Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Nuclear Power  (Read 433783 times)

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« Reply #400 on: May 17, 2017, 07:01:54 PM »
I'm not sure what Hansen's current opinion is, considering recent advances in wind and solar. But in any case maybe it would be best to change the subject to simply "Nuclear Power"?

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9470
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: Nuclear power
« Reply #401 on: May 17, 2017, 08:00:25 PM »
Good idea (even though I like those quirky titles). Thread title changed to 'Nuclear power' now.
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #402 on: May 18, 2017, 07:05:43 AM »
This is from 2011...

Quote
In a recent essay posted online, NASA scientist James Hansen explains what he calls the "Easter Bunny" fantasy that we can adequately address climate change by providing subsidies for renewable energy sources and by increasing energy efficiency. As Hansen details, given current projections, subsidies alone have little chance of expanding wind and solar, yet environmentalists and many liberal political leaders continue to spread this gospel.

"It will be a tragedy if environmentalists allow the illusion of 'soft' energies to postpone demand for real solution of the energy, climate and national security problems. Solar power is just a small part of the solution. Subsidies yielding even its present tiny contribution may be unsustainable."

"As long as fossil fuels are cheap, they will be burned."


In April 2015 he softened his position a bit and included hydro with nuclear and pretty much dismissed wind and solar.

My search finds nothing new from him on the topic since then.

So how is Hansen's prediction ability when it comes to renewable energy?

"subsidies alone have little chance of expanding wind and solar"

Subsides have kicked off massive drops in the price of both wind and solar.  And we're seeing very rapid increases in wind and solar installation around the globe.  In China wind expanded to the point at which China is producing more electricity with wind than with nuclear.  Even though nuclear had a 20 year head start.

We're starting to see wind and solar farms being built as merchant plants.  No subsidy.  Competing on the open market at the wholesale level.  Mexico has built one merchant solar farm and is preparing to build a second.  Germany has received bids for offshore wind farms which will be non-subsidized merchant producers.

""As long as fossil fuels are cheap, they will be burned."

We're seeing decreases in fossil fuel use in countries that have aggressive wind and solar installation.  Coal plants are going out of business in Germany because renewables have lowered the market value of electricity.  Cheap is relative.  We used to think of fossil fuels as cheap sources of electricity but they are being pushed into the category of "not as cheap as".

Great climate scientist, that James Hansen.  Might not be that good a plumber or quarterback.  And I wouldn't hire him as an energy expert.

tombond

  • New ice
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #403 on: May 19, 2017, 01:38:29 AM »
German energy capacity factors (CF) for non-carbon energy sources for 2016 are calculated from the data in the link below.
 
https://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2017/Jahresauswertung_2016/Die_Energiewende_im_Stromsektor_2016_EN.pdf

40.3 GW of solar has a capacity factor of just 11%, producing 38.3 TWh of electricty (mean CF last 10 years is 10%) 

49.6 GW of wind has a capacity factor of just 18%,producing 79.8 TWh of electricity (mean CF for past 10 years is 18%)

5.6 GW of hydro produced 21.5 TWh of electricity for a capacity factor of 44%.

7.1 GW of biomass produced 51.7 TWh of electricity for a capacity factor of 83%.

10.8 GW of nuclear produced 84.9 TWh of electricity for a capacity factor of 90% (mean CF for past 10 years is 84%).

In 2016 total electricity CO2 emissions were 306 million tonnes, just 20 million tonnes less than 2000.   For total electricity generation of 648 TWh this gives CO2 emissions of 472g/kWh or 6 times higher than nuclear France.

Lessons learned

Nuclear is still the largest source of non carbon electricity.

Intermittent generation sources like wind and solar produce very little electricity, just 18% of total generation in 2016, requiring backup most of the time when the wind and sun are not, or only partially available.

Where this backup is fossil fuel, CO2 emissions are not significantly reduced.  This is the reason why the UK, with bipartisan agreement, is expanding its nuclear capacity.

No wonder James Hansen loves nuclear power!

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #404 on: May 19, 2017, 06:00:21 AM »
Lessons you are going to learn about Germany.

Nuclear will drop to zero by 2023.

Wind and solar will continue to increase.
---

Lessons you are going to learn about France.

France will close about 19 of its 58 reactors by 2025 and replace them with wind and solar.
---

Lessons you are going to learn about the UK.

If the government goes ahead with their nuclear plans the cost of electricity will rise in the UK. A lot. 

Hinkley Point's strike price is likely to be higher than their retail cost of electricity by the time it comes online.  UKers may get burned stronger than electricity consumers in South Carolina who have already seen their electricity price rise 30% just to pay for reactors that are only half built.  (And may not be finished.)
---

Tell Hansen to have  a nice day.  The energy world is going right along without his opinion.

tombond

  • New ice
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #405 on: May 25, 2017, 08:38:33 AM »
“Over the last decade, Germany has emerged as a clear leader in the fight against climate change” said Jungjohann, an advisor to the German Green Party, at a clean energy discussion in Ottawa, Ontario last week hosted by National Observer and the German embassy.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/05/23/news/step-one-get-fossil-fuel-money-out-politics-german-analyst-tells-ottawa

German electricity CO2 emissions in 2016 were 472g/kWh.
https://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2017/Jahresauswertung_2016/Die_Energiewende_im_Stromsektor_2016_EN.pdf

Divide electricity CO2 emissions of 306 million tonnes on page 49 by electricity generation of 648TWh on page 14 to get 472g/kWh.

Ontario’s electricity CO2 emissions are consistently less than 20g/kWh or 20 times less.
http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html

With anti-science, political beliefs like this dominating the CO2 emissions mitigation debate it is not surprising that CO2 atmospheric concentrations have risen from 350ppm 30 years ago, to over 400ppm today. 

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #406 on: May 25, 2017, 09:22:27 AM »
Germany was one of a couple of countries that helped bring the price of solar panels from expensive to very affordable.  Germany and Denmark are leading countries in establishing offshore wind.  That pretty much makes them leaders.

Germany peaked at 1077 million tonnes of CO2 emitted in 1980 and dropped that to 754 in 2015.



Germany really pisses off nuclear fans because Germany is closing their reactors.  I suspect it doubly pisses them off because Germany is widely regarded as one of world's most technologically advanced countries.

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 283
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #407 on: May 25, 2017, 03:11:21 PM »
Lessons we are going to learn today: how to calculate the average of two numbers. Example:

A: 44.6 GW (installed wind capacity in Germany at the end of 2015)
B: 49.6 GW (installed wind capacity in Germany at the end of 2016)
Average of A and B:
(A + B)/2 = (44.6+49.6)/2 = 47.1 GW

We can now use the average obtained (average installed wind capacity in 2016) to calculate the actual capacity factor of wind in 2016: 19.3%.

Same can of course be done for solar. In the case of nuclear, the installed capacity fell, I think (it's not specifically stated in the document that Tom linked to, but generation went down quite sharply). This means that your capacity factor is too high for nuclear.

Seriously Tom, there's nothing wrong with making the case for nuclear power, and there is a case to be made, but at least try to use accurate figures. Also, stop repeating lies like "Where this backup is fossil fuel, CO2 emissions are not significantly reduced." There are lots of real-life studies (some cited in this forum) showing that for every MWh of renewable electricity produced, almost exactly one MWh using some other fuel source (generally fossil) is not generated, and that CO2 emissions are reduced by an equivalent amount. A lot of modelling has also been done, see e.g.:

http://www.powermag.com/nrel-finds-greater-cycling-from-renewable-penetration-does-not-significantly-increase-emissions/
« Last Edit: May 25, 2017, 04:14:45 PM by BenB »

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #408 on: May 25, 2017, 04:58:16 PM »
A significant amount of the increase in renewables in Germany has resulted in increased electricity exports, rather than shutting down fossil fuel generation. The reduction in emissions per unit of electricity has also tended to stall in the past decade (as reductions in nuclear offset increases in renewables), although seems to have picked up again in the past year or so (judging from Bob's chart).







With the shutdown of the remaining nuclear reactors, new additions of renewables will tend to be carbon neutral until all the reactors are closed in 2022 (one low carbon source replaced by another). If the focus is carbon emissions, Germany should be shutting down coal and lignite before nuclear.
I am agnostic with respect to nuclear, especially where there are in place, well run, nuclear generation facilities. Which seems to be the case in Germany. There needs to be a case by case analysis.

- The UK has dug itself into a ridiculously expensive hole with its nuclear plans.
- The Canadian province of Ontario is also committing a serious error in spending $10 billions refurbishing their old reactors, rather than buying renewable energy from Quebec.
- Will China build out nuclear at a much lower cost level? I don't know, but I am waiting to see. Hopefully, none of the reactors are too close to sea level.

The true leaders right now seem to be China, given their seeming ability to grow very rapidly while not increasing their emissions.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2017, 05:17:44 PM by rboyd »

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #409 on: May 25, 2017, 07:30:04 PM »
Quote
A significant amount of the increase in renewables in Germany has resulted in increased electricity exports, rather than shutting down fossil fuel generation.

A probable attribution error in addition to a factual error.  Factually, German fossil fuel generation has dropped.  Germany has several coal plants lined up for closure.  And one brand new coal plant that has never been fired up and most likely never will be.

The increase in export is likely due to Germany's dropping wholesale cost of electricity.  Remember how the aluminum smelter in The Netherlands threatened to go into bankruptcy if it was not allowed to purchase less expensive electricity from Germany?

While the fossil fuel industry is claiming that renewables are causing Germany to dump electricity at a loss, Germany continues to show a healthy and increasing profit from its exports and imports of electricity.

Quote
Germany should be shutting down coal and lignite before nuclear.

That's a value judgement that is not shared by the German people.  They want to both lower carbon emissions and lower their exposure to nuclear disaster.

Quote
The true leaders right now seem to be China, given their seeming ability to grow very rapidly while not increasing their emissions.

Don't forget how dirty China became as it grew up until recently.  Now China's need for additional electricity is leveling off and they are able to close down some coal use.  From 2014 to 2015 China's electricity production rose only 0.3%.

(And don't forget that the economics for nuclear are not applicable in the West or any other region/country that does not have a source of very cheap labor.)

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #410 on: May 25, 2017, 10:04:28 PM »
Bob, my point is that the exports are rescuing the coal plants (as well as the reduced nuclear output). Instead of those coal plants getting replaced with the increase in renewables. There is still 85 terawatt-hours of nuclear output to replace by 2022, before any new renewable output can replace hard coal and lignite.

Hopefully exports will also fall, allowing for an actual reduction in fossil fuel use. The other possibility is that coal+gas plant utilization goes up as some plants are closed (capacity goes down but output stays up due to higher capacity utilization). Also wholesale prices may be higher a few years from now after the take out of so much capacity so some incentive to "tough it out" for the fossil fuel generators for now. A case of who blinks first it seems:

"By 2023, power prices in Germany should be much higher than today if so much fossil and nuclear capacity is removed—and if the government sticks to its plans to cut the growth of renewable power by two-thirds. The market would then reward whatever plant managed to stay open. It’s yet another example of a market incentive that is counterproductive in terms of the climate. That’s the bad news."

https://energytransition.org/2016/10/germanys-last-new-coal-plant/

As per the chart below, the reduction in fossil fuel generation in Germany (nat. gas., hard coal and lignite) has been pretty minimal over the past few years. Hard coal + lignite is pretty much flat since 2010. The German's can decide what they want to, and I can have the opinion that they are bloody stupid not to do fossil fuels first given the relative safety of their nuclear industry.

The Germans are growing their economy at 1-2% a year and not reducing emissions significantly, the Chinese are growing at 6-7% per year and holding emissions steady (and at a much lower level of economic development).




« Last Edit: May 25, 2017, 10:26:42 PM by rboyd »

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #411 on: May 25, 2017, 10:36:18 PM »
Put a floating nuclear power plant just off one of the remotest parts of the Arctic coast, what could go wrong?

"Once in Pevek, even greater concerns bloom. Bellona has long maintained that the port’s far-flung location makes the floating plant a sitting duck for terrorists. Any accidents aboard the Akademik Lomonosov in such a remote location, where proper containment would be difficult, would be withering for the environment."

http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2017-04-russias-first-nuclear-power-plant-begins-tests-but-when-will-it-get-fueled

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #412 on: May 25, 2017, 10:43:45 PM »
Oh, hell.  Russia has already sunk some reactors off their beaches.  What's a few more hunks of radioactive junk in the ocean?

Some people get so worked up over radiation that isn't in their backyard. I mean, if I've got mine why should I care about anyone else? 

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #413 on: May 25, 2017, 11:07:17 PM »
Put a floating nuclear power plant just off one of the remotest parts of the Arctic coast, what could go wrong?

"Once in Pevek, even greater concerns bloom. Bellona has long maintained that the port’s far-flung location makes the floating plant a sitting duck for terrorists. Any accidents aboard the Akademik Lomonosov in such a remote location, where proper containment would be difficult, would be withering for the environment."

http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2017-04-russias-first-nuclear-power-plant-begins-tests-but-when-will-it-get-fueled


I believe these are similar/same reactors as used in the Russian icebreaker fleet. They seem to have proven themselves over a long period & it would take an exceptionally brave and well equipped terrorist organization to mount an attack so far North and so far into Russian territory.
The Ukrainian reactors that are/were being fueled with experimental Westinghouse fuel rods may be of much greater concern.
Terry

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #414 on: May 26, 2017, 05:19:58 PM »
How are the tariffs on Chinese solar panels working out?


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026481720400193X


Earlier tariffs of 250% couldn't keep Suniva alive, although it did double the costs for solar panels.


If the Eu and the US are hoping to keep solar viable by raising the costs of Chinese solar, won't this serve to slow the growth of the solar industry? The local jobs are in installation and maintenance, not building the components.


Solar World - Germany and the Eu's largest solar company just filed for insolvency.


http://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/renewable/solarworld-collapses-as-europes-solar-industry-eclipsed-by-china/58628608


Terry


sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #415 on: May 26, 2017, 09:33:30 PM »
A compendium of nuke links:

Westinghouse locks out union at reactor parts factory, borrows 800million as debtor in possesion bankruptcy:

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/westinghouse-locks-out-union-workers-at-nuclear-reactor-parts-factory/443397/

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/westinghouse-reaches-deal-to-tap-800m-in-loans-during-bankruptcy/443400/

Exelon nukes fail to clear auction:

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/pjm-capacity-auction-2-exelon-nukes-fail-to-clear-as-dr-reels-from-new-per/443416/

detail at

https://www.rtoinsider.com/pjm-capacity-auction-capacity-performance-emaac-43440/

That last link is full of juicy bits.

A new paper on NRC regulatory capture, and underestimation of fuelpond fire risk:

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-nuclear-greatly-underestimate-potential-disaster.html

paper at doi:10.1126/science.aal4890

" ... NRC cost-benefit analysis—unreasonably, in our view—excluded accident consequences beyond 50 miles and underestimated consequences in a number of other ways (4). In response to a petition by the state of New York, the NRC acknowledged that its assumption in such calculations, that virtually all the relocated population could return home within less than a year, was inconsistent with the experience in Japan, where some of the relocated population is just beginning to return after 6 years (8)."

"This is the well-known phenomenon of “regulatory capture.” Former U.S. Senator Pete Domenici described how he curbed the NRC’s regulatory reach by threatening to cut its budget by one-third."

"If a spent fuel–pool fire were to occur, however, under the Price-Anderson Act of 1957, the nuclear industry would be liable only for damages up to $13.6 billion, leaving the public to deal with damages exceeding that amount (15). A fire in a dense-packed fuel pool could cause trillions of dollars in damages (9)."

And Trump appoints people to the NRC just in time to keep quorum:

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/facing-quorum-shortfall-trump-taps-3-nominees-for-nuclear-regulatory-commi/443428/

sidd
« Last Edit: May 27, 2017, 06:33:44 AM by sidd »

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #416 on: May 26, 2017, 09:56:43 PM »
Can you imagine what could happen to buildings in a city left unoccupied for six years?

Roofing leaks, broken windows, larger thermal shifts, flooded basements, rodent damage - stuff that requires expensive repairs.  It would not be 'wait six years and move back in'.

And I'm assuming guards could keep out the urban scavengers from ripping out wiring and copper pipe.  From stealing anything aluminum.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #417 on: May 27, 2017, 01:59:00 AM »
I can't imagine why anyone would object to having a nuclear plant built by non union workers hired by an already bankrupt company in their back yard.
I wonder how many years it takes to train a certified boilermaker, and how many of them there are that haven't joined the union?


Terry
BTW That 6 year time period is when some of the people are beginning to return to some villages near Fukushima, even though radiation levels are still high.


http://www.dw.com/en/fukushima-nuclear-disaster-evacuees-pressured-to-return-to-contaminated-homes-says-greenpeace/a-37639353

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #418 on: May 27, 2017, 02:51:06 AM »
Westinghouse nuclear fuel assemblies were dumped by Finland and Czech after safety concerns and reported failure rates 1.5 times their competitors.


https://nuclear-news.net/2017/04/14/problems-in-europe-with-westinghouse-nuclear-fuel-assemblies/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ukraine_Nuclear_Power_Plant


An American judge denied Westinghouse's request to use some of the bail out moneys in their European operations, which limits Westinghouse's ability to resolve problems with their fuel rod assemblies.
Ukraine is now the only country still trying to fit Westinghouse fuel rods into Russian or Soviet built reactors. This may not end well.


Terry

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #419 on: May 27, 2017, 08:41:13 AM »
I shudder to think of Ukraine, a country in partial collapse (war, inflation) maintaining nuclear reactors.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #420 on: May 29, 2017, 01:15:35 AM »
Even worse for the Ukraine if Russia gets one of the gas pipelines done that will allow it to bypass the Ukraine. No more transit fee revenue, nor the ability to steal the gas when they can't pay. The only expanding industries in the Ukraine will then be emigration, security and money laundering services.

The money required to keep those reactors properly safe may not be a priority.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #421 on: May 30, 2017, 07:00:56 PM »
Even worse for the Ukraine if Russia gets one of the gas pipelines done that will allow it to bypass the Ukraine. No more transit fee revenue, nor the ability to steal the gas when they can't pay. The only expanding industries in the Ukraine will then be emigration, security and money laundering services.

The money required to keep those reactors properly safe may not be a priority.


When Pro-Nazi brigades suddenly shut off power to Crimea, they ignored or were unaware of the fact that their nuclear reactors were also taken off grid. This required emergency back up power for the reactor banks until power could be restored. The regiment that had snipped the lines battled with other troops trying to restore power to the reactors. Safety wasn't a concern to those goose stepping towards glory.


The Bandera deifying government in Kiev continues to prefer buying accident prone fuel rods from a bankrupt company that can no longer afford R&D, to the Russian made fuel rods that the reactors were designed to run on. If/when these blow it will make Chernobyl look like a firecracker.


The biggest problem that I can imagine is that Russia, seeing in immanent threat to her citizens from improperly run reactors, decides to take over the reactors for safety reasons & is then attacked by the West for her "expansionist" policies.


Seriously, what is Putin's path forward if nuclear plants on his borders ignore safety warnings and thereby threaten the life and health of millions of Russians? He can use diplomatic channels to warn Kiev of the problems her reactors are causing. He could offer free fuel and maintenance of the power plant, or he could attack, repair, and maintain the reactors to rid the region of the problem.
Kiev has already been warned. I don't believe Russia will offer free fuel and maintenance, nor do I believe Kiev would accept, which leaves Putin to either ignore the situation or to risk a war with the West while keeping Europe's largest reactor plant from blowing itself up.


Terry

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #422 on: May 30, 2017, 07:14:56 PM »
Closer to home, it seems as though Three Mile Island is claiming they need government funding to stay on line.


http://www.philly.com/philly/business/energy/exelon-says-it-will-shut-tmi-in-2-years-20170530.html


If the owner, Exelon, doesn't get a "bailout", who will pay the shut down costs?


It boggles my mind to think that an up and running nuclear plant can't make a profit in the modern electrical market. If a running plant is that costly, how can new facilities even be contemplated?


The time for large nuclear facilities seems to be past. The tiny Russian models may have a role in powering small, remote locations, but the nuclear future that many predicted simply won't come to pass.


Terry

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #423 on: May 30, 2017, 09:22:02 PM »
Three mile island. Who pays cleanup costs for the next 10,000 years ?
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #424 on: May 31, 2017, 03:20:51 AM »
Closer to home, it seems as though Three Mile Island is claiming they need government funding to stay on line.


http://www.philly.com/philly/business/energy/exelon-says-it-will-shut-tmi-in-2-years-20170530.html


If the owner, Exelon, doesn't get a "bailout", who will pay the shut down costs?


It boggles my mind to think that an up and running nuclear plant can't make a profit in the modern electrical market. If a running plant is that costly, how can new facilities even be contemplated?


The time for large nuclear facilities seems to be past. The tiny Russian models may have a role in powering small, remote locations, but the nuclear future that many predicted simply won't come to pass.


Terry

Fitzpatrick, Oyster Creek and Quad Cities reactors were all scheduled to close.  Then they got government subsidies to stay open. 

Some try to claim that the subsidies were given in order to keep low carbon electricity online.  I call BS to that.  What was happening is that there was a lot of local unhappiness about job losses.  At least one small town relied on the nuclear plant for almost all of it's non-governmental jobs.

I guess the environment benefits.  As long as one of these old dogs doesn't fall apart and start spewing nasty stuff.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #425 on: June 05, 2017, 12:05:06 AM »
Ten new nuclear reactors went online in 2016, bringing capacity to highest level ever

"Ten new nuclear reactors began generating electricity in 2016, which brought net nuclear capacity to the highest level in history, according to the 2017 edition of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Nuclear Power Reactors in the World report.

As of December 31, 2016, 448 reactors were operating worldwide with a net capacity of 391 gigawatts (GW) of electricity.

This is the second year in a row that 10 reactors came online, which is the highest number since the 1980s, according to the report."

https://dailyenergyinsider.com/news/5426-ten-new-nuclear-reactors-went-online-2016-bringing-capacity-highest-level-ever/

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #426 on: June 05, 2017, 12:11:03 AM »
Ten new nuclear reactors went online in 2016, bringing capacity to highest level ever


I wonder where they were located and if they replaced coal?
Terry

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #427 on: June 05, 2017, 01:26:38 AM »
Quote
As of December 31, 2016, 448 reactors were operating worldwide with a net capacity of 391 gigawatts (GW) of electricity.



Last July there were 402 reactors, globally.  How did we add ten and end up with 448?  And how did we get from 348 GW to 391 GW with ten additional reactors?  I really don't think there are any 4+ GW reactors.

Russia closed  one reactor in Dec 2016.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #428 on: June 05, 2017, 05:49:02 AM »
Might have figured it out.   The International Atomic Energy Agency whose database was used for the  " 448 reactors were operating worldwide with a net capacity of 391 gigawatts (GW)" includes 42 reactors in Japan.

Only three of Japan's reactors are operating.  Two more have been approved for restart but are being blocked in court by public opposition to restarting.

Creative counting....
---

Scheduled to come online in 2017 = 3
Scheduled to come online in 2018 = 5
Scheduled to come online in 2019 = 1
Scheduled to come online in 2020 = 1
---

The linked article says "operating".

"As of December 31, 2016, 448 reactors were operating worldwide with a net capacity of 391 gigawatts (GW) of electricity."

The database they link as their supportive documentation says "operational".  The database claims that all Japan's reactors are operational.  It's pretty clear that several will not be restarted due to public opposition.




« Last Edit: June 05, 2017, 06:15:15 AM by Bob Wallace »

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #429 on: June 05, 2017, 08:01:41 PM »
Thanks for the detective work Bob, seems that they like to spin the information a bit to get the most positive view.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #430 on: June 07, 2017, 05:49:46 AM »
I went a round or two with some anti-renewable folks on another site.  For the most part just the same old stuff.  Myths and misinformation.  But one new claim popped up, new to me at least.

When Germany closes its last reactor in 2022 the country will have to rely on coal produced electricity from Poland to keep their grid operating. 

Of course, no data.  So I dug some up.  I'm working from the 2016 BP Statistical Review of Global Energy so the data stops at the end of 2015. 

Anyway, in 2015 Germany consumed 91.5 TWh of nuclear produced electricity.  By the end of 2022 they will have to replace that or go begging.

In 2015 Germany generated 30.6 TWh more electricity than they did in 2014.  2015 wasn't a great year for solar in Germany but over the three previous years Germany added an average of 5.5 TWh of solar generation per year.

Looks like Germany has the potential to add at least 35 TWh of new generation per year with wind and solar. 

Germany has seven years from the end of 2015 to 2022 to replace 91.5 TWh.  They'd need to add only 17 TWh per year to replace the last of their reactors.  Looks like they can cover that and reduce fossil fuel use as well.

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1455
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #431 on: June 07, 2017, 12:55:18 PM »
They will probably need to add more than that as the combined service factor of solar and wind is less than nuclear.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #432 on: June 07, 2017, 04:31:51 PM »
They will probably need to add more than that as the combined service factor of solar and wind is less than nuclear.

What does "combined service factor" mean?

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1455
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #433 on: June 07, 2017, 04:42:05 PM »
Peak Solar is around midday, peak wind is early in morning and evening. You need both on the grid to maximize output. As a system ( solar + wind ) they will have a system or combine service factor. Actual capacity = Nominal capacity x service factor.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #434 on: June 07, 2017, 04:54:03 PM »
I've never heard "service factor" used in relation to the grid.  Only having to do with engine/motor use.

You're talking about time of delivery issues.  I don't see any value in computing an "Actual value" by simply multiplying CF by "service factor".  What the grid needs and when it needs it is much more complex.

We don't know, for example, how much dispatchable load Germany may have or be able to develop over the next half dozen years.  We also don't know how used their current storage systems are. We don't know when they need power, the current nuclear late night output may be either needed or unneeded.  We don't know how much dispatchable generation Germany has that they can bring into play.

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1455
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #435 on: June 07, 2017, 05:18:12 PM »
The service factor is used with for the power sources. What percentage of the time it will be producing electricity and st what capacity. Usually one needs extra available generation capacity to account for variability outages etc. so replacing 100 MW nuclear with solar and wind + dispachabgle NG, will require >100 MW installed capacity to reliably replace nuclear.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #436 on: June 07, 2017, 07:33:08 PM »
The service factor is used with for the power sources. What percentage of the time it will be producing electricity and st what capacity. Usually one needs extra available generation capacity to account for variability outages etc. so replacing 100 MW nuclear with solar and wind + dispachabgle NG, will require >100 MW installed capacity to reliably replace nuclear.

We all know that the CF for wind and solar is lower than for nuclear.  My comment included only electricity produced, not nameplate capacity.

Replacing 91.5 TWh (2015) nuclear production will take 91.5 TWh of increased wind and solar production.  I presented that math.

It may mean that more storage will need to be added, but shutting down nuclear should free up about 40 TWh of pump-up hydro storage.  It may mean using existing dispatchable fossil fuel generation at different times than now.  It may mean finding new ways to time-shift demand. 

There may be no need for additional NG or coal to be burned.  Very unlikely any additional NG capacity will need to be added, seeing how the use of existing NG plants is dropping.
---

Edited for big mistake.  Germany has about 40 GWh, not TWh of PuHS.

« Last Edit: June 08, 2017, 04:04:47 AM by Bob Wallace »

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 283
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #437 on: June 19, 2017, 06:15:22 PM »
South Korea's new president plans to phase out nuclear power over the next decade or so:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/19/new-south-korean-president-vows-to-end-use-of-nuclear-power

As South Korea is a big user of nuclear power, this will make it significantly more difficult for nuclear power to make a big net contribution to meeting the world's growing demand for electricity.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #438 on: June 19, 2017, 07:59:12 PM »
Analysis Shows U.S. Nuclear Plants Losing $2.9 Billion Annually

"Nicholas Steckler, an analyst for BNEF, in a June 14 report said nuclear operators are losing about $2.9 billion a year. Steckler said nuclear plants are being paid $20/MWh to $30/MWh for their electricity, while their generation costs an average of $35/MWh.

The report says 34 of 61 U.S. nuclear plants are in the red. Steckler specifically cited merchant nuclear plants owned by FirstEnergy Corp., Entergy Corp., and Exelon."

"Five U.S. nuclear plants have closed since 2013 and another six have plans to close by 2025, according to Environmental Progress, a group that supports nuclear power as a zero-emissions source of energy."

http://www.powermag.com/analysis-shows-u-s-nuclear-plants-losing-2-9-billion-annually/

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #439 on: June 19, 2017, 08:38:06 PM »
34 out of 61 plants.  Anyone have a breakdown of those plants in terms of how many reactors per plant?

My understanding is that the single reactor plants are the ones most in trouble.  With a couple of reactors some fixed costs can be shared.  The more MWh you produce the thinner you can spread the cost of a guard at the gate per MWh.

As for the reactors to be closed, we're seeing some of them being bailed out via state/local subsidies.  The nuclear industry is talking about subsidies for low carbon electricity.  But my reading of local papers during the process leads me to think that it's mostly about saving jobs in the Rust Belt where unemployment is still a problem (and a political hot potato).

Sciguy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1969
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 188
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #440 on: June 20, 2017, 07:25:43 PM »
34 out of 61 plants.  Anyone have a breakdown of those plants in terms of how many reactors per plant?

My understanding is that the single reactor plants are the ones most in trouble.  With a couple of reactors some fixed costs can be shared.  The more MWh you produce the thinner you can spread the cost of a guard at the gate per MWh.

As for the reactors to be closed, we're seeing some of them being bailed out via state/local subsidies.  The nuclear industry is talking about subsidies for low carbon electricity.  But my reading of local papers during the process leads me to think that it's mostly about saving jobs in the Rust Belt where unemployment is still a problem (and a political hot potato).

There are some good stats about US nuclear power plants at this website: https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/US-Nuclear-Power-Plants

The 61 power plants in the US have 99 reactors:

- 26 are single reactor plants
- 32 plants have two reactors
- 3 plants have three reactors

There are four new reactors under construction.  Vogtle in GA would go from two to four reactors if they are completed (Westinghouse's bankruptcy puts that in doubt).  Summer in SC would go from 1 to 3.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9470
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #441 on: June 20, 2017, 11:37:23 PM »
Welcome, Ken Feldman. Your profile has been released, so you can post freely now.
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #442 on: June 21, 2017, 01:17:26 AM »
34 out of 61 plants.  Anyone have a breakdown of those plants in terms of how many reactors per plant?

My understanding is that the single reactor plants are the ones most in trouble.  With a couple of reactors some fixed costs can be shared.  The more MWh you produce the thinner you can spread the cost of a guard at the gate per MWh.

As for the reactors to be closed, we're seeing some of them being bailed out via state/local subsidies.  The nuclear industry is talking about subsidies for low carbon electricity.  But my reading of local papers during the process leads me to think that it's mostly about saving jobs in the Rust Belt where unemployment is still a problem (and a political hot potato).

There are some good stats about US nuclear power plants at this website: https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/US-Nuclear-Power-Plants

The 61 power plants in the US have 99 reactors:

- 26 are single reactor plants
- 32 plants have two reactors
- 3 plants have three reactors

There are four new reactors under construction.  Vogtle in GA would go from two to four reactors if they are completed (Westinghouse's bankruptcy puts that in doubt).  Summer in SC would go from 1 to 3.

Thanks.  That suggests that most single reactor plants are either going to close or will need subsidies in order to stay in operation.  What I've read is "about 25%" of all US reactors are at risk of bankruptcy.


rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #443 on: June 21, 2017, 05:53:56 AM »
Hinkley Point Likely to Be Only New UK Nuclear Plant-SSE CEO

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/06/19/business/19reuters-britain-nuclear.html?_r=0

tombond

  • New ice
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #444 on: June 24, 2017, 03:11:23 AM »
The world map showing electricity emissions has been updated with some new countries and states including my own state of Western Australia.

https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=map

I regularly check emissions of the various countries and notice that economies with high penetration of firm low carbon capacity like hydro, nuclear and biomass are consistently green with CO2 emissions less than 100g/kWh, and very often below 50g/kWh.
 
By comparison countries with high penetration of intermittent low carbon capacity like wind and solar backed by fossil fuel capacity are nearly always yellow or brown with CO2 emissions much higher, usually about 300g/kWh to 500g/kWh.

This is not surprising as the UK report below  shows that to achieve CO2 emissions less than 100g/kWh using intermittent low carbon capacity like wind and solar requires the backing of firm low carbon capacity sources like hydro and nuclear.

http://erpuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ERP-Flex-Man-Full-Report.pdf

This is the reason why since 2005 the UK has a bipartisan agreement with the major political parties to include nuclear as part of their long term CO2 emissions reduction strategy.   

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #445 on: June 24, 2017, 05:44:19 AM »
Soooo, if a you saw a two-month-old child and noticed he couldn't do what his teenage brother could, would you conclude that it the infant was always going to be useless to do anything.

That's pretty much the level of absurdity of your comparison.

How long have nukes and hydro been major players on the world energy stage (supplied over ~1% of global electricity)?

Now think about how recently wind has gained that status and that by some accounts has not even reached that level (making it more like a fetus than even a two month old in the above analogy!).

Also note how quickly wind and solar are growing and that most other sources, including nuclear, mostly aren't.

Things are changing very rapidly in the energy sector and pointing at the current status of any of these sources doesn't really tell you much about what the capabilities will be in ten or even five years. 
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #446 on: June 24, 2017, 06:32:19 AM »
The world map showing electricity emissions has been updated with some new countries and states including my own state of Western Australia.

https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=map

I regularly check emissions of the various countries and notice that economies with high penetration of firm low carbon capacity like hydro, nuclear and biomass are consistently green with CO2 emissions less than 100g/kWh, and very often below 50g/kWh.
 
By comparison countries with high penetration of intermittent low carbon capacity like wind and solar backed by fossil fuel capacity are nearly always yellow or brown with CO2 emissions much higher, usually about 300g/kWh to 500g/kWh.

This is not surprising as the UK report below  shows that to achieve CO2 emissions less than 100g/kWh using intermittent low carbon capacity like wind and solar requires the backing of firm low carbon capacity sources like hydro and nuclear.

http://erpuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ERP-Flex-Man-Full-Report.pdf

This is the reason why since 2005 the UK has a bipartisan agreement with the major political parties to include nuclear as part of their long term CO2 emissions reduction strategy.

I think you need to think it through a bit more, Tom.

Countries started installing hydro 130+ years ago.  Countries started installing nuclear 50+ years ago.  Both hydro and nuclear have a huge, huge head start on wind and solar. 



Now let's look at how rapidly each has grown after passing the 20 TWh threshold.





Wind seems to be keeping its rapid growth pattern at the point nuclear began to slow.  Solar is leaving them both in the dust, off the starting line.

Those lines represent fossil fuels not burned. 

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #447 on: June 28, 2017, 04:39:08 PM »
Does anyone have some insight about why there's been an apparent change of course in South Korea with nuclear energy?

 I had viewed SK as one of the countries which was likely to continue building reactors for the next few years.  There was a problem with faked safety certificates for some reactor parts but I have heard nothing about that causing an anti-nuclear movement.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #448 on: June 28, 2017, 08:57:40 PM »
New South Korean president vows to end use of nuclear power

The new President is a major change from his predecessors, both relatively left-leaning and anti-nuclear. Talks about the Fukushima disaster and what it would mean if it happened in South Korea.His campaign pledges included reducing nuclear power and coal use (South Korea is a big importer of US coal).

"Moon Jae-in said he would lead country towards a ‘nuclear-free era’ following fears of a Fukushima-style meltdown

Moon added that he would not extend the operation of ageing reactors, many of which will come to the end of their lifespans between 2020 and 2030.

Weaning South Korea off nuclear power, however, could take decades, and there is expected to be opposition from construction companies, which have increased technology exports under Moon’s nuclear-friendly predecessors. The country was the fifth-largest producer of nuclear energy last year, according to the World Nuclear Association, with its 25 reactors generating about a third of its electricity.

The former president Lee Myung-bak saw nuclear as an important source of clean energy, while Park wanted to increase the number of reactors to 36 by 2029. Moon recognised the role of nuclear power in South Korea’s rapid economic development, but added that Japan’s Fukushima disaster – which prompted the evacuation of tens of thousands of people – had convinced him that his country must look to new sources of energy.

The public’s support for nuclear power has weakened since the 2011 Fukushima meltdown and a 2013 corruption scandal over fake safety certificates for reactor parts.

He also plans to close at least 10 ageing coal-fired power plants before his term ends in 2022 and to boost renewables’ share of the energy mix to 20% by 2030"

Plans are for a big increase in hydro dams and the use of natural gas (more LNG imports in South East Asia). Even by 2030 though, coal and nuclear will provide 22% of the electricity supply each. So how much will this really reduce South Korea's carbon emissions, especially if we account for fugitive methane emissions from natural gas?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/19/new-south-korean-president-vows-to-end-use-of-nuclear-power

P.S. The South Korean "Train to Busan" is the best zombie movie I have seen.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 09:05:19 PM by rboyd »

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #449 on: June 28, 2017, 09:12:34 PM »
See you in court: how the South African public sued the nuclear sector and won

Very secret and corrupt process by which South Africa agreed to buy nuclear from Russia exposed and reversed by court judgement. Now the procurement process has to start again, may be the end of nuclear in South Africa.

https://energytransition.org/2017/06/nuclear-deal-sa/