our generation and our children will inhabit a still-heating planet where we still pump carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels into the atmosphere.

To be sure, nuclear energy needs to be tightly managed. Corruption and ignorance played a part in past disasters and Russia’s bombardment of a nuclear plant in Ukraine highlights ongoing security concerns. But technology has advanced, and our outlook must evolve, too.

This shift in attitudes has boosted nuclear stocks. Significant investment is making nuclear facilities more agile, faster to build and bring online and, ultimately, safer. Regulations are also helping. Stocks of nuclear power providers have outperformed the broader stock market lately. Outperformers include Constellation Energy (Constellation Energy Corporation - $87.75 1.61 (0.01802%) ), NRG Energy (NRG Energy Inc. - $42.80 1.22 (0.02771%) ), Xcel Energy (Xcel Energy, Inc. - $73.48 1.05 (0.01409%) ) and Entergy Corp. (Entergy Corp. - $114.30 1.58 (0.01363%) ), which all outpaced the broad S&P 500 Index over the summer. Helping their advance has been the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes a subsidy for nuclear plants, including "production tax credits" to existing plants.

Why is Washington supporting nuclear energy in a law aimed at tackling climate change? Because the sun doesn’t shine at night and wind turbines only operate efficiently within a narrow range of wind speeds. That means we need something paired with renewables for reliability. One option is natural gas-fired peaker plants that burn fossil fuels. Or we could develop better batteries to efficiently store solar and wind power for when it is needed, or employ another form of clean energy, such as nuclear power. As policymakers consider these choices, nuclear is overcoming some of its long-standing constraints through innovation.
For Nuclear, Smaller is Better

Smaller nukes can now be built within existing electrical facilities to replace coal-burning plants. These space-efficient plants require less time for regulatory approval and are safer, requiring less oversight. The “tiny nuclear” movement (which shares its ethos with the distributed solar movement) has attracted investment from private firms testing new designs.

And two of the world’s smartest guys (a Boomer and a member of the Greatest Generation) are also betting on tiny nukes. Bill Gates’ Terrapower and Warren Buffett’s PaciCorp are partnering to build a facility on the site of a Wyoming coal-fired power plant. The 345-megawatt reactor would be the smallest commercial U.S. nuclear plant and could power 400,000 homes. Terrapower believes its design can enable faster licensing and construction, and position it to go live on the power grid in 2028. Through U.S. Department of Energy grants and other incentives, Washington has committed $1.9 billion to the project.

Public pressure triggered by Three-Mile Island in 1979, amplified by Chernobyl in 1986 and hammered home by Fukushima in 2011 caused the nuclear industry to retrench. But these disasters were unique and had limited consequences. Since Three Mile Island, there have been few notable U.S. nuclear incidents even as nuclear provides some 20% of our electricity. Chernobyl was caused by negligence while Fukushima was located near an undersea fault line. A common element of all three is how few humans were sickened or died.

The long-term safety record of nuclear energy was among the reasons why in 2020 the Democratic party changed its position regarding nuclear energy to favor “all zero-carbon technologies, including hydroelectric power, geothermal, existing and advanced nuclear, and carbon capture and storage.” This was the first time Democrats have backed nuclear since 1972 and today both parties are backing nuclear.

Even climate scientist James Hansen has called nuclear power one of the best means for rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, nuclear energy costs pennies on the dollar compared to fossil fuels. And while the sun gives away its energy for free, we’ve yet to figure out an efficient way to harvest, store and transport electricity from it at scale.

Technology could yet push nuclear energy to new advances. Legendary venture capitalist Fred Wilson has put out a call for novel ideas to advance nuclear energy. “I've been looking into nuclear reactors and batteries with the lens of how small is possible,” the famed investor wrote on his blog. “Could we make a nuclear reactor or battery that fits in our home? Could we make a nuclear reactor or battery that we carry with us like a phone? I know these ideas seem preposterous but … often we bump into something else along the way that is even more interesting.”

With enthusiasm like this from Wall Street, climate scientists and leading governments from Washington to Tokyo, it seems like nuclear power is getting a new lease on life.

LINK2
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16783
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 21 Sep 2022, 09:48:27

Doly wrote:
I only bash banana benders who buy expensive motorcycles while lacking either the roads to use them on or the talent, and then brag about that here.


It's the first time I come across anyone suggesting that Australia doesn't have plenty of roads.


Australia has plenty of roads. I'm not talking about cager roads. I'm talking about real roads where you apply horsepower, two wheels, and speed, and they become magic.

Image
What does a science denier look like?

Armageddon » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 10:47:28
whales are a perfect example as to why evolution is wrong. Nothing can evolve into something that enormous. There is no explanation for it getting that big. end of discussion
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 8207
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Previous

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests