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 StarvingLion » Fri 13 Apr 2018, 20:21:51

KaiserJeep wrote:SL, perhaps you should try Decaf. :mrgreen:


KaiserJeep who believes America's Insolvency is 'Unstoppable Economic Inertia'

Here is what the people charged with keeping the lights will be saying in the next few years.

Coal too "dirty" (aka don't own it anymore because of collateral for unservicable debt)
More Renewables does not help
Nuclear Not an Option (because no access to enough diesel fuel)
Ponzi Shale Gas not Available for various reasons (eg. equipment failure followed by bankruptcy)
Cannot afford LNG Imports

Action Taken: Load Shedding
Buzzards in 2023: "Damn this is good eatin. Humans sure taste good"
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1454
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Mon 16 Apr 2018, 19:39:44

Roger Andrews at euanmearns.com has thrown in the towel and become a TOTAL DOOMER. The ugly truth is that 5 years from now a nuclear fission reactor will cost over $100 billion US dollars to build. Its operating costs will be impossible to deal with and its a TOTAL LOST CAUSE to build any at this point.

http://euanmearns.com/blowout-week-224/#comments

The week’s most discouraging story:

Platts: No new nuclear units will be built in US due to high cost

If Exelon’s chief strategy officer really believes that the US won’t build any more nuclear plants because intermittent renewables + storage can do the job we are truly doomed.
Buzzards in 2023: "Damn this is good eatin. Humans sure taste good"
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1454
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Tue 17 Apr 2018, 00:17:57

onlooker wrote:
StarvingLion wrote:Bankrupt Japan found out that Nuclear fission reactors are not an ATM machine.

Japan prepares to shut troubled 'dream' nuclear reactor

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Japan- ... ar-reactor

Quote:
In July, the Japan Atomic Energy Agency will begin decommissioning what was hailed as a "dream" reactor that was expected to produce more nuclear fuel than it consumed. The government has so far spent more than 1 trillion yen ($9.44 billion) on the plant, which has barely ever operated.

What do you expect from a county that builds nuclear reactors near the shore of a seismically active area - dumb and dumber


Your point is invalid. Fukushima survived both the magnitude 9 earthquake and the subsequent tsunami flood fully intact. The only reason it went into meltdown was because some idiot(s) decided to just copy and paste the US layout and keep the backup generators in the basement. They had a hill which they could have used to keep the generators high and dry right behind the plant. Without backup power, the cooling systems cannot function and they are needed since the heat production keeps going even if control rods are fully inserted into the reactor cores. This weakness of water cooled/moderated designs is their primary flaw. Molten salt reactors are based on passive cooling and do not require any backup power generation to keep them from experiencing meltdowns.
So it is ironic that Japan is shutting down its fast breeder program.

The Monju is a pathetic conversion of a pressurized water type reactor. I do not know what the Japanese were doing with all that money. They were certainly not using it for innovation. The French Superphenix was a vastly superior design. While France shot itself in the head and shut the program down thanks to the Green party zealots, similar designs are alive and well in Russia and progressing to commercialization during the 2020s. The BN-800 is fully operational and follows from the BN-600 that was operated from 1980 with a capacity factor averaging over 70%. It was an experimental pilot plant so having a 95% capacity factor was not the main priority. By contrast the Superphenix had a capacity factor of under 30% and was subjected to continuous political and even terrorist attacks from the self-described "greens" (more like fossil fuel industry proxies).

Unlike the US where Carter killed "waste" reprocessing development, Russia has world leading fuel reprocessing capability (*) and is working towards fully closed cycle nuclear generation. Fast neutron breeders remove the basically all long-lived nuclear waste and leave only the most active products (actinides) which are safe after 300 years. Storing long-lived "waste" for tens of thousands of years is delusional nonsense. Storing a much smaller volume of active waste for 300 years is vastly more practical. All the discussion about Yucca mountain would be pointless for 300 year storage.

(*) The US sent its nuclear warhead material to Russia for reprocessing into reactor fuel.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5585
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Yonnipun » Tue 17 Apr 2018, 01:10:41

The biggest problem with nuclear for me is the nuclear waste problem. There are no safe ways to eliminate it. Eventually our next generations have to adapt living in an environment that is much more radioactive and in some places it means imminent death. Germany finally admitted it and gave up. The positive eroei fusion is a dream that I am afraid we are never going to see.
Yonnipun
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat 07 Apr 2018, 03:29:19

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Tue 17 Apr 2018, 11:36:43

Fast Neutron Reactors = Unexplained reactivity fluctuations = Fundamentally Unsafe

There is no such thing as innovation in nuclear fission. No "advanced" design has ever been shown to work reliably.

Who is going to wait 40 years for some "advanced" design to be operationally verified while the legacy giant oil field production is cratering?

Answer: Nobody.
Buzzards in 2023: "Damn this is good eatin. Humans sure taste good"
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1454
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Yonnipun » Tue 17 Apr 2018, 13:52:53

StarvingLion wrote:Answer: Nobody.


When somebody hacks bitcoin we can say that somewhere there is a working quantum computer.
When there will be news about highly positive eroei fusion then we can assume that we have a true artificial intelligence. But I am afraid we are not going to see either. The only hope after the fossil fuel era is that aliens will save us.
Yonnipun
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat 07 Apr 2018, 03:29:19

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Wed 18 Apr 2018, 12:25:06

Yonnipun wrote:
StarvingLion wrote:Answer: Nobody.


When somebody hacks bitcoin we can say that somewhere there is a working quantum computer.
When there will be news about highly positive eroei fusion then we can assume that we have a true artificial intelligence. But I am afraid we are not going to see either. The only hope after the fossil fuel era is that aliens will save us.


The aliens are dead. Fast Neutron Reactors are total junk.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/w ... lt.509686/

Most FBRs have been much smaller in power output than typical LWRs. The Phenix FBR was 233 MWe. The German SNR-300 was 300 MWe. The PFR in Dounreay, Scotland was 250 MWe. The Monju FBR was 280 MWe. The French Super-Phenix was the only FBR ever built with more than 1000 MWe. This is no coincidence. There's a trade-off when you scale up the core, as fewer neutrons make it out of the core and into the breeding blanket of depleted uranium. The design can't be scaled up too far without sacrificing its main selling point. If you want to show off a good breeding ratio you need to stick with reactors that are much smaller than modern LWRs, but at the same time the technical challenges (liquid metal cooling, higher temperatures, etc) mean that the reactor ends up costing maybe twice as much to build than an LWR putting out 4 or 5 times the power. That simply does not compute. At 10x the capital cost per kW you'd be cheaper off either sticking with LWRs or going for renewable sources. Even solar at current prices is cheaper, without the proliferation risks. Also there are no reprocessing facilities for spent FBR fuel, which poses special challenges because of high burn-up rates and buildup of trans-uranium elements, leaving a gaping hole in the so-called fuel cycle of FBRs.
Buzzards in 2023: "Damn this is good eatin. Humans sure taste good"
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1454
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby Yonnipun » Wed 18 Apr 2018, 14:48:31

StarvingLion wrote:
Yonnipun wrote:
StarvingLion wrote:Answer: Nobody.


https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/w ... lt.509686/

Most FBRs have been much smaller in power output than typical LWRs. The Phenix FBR was 233 MWe. The German SNR-300 was 300 MWe. The PFR in Dounreay, Scotland was 250 MWe. The Monju FBR was 280 MWe. The French Super-Phenix was the only FBR ever built with more than 1000 MWe. This is no coincidence. There's a trade-off when you scale up the core, as fewer neutrons make it out of the core and into the breeding blanket of depleted uranium. The design can't be scaled up too far without sacrificing its main selling point. If you want to show off a good breeding ratio you need to stick with reactors that are much smaller than modern LWRs, but at the same time the technical challenges (liquid metal cooling, higher temperatures, etc) mean that the reactor ends up costing maybe twice as much to build than an LWR putting out 4 or 5 times the power. That simply does not compute. At 10x the capital cost per kW you'd be cheaper off either sticking with LWRs or going for renewable sources. Even solar at current prices is cheaper, without the proliferation risks. Also there are no reprocessing facilities for spent FBR fuel, which poses special challenges because of high burn-up rates and buildup of trans-uranium elements, leaving a gaping hole in the so-called fuel cycle of FBRs.


Considering all this no wonder why germans - one of the most technologically advanced countries - gave up with nuclear. They did not want to publicly admit to masses that nuclear is dead end so they came up with pathetic excuse like it was something to do with fukushima s disaster.
Yonnipun
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat 07 Apr 2018, 03:29:19

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Mon 30 Apr 2018, 20:06:17

First Energy has decided that it better shutter down because America really cannot afford anything industrial anymore.

Market Watch: FirstEnergy to permanently deactivate its 3 US nuclear power plants

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/first ... 2018-04-25

FirstEnergy Solutions said Wednesday it has informed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission of its decision to permanently deactivate its three nuclear power plants over the next three years. The company said the decision, which will deactivate two plants in Ohio and one in Pennsylvania, is based on “severe economic challenges.” “We are actively seeking policy solutions at the state and federal level as an alternative to retiring these plants, which we believe still have a crucial role to play in the reliability and resilience of our regional grid,” said Don Moul, president of FES Generation Companies and chief nuclear officer. The plants produce a combined 4,048 megawatts of electricity.
Buzzards in 2023: "Damn this is good eatin. Humans sure taste good"
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1454
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

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
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 541
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
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12706
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

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.
Buzzards in 2023: "Damn this is good eatin. Humans sure taste good"
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1454
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: 157
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
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12706
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

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.
Buzzards in 2023: "Damn this is good eatin. Humans sure taste good"
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1454
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
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12706
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

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: 157
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: 22664
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.
Buzzards in 2023: "Damn this is good eatin. Humans sure taste good"
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1454
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.
Buzzards in 2023: "Damn this is good eatin. Humans sure taste good"
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1454
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests