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 » Mon 07 May 2018, 20:08:01

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

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

scaryjello says

May 5, 2018 at 6:50 AM

It would be nice to see some PRISM reactors built, although they are a little scary. It would take some [more] years of operations/refueling experience before these units could transition from labcoat and pocket-protector led operations to blue collar IBEW led operations. Also, physical security needs to be built into these plants from go; the current levels of security staffing at commercial LWRs, which were built as undefended industrial sites, is a very visible burden that hurts competitiveness. We must get the jarheads OUT of the next generation nuclear plant.
You're screwed. Admit it.
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

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

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

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

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

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

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


How high can it go? The mess involving the first two new reactors in the US in decades doesn't bode well for new fission energy for Americans. Perhaps a series of smaller cookie-cutter modular reactors would have been a smarter move.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2831
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

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

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

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

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

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

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

At this rate perhaps the Chinese will start getting construction contracts for future units. They will end up shipping in parts and management and hiring skilled trades locally to assemble projects on time and on budget rather than playing these games modern western companies seem to love to play.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15413
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Korea delays completion of Shin Hanul-1-2 nuclear reactors
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4489
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Congress? Really? Or maybe the Russians will take a few hundred million to let us sink them off their northern coast.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2831
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

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

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


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

I have much greater confidence that the chinese will recognize the reality of the situation and take concrete steps to mitigate and prepare for their future.
User avatar
diemos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

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

As I also always say, Mao Lenin and Nehru should be considered heroes of western capitalism. By keeping half the population of the earth poor and backward they freed up resources for the west to exploit. Convincing them to abandon communism was the worst thing we ever did. We should have been encouraging them to "stay the course".
User avatar
diemos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delays developing new technology are not "delays", they are development time.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5520
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 23 Sep 2018, 14:34:16

I wonder if the allegations made in this article are true. If so what can be done to address the concerns? Thoughts?

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... utiny.html
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10454
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby M_B_S » Sun 23 Sep 2018, 19:32:34

Uranium Boom @the door?

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... 344801002/

With Trump in power it seems possible.

Peak Oil <=> Peak Uranium
I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.

M_B_S
User avatar
M_B_S
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3761
Joined: Sat 20 Aug 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Mon 24 Sep 2018, 18:08:31

onlooker wrote:I wonder if the allegations made in this article are true. If so what can be done to address the concerns? Thoughts?

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... utiny.html


I don't think there is a clear picture of the risk. The US is deliberately delaying destruction of its weapons grade fuel stocks and this is the main reason that Russia stopped the agreement aimed at controlling such fuel. So the US can store this fuel in conditions suited for its reuse in nuclear weapons on short notice. I suppose the spent fuel storage from the civilian power plant fleet is another subject since that is a private property issue and the US has a history of letting corporations do whatever they please.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5520
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Mon 24 Sep 2018, 18:16:55

M_B_S wrote:Uranium Boom @the door?

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... 344801002/

With Trump in power it seems possible.

Peak Oil <=> Peak Uranium


The US is downsizing its nuclear power generation capacity and has plenty of reactor fuel in stocks. The reason it is not mining as much Uranium as in the past is that it does not need it. We are seeing simple economics in action.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5520
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Thu 27 Sep 2018, 16:29:03

The Game-Of-Chicken Saga Continues:

Southern Is Said to Be Near Pact to Continue Building Nuke
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... of-chicken

Southern Co. is nearing an agreement with Oglethorpe Power Corp. and two other companies to continue working on the only nuclear power plant under construction in the U.S., according to people familiar with the matter.

Southern and its partners are trying to agree on provisions that would limit the potential impact of further cost increases for the troubled $28 billion Vogtle plant in Georgia, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the matter isn’t public. The deadline for a decision has been pushed back to 5 p.m. New York time Wednesday, said Terri Statham, an Oglethorpe spokesperson.

Oglethorpe said on Sept. 24 that it would only continue on the project -- which has doubled in price and is running more than five years behind schedule -- if future costs were capped. Southern initially rejected that demand but agreed to extend the talks. .....

.... Southern assumed responsibility for managing its construction of the project near Augusta, Georgia, after contractor Westinghouse Electric Co. went bankrupt last year.

Costs have ballooned from an initial budget of about $14.1 billion. Southern owns 46 percent of the project, and the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia has a 23 percent share. Dalton Utilities owns 1.6 percent.

Last week, the U.S. Energy Department warned Southern’s partners against pulling out of the project, saying it would prompt the government to demand repayment of about $5.6 billion in federal loans. ....


Initial cost estimates were closer to $10 billion, IIRC

In for a Penny,, In for a Pound:

All four of the Vogtle 3 & 4 co-owners vote to move forward with construction of nuclear expansion project

ATLANTA, Sept. 26, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- All four of the Vogtle 3 & 4 project co-owners (Georgia Power, Oglethorpe Power, MEAG Power and Dalton Utilities) have voted to continue construction of the two new nuclear units near Waynesboro, Ga.

"We are all pleased to have reached an agreement and to be moving forward with the construction of Vogtle Units 3 & 4 which is critical to Georgia's energy future," said the co-owners. "While there have been and will be challenges throughout this process, we remain committed to a constructive relationship with each other and are focused on reducing project risk and fulfilling our commitment to our customers."

In connection with the votes to continue construction, all four of the co-owners agreed to finalize and execute definitive agreements which helps mitigate financial exposure for each of them. The details are contained in Georgia Power's Current Report on Form 8-K filed today. ......

https://southerncompany.mediaroom.com/2 ... on-project


Meanwhile, static demand, cheaper renewables and the soaring costs give customers cold feet

JEA, City file lawsuit to break contract with firm behind nuclear money pit
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonvill ... y-pit.html

JEA and the City of Jacksonville have filed a joint complaint in Florida state court to void an agreement that compels JEA to purchase power from Plant Vogtle, an unfinished nuclear power facility in Georgia that has drastically exceeded expected construction costs.

JEA entered into the power purchase agreement in 2008 when energy demand was steadily growing and cleaner energy initiatives loomed over JEA's heavily coal-based portfolio. Since then, energy demand has stagnated as devices have become significantly more efficient, and natural gas, solar and other energy sources have become far more price competitive.

The agreement mandates that JEA purchase a fixed amount of power from the plant at above market rates or a lump sum if the plant never produces power. The plant was expected to cost $9.5 billion in direct costs to build, $1.4 billion of which would be paid by JEA.

However, the plant's cost-to-completion estimates now stand at more than $30 billion, and it is expected to be completed no earlier than November 2021. ......
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2831
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Thu 06 Dec 2018, 21:19:37

onlooker's Nuclear Fairy Tale is now officially over.

Bankrupt France's spiffy new reactor, the EPR, is a Colossal Financial Disaster, and will never be built again...

France grapples with its nuclear power dilemma

https://www.ft.com/content/c7421fbe-f32 ... f9881e729f

Quote:
If you think Britain has a tough job replacing its ageing fleet of nuclear reactors, spare a thought for France. The world champion of atomic energy is approaching a cliff edge in its electricity production. The bulk of its fleet of 58 nuclear reactors was built in a remarkable 15-year burst of construction in the 1980s and 1990s. France has not brought on stream a new reactor for 20 years. Even if the lives of its plants were extended from 40 to 60 years, in itself an expensive proposition, 75 per cent of its nuclear generating capacity would be gone by 2050.

The French government’s 10-year energy plan unveiled on Tuesday by President Emmanuel Macron was supposed to set a clear framework allowing EDF, the monopoly nuclear operator, to modernise its fleet and for renewables to take a bigger slice of electricity production. In the end, Mr Macron deferred many of the hard choices — but it was still a good result for EDF.

One of the big choices was how quickly to scale back nuclear, which accounted for 71 per cent of electricity generation last year. Environmentalists want faster decommissioning of older plants to encourage renewables. Some experts say plants should be taken offline sooner rather than later, to avoid leaving EDF with the monumental task of decommissioning scores of them at the same time.

The previous government passed a law in 2015 ordering a reduction of nuclear’s share of output to 50 per cent by 2025. Mr Macron ditched that commitment on Tuesday, saying he agreed with the objective but that it was “unattainable” before 2035. He rejected the notion that renewables would be held back. Dangling up to €30bn in state subsidies, he promised to triple the generating capacity of onshore wind and a fivefold increase in solar by the end of the next decade. EDF may be a nuclear giant but it is also France’s biggest supplier of renewable energy.

At the same time, the president said France would close 14 reactors by 2035, starting with the two oldest at Fessenheim, on the Rhine, in two years. This a little quicker than the utility would have liked. But the pace will be adaptable. It will depend in part on how much solar and wind energy other EU countries add to the grid, pushing down wholesale prices. Some plants could be shut down earlier if France scraps its remaining coal-fired stations. Paris wants to avoid Germany’s mistake of scaling back nuclear in a hurry only to burn more dirty lignite.

The government concluded that it would not need any new nuclear capacity before 2035, given the expected surge in renewables. It has put off any decision on building further European Pressurised Reactors, of the type under construction in Normandy and Finland, and planned for Hinkley Point in Britain, until 2021. Given that the new plant at Flamanville is eight years overdue and several billions of euros over budget, Paris understandably wants EDF to come up with ways of building cheaper EPRs before it starts rolling them out across the country.
Last edited by StarvingLion on Thu 06 Dec 2018, 21:23:10, edited 1 time in total.
You're screwed. Admit it.
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Thu 06 Dec 2018, 21:22:26

Bankrupt France has just informed Bankrupt Japan that "we don't know what the hell we are doing, so lets just shut'er down"

France to freeze fast-breeder nuclear reactor project

https://www.reuters.com/article/france- ... SL4N1Y41OU

Quote:
*The French government has informed Japan that it plans to freeze a next generation fast-breeder nuclear reactor project, the Nikkei business daily reported on Thursday.

* Japan, which has been cooperating with Paris on the fast-breeder development in France, has invested about 20 billion yen ($176.27 million) in the project, the report added.

* The French government will halt research into the Astrid (Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor for Industrial Demonstration) project in 2019, with no plans to allocate a budget from 2020 onwards, the report said, without citing sources.

* France was initially planning to invest 1 billion euros ($1.14 billion) into the project by 2019, before deciding whether to go ahead with construction by the mid-2020s, the report added.

* The freeze would be another blow to Japan’s nuclear ambitions after the country pulled the plug in 2016 on an $8.5 billion Monju prototype fast-breeder project designed to realise a long-term aim for energy self-sufficiency after decades of development.

* The nation’s nuclear industry is also still reeling from the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster in 2011.

* Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said on Thursday that he had not been informed that France had told Japan about a policy to freeze the project.

“We have been currently continuing discussions on cooperation on a fast-breeder reactor with France, and I have been informed that nothing has been decided,” he said in a regular news conference.

* French state nuclear agency CEA has said it proposed the French government scale down a planned prototype breeder reactor to 100-200 megawatts from 600 megawatts.

* Breeders can burn spent uranium fuel, plutonium and other nuclear waste products. Russia is the only nation to have working breeder reactors.
You're screwed. Admit it.
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Mon 07 Jan 2019, 21:29:10

People, fission reactors are not an energy device, they are a noose around the neck.

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201812270034.html

JAEA: Closing 79 nuclear facilities will cost at least 1.9 trillion yen

At least 1.9 trillion yen ($17.12 billion) will be needed for the planned scrapping of 79 nuclear facilities, including the failed Monju prototype fast-breeder reactor, according to the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA). However, the JAEA’s estimate, released on Dec. 26, does not include maintenance expenses for the facilities nor costs to deal with leftover uranium and plutonium, meaning the actual tally could increase by hundreds of billions of yen. State subsidies account for the bulk of the JAEA’s budget, so taxpayers will likely foot most of the bill. The agency plans to shut down 79 of its 89 nuclear facilities, including research reactors and test buildings, over 60 to 70 years due to aging and the huge costs needed for their continued operations under stricter safety standards. According to the JAEA’s estimate, the cost to decommission the Tokai spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Ibaraki Prefecture will be 770 billion yen. But the overall cost would reach nearly 1 trillion yen if expenses on dealing with highly radioactive liquid waste, which is left after plutonium is extracted from spent fuel rods at the plant, are included. The problem-plagued Monju prototype fast-breeder reactor in Tsuruga, Fukui Prefecture, cost taxpayers more than 1 trillion yen ($8.82 billion) despite running for only 250 days during its two-decade operation. The JAEA listed the decommissioning cost for Monju at 150 billion yen. But the decommissioning process is expected to take 30 years, and expenses needed to maintain the facility over that period would lift the overall cost to 375 billion yen. The JAEA’s annual budget is about 180 billion yen, but it has been shrinking, forcing the agency to find other sources of capital while continuing its research. According to the JAEA’s new budget plan, decommissioning work will start at 44 facilities by fiscal 2028 and proceed almost in parallel. But the JAEA currently has no plan on how to handle plutonium stored at the facilities. In addition, no decision has been made on what to do with radioactive waste from the 79 facilities that could fill more than 560,000 200-liter drums.
You're screwed. Admit it.
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: No Nukes - burn every hydrocarbon first!

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 08 Jan 2019, 22:15:16

asg70 wrote:8 year thread bumps accomplish little besides exposing more bad predictions. This one is wrong on multiple levels:

"Obamanation out of there, we will start building nuclear reactors. Caribou Barbie Palin will make sure of it."


Now there is a FINE example of a failed prediction, well done!
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15413
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Thu 17 Jan 2019, 11:10:06

Hitachi shelves $20 billion nuclear power plant in UK

Hitachi has shelved plans for a $20 billion nuclear power plant in the United Kingdom, raising questions over future energy supplies in the country.
The Japanese conglomerate said in a statement Thursday that it has stopped work on the project in Wales after failing to reach a deal with the British government.
Horizon Nuclear Power, the company's UK nuclear division, said the decision was made after several years of negotiations over financing with UK authorities failed to yield results.
Hitachi is the second big Japanese company to back away from the UK nuclear energy industry in recent months.

In November, Toshiba (TOSBF) said it would shut down its UK nuclear power operation NuGen early this year after failing to find a buyer.
The moves by Hitachi and Toshiba will make it harder for Britain to meet its targets to reduce carbon emissions. They also throw plans to replace the country's aging nuclear plants into disarray.
"The urgent need for further new nuclear capacity in the United Kingdom should not be underestimated," said Tom Greatrex, chief executive of Britain's Nuclear Industry Association. ......
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/17/business ... index.html


Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

Plant Vogtle a utility boondoggle

The construction of Plant Vogtle’s nuclear reactor units 3 and 4 has been a slow-motion disaster. Cost-overruns and repeated delays have marred the project. Developers are already five years behind schedule and $13 billion over budget.

The truth is that many of the issues plaguing Vogtle’s construction were easily foreseeable and, in a free market, an undertaking such as Plant Vogtle would likely never have transpired. That should tell you a lot about the project’s viability.

The power companies’ decision to proceed with the foolhardy construction is a symptom of Georgia’s problematic electricity market. Georgia permits electricity providers to maintain monopolies and shields them from competition. What this means for electricity consumers is that if they don’t like their provider or its prices, they are out of luck.

In such a setting, consumers are captive to local electricity monopolies. Thus, these companies have no incentive to provide top-notch customer service or competitive pricing to retain their customers. By comparison, in a competitive electricity market, businesses are forced to vie for consumers’ loyalties to remain profitable.

It seems unfathomable that in a free market, a company would embrace a massive and risky investment like Vogtle. Developers have abandoned over 20 nuclear sites in the South alone for various reasons, which should have been the first red flag. The plan also requires charging current ratepayers for the yet-to-be-finished reactors. In a competitive market, this would drive customers away as they flee to companies that offer lower prices. ......
https://www.savannahnow.com/opinion/201 ... boondoggle
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2831
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 9 (merged)

Unread postby EdwinSm » Fri 18 Jan 2019, 03:24:33

Only 5 years late...
Developers are already five years behind schedule and $13 billion over budget.


Finland's latest nuclear power plant is Eleven years late

The launch of Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 reactor has been postponed again. It is now to begin production in 2020, some 11 years behind schedule.

Ongoing testing will again postpone the commissioning of the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant’s third unit. The reactor in Eurajoki, south-west Finland, was originally to have begun producing electricity in 2009.
.....
The 1.6-gigawatt OL3 will become Finland’s fifth and biggest reactor. TVO’s largest shareholders .....

More than 2,000 people are still working at the OL3 site, with just over 300 from supplier Areva-Siemens overseeing the commissioning process along with staff from TVO.

As of last month, some about 90 percent of the structure’s 2,700 rooms had been completed.


https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/long-delayed_olkiluoto_3_nuclear_reactor_to_go_online_in_january_2020/10532547
EdwinSm
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu 07 Jun 2012, 03:23:59

Re: No Nukes - burn every hydrocarbon first!

Unread postby cephalotus » Mon 21 Jan 2019, 12:24:53

UK planned to build 6 nuclear reactors.

Hinkley C, built by the Chinese and promiesed a feed in tariff of 96 pounds/MWh + Inflation adjustment for 35 years, is now 8 years behind schedule.

Toshiba stoped ist nuclear power plant end of 2018, because it is not cost competitive
Hitachi cancelled ist plan early 2019 and lost 2.3 Billion Euro already, because it is not cost competitive.

The other three reactors will not be built, either.

So this is left from UKs 6.5GW nuclear plan. One single plant, built by the Chinese, many years behind schedule, way over any cost estimations which will produce electricity at 2-3 times higher prices compared to wind or solar power plants. (and unknown follow up costs and obviously no insurance against a major accident)
cephalotus
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 572
Joined: Tue 18 Sep 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Germany

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron