Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Nuclear Power  (Read 247750 times)

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5551
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 749
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #850 on: August 05, 2018, 07:54:15 PM »
Rivers too warm too warm for nuclear plant cooling in France.

"[EDF] extended outages at the 900 megawatt (MW) Bugey 2 and St. Alban 1 nuclear reactors until Aug. 11. "

"Production was reduced by 665 MW at the 900 MW Bugey 3, and by 300 MW at its 900 MW Fessenheim 2 reactor."

"On Friday, water temperature rose to over 26 degrees Celsius (78.8°F) upstream the Rhine River where Fessenheim is located. On the Rhone, the water temperature was also at 26 degrees"

https://www.reuters.com/article/france-nuclearpower-heatwave/french-nuclear-production-reduced-by-31-gw-due-to-heatwave-rte-idUSL5N1UU5JG

sidd

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5551
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 749
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #851 on: August 10, 2018, 01:34:01 AM »
Add another billion:

"Southern originally estimated it would pay $7.3 billion to complete Units 3 and 4 at Vogtle after taking over construction from contractor Westinghouse following its bankruptcy last year. That estimate is now $8.4 billion, the companies said in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, taking the full price to more than $27 billion."

Gee, soon we'll be talkin real money.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/southern-increases-vogtle-nuke-pricetag-by-11-billion/529682/

sidd

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1331
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 250
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #852 on: August 10, 2018, 03:57:11 AM »
Southern was also responsible for the $7.5 billion Kemper Coal Gasification Plant fiasco, seems they will do anything but install large amounts of wind and solar - no matter what the cost! Imagine what over $30 billion dollars would have done for wind and solar!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/02/clean-coal-america-kemper-power-plant

Had to sell a third of its small solar portfolio to help raise some needed cash

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/southern-co-unit-to-sell-33-of-solar-assets-for-12b/524273/

Not exactly huge in wind either

https://www.southerncompany.com/newsroom/2018/aug-2018/cactus-flats-wind-facility-operational.html

martalunde68

  • New ice
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #853 on: August 18, 2018, 10:34:18 AM »
Russia has begun to load the first reactor of its floating nuclear power plant Akademik Lomonosov in Murmansk. After being fuelled, the FNPP will be towed east through the Arctic to the Pacific port of Pevek in Chukotka (roughly in the summer of 2019). But until then, it will remain in Murmansk, causing concerns of many environmental organizations.

As you know, on its journey from St. Petersburg to Murmansk in April/May 2018 the FNPP faced a wave of criticism from environmentalists (e.g. Greenpeace protests (https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/16305/greenpeace-escort-protests-worlds-first-purpose-built-floating-nuclear-power-plant/)), who dubbed it "the floating Chernobyl", "the nuclear Titanic", "Chernobyl-on-ice" and so on… However, Nils Bøhmer, nuclear physicist and Bellona's general director, who visited the Akademik Lomonosov in presence of Norwegian journalists on May 8, 2018 (http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2018-05-bellona-visits-russias-floating-nuclear-power-plant-at-sea), says that Rosatom fulfills its agreement (http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2017-08-rosatom-agrees-not-to-fuel-floating-nuclear-plant-in-russias-second-biggest-city) in terms of technical safety.

As I tend to trust Norwegian specialists, Bøhmer's words give me the hope that the FNPP is not as dangerous as some media wants to show it. Of course, I cannot fail to mention his claim that he doesn’t believe that a floating nuclear power plant can be 100 percent safe. But what an NPP can ever be safe after what we have seen from the examples of Chernobyl and Fukushima?!

At the same time I also believe that this FNPP may be the only source of electric energy for people, who live in remote areas, especially in the Arctic. They cannot be deprived of the ability to enjoy social benefits. So, maybe, it is worth the risk?

Andre Koelewijn

  • New ice
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #854 on: August 18, 2018, 01:22:47 PM »
During operation, it may be not as dangerous as depicted and it does provide a reliable source of electricity. Alternatives are mainly fossil fuel (also a danger for the environment, not only because of the CO2 and the other usual objections, but in the polar region spillage and larger leakages cause more and longer harm than in the warmer parts of this planet), because solar and hydro don't work in winter and wind is generally too unreliable as the main source of energy.

However, the long-term problems with nuclear waste from spent fuel and at the end of the lifetime of the plant are not solved by putting the reactor on a ship. These likely cause larger social problems in the long run than the social benefits in less than one century.

martalunde68

  • New ice
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #855 on: August 19, 2018, 12:52:25 PM »
I cannot disagree with you. The risk of an ecological disaster from potential nuclear leakage is the matter of my great concern, too. But, you know, responsibility is such a thing that can take different forms. On the one hand, environmentalists can protest against such projects to make sure they won’t have to deal with any consequences. It is easy for them to protest because they live in good conditions. (I’d like to see them living without electricity). On the other hand, the existing alternatives of energy are either unreliable, or inapplicable for the region. Probably people could take the risk and the responsibility of using such plants in order to improve the quality of other people’s lives.

martalunde68

  • New ice
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #856 on: August 19, 2018, 05:47:20 PM »
the long-term problems with nuclear waste from spent fuel

Given a fair opportunity for proper development at scale VHTRs are quite capable to destroy all nuclear waste including reprocessing weapons grade Pu back to usable nuclear plant fuel such that the world could stop mining for more uranium and use existing fuel stocks for hundreds of years.

GenIV VHTRs can / will bring nuclear waste down to a half-life under 100 years where storage is no longer an issue like today. But they have to be provided with the chance to prove this concept at scale and make it happen in the real world first - then common sense will prevail. The info is out there on the IAEA and Google Scholar etc. theoretical proof of concept already exists using existing engineering and technology - what's lacking is the funding and all national Govts to back it in and try. At present they are more interested in nuke weapons research not peaceful research or rapidly expanding safe GenIV modular units.

Well, at least, I can give a reason why all national governments are interested in nuclear weapons research. They’re obsessed with their states’ security and territorial integrity, or just with the big political game. And here is a reasonable question: What are the environmental organizations obsessed with while holding protests against something nuclear? Btw, they get donations from so many people. So why wouldn’t they spend this money on peaceful research of such things like Gen IV, or at least on actions in favour of their development and expanding?
Otherwise, their eager actions, such as the latest ones (the attempts to prevent the towing of Academic Lomonosov to Murmansk) can be regarded as a pure political game.

Andre Koelewijn

  • New ice
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #857 on: August 19, 2018, 08:47:58 PM »
Sometimes these environmentalist organisations are political indeed. Or it's even worse, like Greenpeace at the time of its protest against Shell's Brent Spar. It was by far not the best target to choose at that time from an environmental point of view - and Greenpeace knew that - but they expected that it would help a lot to counter the decline in membership and funding. And so it did.

Back OT: I'm not that much into Gen IV, but if the claims given in Lurk's post can be made true, then also all nuclear waste from those ships now being built to provide remote arctic settlements with power could be processed there? And an end to uranium mining and the like? With all the other advantages of nuclear that would provide an interesting escape from a lot of the current power issues! Add responsible designers (thinking about the unthinkable, cf. Fukushima) and responsible operators (no experimentalists like the ones at Tsjernobyl) and the future gets brighter again - also for those remote settlements.

(What do I miss?  :-\)

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 902
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #858 on: August 19, 2018, 10:22:03 PM »
Another Fukushima is waiting to happen at closed nuke plant on a Southern California Beach.
https://theantimedia.com/san-onofre-fukushima/

My California home is <40 miles from there!!
Best I remain in Canada.(<2,500 miles away)

Swimming in the cooling water discharge was far more comfortable than bothering with a wet suit. 8)
Terry

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1331
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 250
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #859 on: August 20, 2018, 02:22:44 AM »
Do you have a faint glow in the dark Terry?

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 902
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #860 on: August 20, 2018, 11:30:43 AM »
Do you have a faint glow in the dark Terry?
Faint - very faint. As my eyes get older it hardly disturbs my sleep now.
Terry

Eco-Author

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 176
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #861 on: August 20, 2018, 07:05:41 PM »
Given the BLACKOUT CONDITIONS that can occure with volcanos, wildfires, sand/dust storms or nuclear winter, as much as I hate Nuclear, I see not many alternatives to at least having it as a backup... This is not a blanket acceptance of this... Seeing the calamity that can occur with large nuke plants, I'm thinking of extremely small micro reactors that can be removed on the back of a truck so as to be delt with if something happens... Newer tech from what I hear is promising and unlike modern facilities, wherever we have any nuclear energy... always have ALREADY ON HAND that which you need to deal with any problem... I.E. reactor ready robots... various cleanup gear and disposal containers... a container farm already in place for example like we see in the aftermath of Fukushima... but not even recommending something that large! 

Can I take the time to also point out here, that the 'clean coal' process may burn clean but has generated warehouses full of Mercury...  To me... the potential of this getting released might as well be considered just as bad as a nuclear accident?!!


Note that buildings with super efficient low surface area shapes per volume need almost no energy to heat or cool if large enough!  Any 'Venus' project like endevor taht calls for the least efficient long rectangular designs is--on the outset--NOT even close to what we need to achieve!... 
Self-sufficiency and Durability to disasters are the absolute keys to nearly any disaster you can think of such as War, economic collapse, pandemics, Global warming, quakes, volcanoes, Hurricanes... all of which put solar farms etc. and power grids at risk!

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5551
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 749
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #862 on: August 20, 2018, 09:01:29 PM »
Vietnam shelves reactor plans in favor of solar:


http://investvine.com/vietnam-going-solar-nuclear-power-plants-shelved/

sidd


jacksmith4tx

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
    • Photon mine
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #863 on: August 20, 2018, 09:36:53 PM »
@sidd,
Did you catch that quote:" because of security fears."

Those 'security fears' require a small army of armed employees, cyber protection and 365d hazard/emergency response team for every nuke plant in the world. Fixed overhead.
Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.

martalunde68

  • New ice
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #864 on: August 21, 2018, 04:48:06 PM »
Do you have a faint glow in the dark Terry?
Faint - very faint. As my eyes get older it hardly disturbs my sleep now.
Terry

I’m sorry about your situation, Terry.
As far as I’ve seen on the Internet, since the very 2012 the activists have been protesting against the San Onofre plant. But I couldn’t find any information indicating that environmental organizations even care. I mean the big ones. Either I’m wrong, or California isn’t their field of political interest. Has there actually been any response from the organizations?

tombond

  • New ice
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #865 on: August 23, 2018, 12:38:14 PM »
Germany’s Failed Climate Goals A Wake-Up Call for Governments Everywhere

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-germany-emissions/

"Germany, the nation that did more than any other to unleash the modern renewable-energy industry, is likely to fall short of its goals for reducing harmful carbon-dioxide emissions even after spending over 500 billion euros ($580 billion) by 2025 to overhaul its energy system."

"The real problem is that Germany is also also trying to phase out nuclear reactors, a response to the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi meltdown in Japan. And with the 2020 goals looking like a stretch, there’s increasing concern that tighter goals the country is planning for 2030 will be completely out of reach."

By comparison between 1970 and 1995 France spent €83 billion (adjusted to 2010 euros) REPLACING fossil fuel capacity with 63 GW of nuclear resulting in low cost electricity and low CO2 emissions at 74g/kWh or 6 times less than Germany.

http://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/chiffres-cles-en

https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/thematic_public_report_costs_nuclear_%20power_sector_012012.pdf

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/16058-drax-cms-production/documents/Report_PDF---Q3-2017.pdf

France remains the only ever successful transition from fossil fuel to low carbon technology generating electricity with CO2 emissions of 100g/kWh or less for the last 30 years using nuclear. 

Until there is global commitment to nuclear energy technology atmospheric CO2 levels will just keep rising.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5551
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 749
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #866 on: August 23, 2018, 11:06:10 PM »
Doubts on pebble bed:

https://techxplore.com/news/2018-08-experts-voice-safety-pebble-bed-nuclear.html

I shall have to read the paper.

sidd

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 180
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #867 on: August 31, 2018, 03:50:17 PM »
Personally I was wondering just how far they could push Kilopower?
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 180
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #868 on: August 31, 2018, 04:12:04 PM »
Until there is global commitment to nuclear energy technology atmospheric CO2 levels will just keep rising.

Just one slight correction..

Quote
Until there is global commitment to nuclear energy technology atmospheric CO2 levels will just keep rising Faster.


Decade   Growth
59-68   0.8
69-77   1.2
79-88   1.7
89-98   1.5
99-08   1.9
09-17   2.3

Note that the decade from 89 to 98 included the Mt Pinatubo eruption.

Granted that we still have a year to go for the last decade, I doubt that the number is going to reduce very much, if at all.  2018 is looking like a 2ppm increase anyway.

Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3437
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 634
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #869 on: September 05, 2018, 06:58:18 PM »
...
Decade   Growth
59-68   0.8
69-77   1.2
79-88   1.7
89-98   1.5
99-08   1.9
09-17   2.3

...
Neil,  I curious what happened to 1978.  Missing data?  (Without a disclosure, it looks like a typo [with polemical consequences].)
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 180
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #870 on: September 05, 2018, 07:27:31 PM »
Sorry it's a typo.

My human mistake.  The spreadsheet is much more accurate.  I create the 10 year formula then copy it so I just typed the wrong number in.

It is a growth pattern throughout.  The only drip was when Mt Pinatubo skewed the figures.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17724
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 829
  • Likes Given: 307
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #871 on: September 08, 2018, 03:13:08 AM »
Japan recognizes first death related to Fukushima cleanup
Quote
The Japanese government has recognized the first death associated with cleanup work at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant after the tsunami disaster in March 2011, according to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare.

The government designated the death of an unnamed man in his 50s as an "industrial accident." The man, who had worked at the plant from 1980 to 2015, was diagnosed with lung cancer in February 2016.
...
The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare recognized his cancer and death as related to his work at the plant. A committee of experts determined his accumulated radiation level exceeded government standards.

Kunihiko Konagamitsu of the ministry said 17 workers had applied to be considered cases with an "industrial accident" designation, including three with leukemia and one with thyroid cancer. Two workers withdrew their requests, five were dismissed, and five are still under review.
...
Three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co. or TEPCO, melted down in the nation's worst nuclear disaster. The damaged reactors released radioactive materials into the air and more than 100,000 people were evacuated from the area. Forty-five thousand workers were involved in the ensuing cleanup.
In 2015 Japan health officials confirmed the first case of cancer linked to cleanup work at the plant.
In 2016, TEPCO said that decommissioning the reactor was like climbing a mountain and that it could take as long as 40 years.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/07/health/japan-first-fukushima-death/index.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

jacksmith4tx

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
    • Photon mine
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #872 on: September 08, 2018, 04:37:25 AM »
If Japan is going to move from ICE to EV they better start thinking about micro grids and V2G. Losing your full network is a critical flaw in centralized power grids.

TOKYO (Reuters) - Power was restored to a nuclear energy plant in Hokkaido, northern Japan on Thursday after a strong earthquake left it relying on emergency generators for 10 nervous hours, but it may be a week before lights are back on all over the major island.

Also Japan related:
Quote
"TOKYO (Reuters) – After an earthquake knocked out power to 5.3 million people this week, Hokkaido Electric expects to restore service to most of them by the end of Friday, but experts say the island-wide outage highlights fundamental flaws in Japan’s power grid."

The crisis is primarily the result of over-reliance on a large coal plant in a centralized generation paradigm,” said Andrew DeWit, a professor of energy policy at Rikkyo University in Tokyo.

“That is odd and dangerous, considering the multiplicity of hazards Japan confronts and has experienced in recent years.”
While not as many people were affected by this week’s outage as after the March 2011 quake and tsunami, it was the first time a regional utility in Japan lost its full network, according to the country’s Federation of Electric Power Companies.

Hokkaido Electric Power had restored power to a little more than half of the island’s 2.95 million households by Friday afternoon after receiving supplies from nearby Honshu and rebooting some of its generating units.

The utility’s Tomato-Atsuma coal station, which normally supplies about half the island’s electricity, remained shut after sustaining damage in the quake. It may take a week to restore power fully to Hokkaido.

Back in N. America another thermal(nuclear) power plant's output drops by over 50% because climate change has raised the temperature of the cooling intake beyond design limits.
Quote
Reactor at reduced power as winds, warm water challenge cooling operations.

PLYMOUTH — Northeasterly winds have been pushing warm water released from Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station’s reactor beyond a breakwater and into a sheltered area where 500 million gallons are drawn each day to cool operational systems, according to a spokesman for plant owner-operator Entergy Corp.

Bay water being used for cooling may not exceed 75 degrees under Pilgrim’s federal operating license, and the warm water migrating to the intake area is driving temperatures toward the federal cap.

If the intake water goes above 75 degrees, operators must begin shutdown procedures.

Pilgrim operators have lowered reactor power to between 42 and 50 percent since Sunday to avoid that scenario.

“They’re using reduced power to mitigate that,” said Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “By reducing it to 43 percent, it reduces cooling demands.”

Pine duBois, executive director of the Jones River Watershed Association and well-known steward of Cape Cod Bay, said Pilgrim’s current problem is not surprising.

“The bay is pretty warm right now,” duBois said. “The ocean is being impacted by global warming, and the Gulf Stream current is warming and coming closer to our shore.”[/quote]
Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5551
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 749
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #873 on: September 16, 2018, 08:01:31 AM »
Feds uphold illinois nuke subsidies:

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nudged-by-ferc-federal-appeals-
          court-upholds-illinois-nuclear-subsidies/532377/

sidd

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5551
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 749
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #874 on: September 18, 2018, 11:23:25 PM »

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5551
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 749
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #875 on: September 22, 2018, 07:51:26 AM »
Vogtle in trouble again, need 2.3 billion US$ more, sunk cost fallacies come home to roost.

" $7 billion estimated cost"

"place some of the burden of completion costs on rate payers."

" additional $2.3 billion would have to be spent on the already $25 billion dollar project."

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/georgias-vogtle-nuclear-reactors-face-an-uncertain-vote-in-coming-days/

sidd


etienne

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1001
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #876 on: September 26, 2018, 03:57:10 PM »
If I'm right, Belgium will only have 1 out of 7 nuclear reactor working in November, some  work has to be done.

https://www.rtbf.be/info/regions/liege/detail_tihange-3-a-l-arret-jusqu-au-1er-mars?id=10025034

It's not that they are all working the rest of the time, one is stopped until December 15th, another one until March, another one until June, one should have started again on September 30th but won't, so only two are working, and one of these two has to stop during November. Who said that nuclear was stable ?

« Last Edit: September 26, 2018, 04:04:04 PM by etienne »

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17724
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 829
  • Likes Given: 307
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #877 on: September 26, 2018, 05:26:57 PM »
Vogtle in trouble again, need 2.3 billion US$ more, sunk cost fallacies come home to roost.

" $7 billion estimated cost"

"place some of the burden of completion costs on rate payers."

" additional $2.3 billion would have to be spent on the already $25 billion dollar project."

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/georgias-vogtle-nuclear-reactors-face-an-uncertain-vote-in-coming-days/

sidd

Plant Vogtle's future decided in last minute vote
Quote
Oglethorpe Power issued a conditional vote to continue construction of Plant Vogtle in the final minutes of an extended voting deadline Monday evening.

Oglethorpe's vote was the last of the four nuclear power plant's owners to support the continuation of the project despite JEA's urging to halt construction. The owners' vote was triggered when Plant Vogtle costs grew by more than $1 billion in August. Georgia Power, City of Dalton and MEAG Power approved continued construction earlier in the day.

Plant Vogtle has been under construction for nine years and is $16 billion over budget, by JEA's estimates. The project was scheduled to be completed in 2017 at a cost of about $14 billion, but the now $30 billion project isn't scheduled to be completed until 2022. ...
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/09/24/plant-vogtles-future-decided-in-last-minute-vote.html

The Florida utility strongly opposes the continuation, but was outvoted.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 211
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #878 on: October 30, 2018, 11:53:19 PM »
Nuclear energy is unfortunately doomed... Waiting for fusion power..hopefully before societal collapse...

James Lovejoy

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #879 on: October 31, 2018, 05:39:45 AM »
Quote
Nuclear energy is unfortunately doomed... Waiting for fusion power..hopefully before societal collapse...

We have fusion.  It's 93 million miles from us and capturing it is a solved problem.

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 211
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #880 on: October 31, 2018, 09:51:38 AM »
Quote
Nuclear energy is unfortunately doomed... Waiting for fusion power..hopefully before societal collapse...

We have fusion.  It's 93 million miles from us and capturing it is a solved problem.
Yeah, plants solved quite a while ago....unfortunately cannot do that for 10 billion people and their energy needs...

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17724
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 829
  • Likes Given: 307
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #881 on: November 01, 2018, 12:40:50 AM »
Quote
Nuclear energy is unfortunately doomed... Waiting for fusion power..hopefully before societal collapse...

We have fusion.  It's 93 million miles from us and capturing it is a solved problem.
Yeah, plants solved quite a while ago....unfortunately cannot do that for 10 billion people and their energy needs...

Au contraire.

https://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127

People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 211
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #882 on: November 01, 2018, 03:56:48 AM »
Quote
Nuclear energy is unfortunately doomed... Waiting for fusion power..hopefully before societal collapse...

We have fusion.  It's 93 million miles from us and capturing it is a solved problem.
Yeah, plants solved quite a while ago....unfortunately cannot do that for 10 billion people and their energy needs...

Au contraire.

https://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127


Unfortunately not all energy needs are satisfied with electricity...

Alexander555

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1208
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 119
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #883 on: November 01, 2018, 09:17:15 AM »
And that square in the Saharan desert will probably be a few times bigger than what it shows. Because of the sandstorms you will need roads for heavy machinery, between every few panels. How els are they going to prevend that they get covered by sand ? And how much energy will it cost to keep them sand free ?

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1702
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 348
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #884 on: November 01, 2018, 02:46:53 PM »
And that square in the Saharan desert will probably be a few times bigger than what it shows. Because of the sandstorms you will need roads for heavy machinery, between every few panels. How els are they going to prevend that they get covered by sand ? And how much energy will it cost to keep them sand free ?

Economies of scale make outside-the-box options possible.
Imagine the angled panels arranged in 10 mile-long lengths.
Imagine a rail along the top and bottom.
Along the rails run automatic devices--powerful fan to blow away the sand, maybe something to spritz windex on the panels, followed by an automated squeegee. 
Or maybe automated brooms.  Or vibration devices to shake off the sand.
Or maybe something with electrostatics.
Or use some of the power to desalinate sea water, and irrigate enough to grow grass in the region.  It could first be used to spray the panels, and runoff then waters the grass.

As engineering problems go, this shouldn't be hard.  Shouldn't need a Musk for the task.

Alexander555

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1208
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 119
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #885 on: November 01, 2018, 05:39:28 PM »
Saudi-Arabia canceled a big solar project, but i don't know for what reason. They are talking about some practical reasons to integrate it to the grid. But i think in the middle of the desert it want be a good place. They have a big coastline. If they can use some of the power of that 200 000 MW to pump sea water to higher land. Than they have power at night when the sun is down. Like a dam on a river. The west side of the country is more like a mountain range, there you probably don't have these moving sand dunes.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/saudi-outlook-remains-uncertain-after-softbank-pulls-out#gs.i1Jiam4

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17724
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 829
  • Likes Given: 307
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #886 on: November 01, 2018, 06:46:59 PM »
Saudi solar robot cleans desert PV panels — water free
https://reneweconomy.com.au/desert-solar-panel-cleaners-water-free-88183/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1702
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 348
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #887 on: November 01, 2018, 07:01:39 PM »
Saudi solar robot cleans desert PV panels — water free
https://reneweconomy.com.au/desert-solar-panel-cleaners-water-free-88183/

I see they liked my broom (brush) on rails solution.
Great minds think alike !  ;-)

Rodius

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 280
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #888 on: November 02, 2018, 04:17:41 AM »
My concern over solar to resolve our energy needs is the raw materials required to make enough solar panels.

Here is an article about it.
https://news.mit.edu/2014/shedding-light-future-photovoltaics-1105?_ga=2.14542519.1666366457.1541128502-394454031.1541128502

James Lovejoy

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #889 on: November 02, 2018, 06:34:35 AM »
Quote
Posted by: Rodius
« on: Today at 04:17:41 AM » Insert Quote
My concern over solar to resolve our energy needs is the raw materials required to make enough solar panels.

Here is an article about it.
https://news.mit.edu/2014/shedding-light-future-photovoltaics-1105?_ga=2.14542519.1666366457.1541128502-394454031.1541128502

Quote
“Silicon-based PVs look promising from a material point of view: The growth-rate of silicon production required to meet high deployment goals does not exceed historical norms,” says Jaffe, the Morningstar Professor of Physics and MacVicar Faculty Fellow at MIT.


I'm not seeing the problem.  The article goes on to say that some of the other PV may be constrained.  That would simply limit us to relying primarily on Silcon PV.

Though most RE advocates think that any carbon neutral future would include wind turbines, PV and hydro.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5551
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 749
  • Likes Given: 0

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 180
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #891 on: November 05, 2018, 04:26:11 PM »
At least the Chinese are awake, making long term plans and taking sensible actions today.

I think there is a fourth question which needs to be asked here.  "Are there sufficient, easily recoverable, Uranium reserves to be able to operate these reactors at full capacity?

Granted China has 5% of world reserves, but that many reactors is going to increase the burn rate significantly.

My take was that Nuclear provided the sensible baseline power on which renewables could sit, taking advantage of the renewables as available.  I think the chart needs to be modified a bit and that China needs to use reactors more like the Hinckley Point C which produce 1.6GW, paired to 3.2GW. Significantly reducing the required number of reactors.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5551
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 749
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #892 on: November 06, 2018, 06:26:26 AM »
25 gigaUS$ for a couple million. Politicians provide the best rate of return. Can't believe they gonna build that turkey.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/vogtle-in-sight-as-money-pours-into-georgia-regulator-race/540908/

sidd

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5551
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 749
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #893 on: November 08, 2018, 10:44:41 PM »
Union of Concerned Scientists in favor of keeping nukes running:

“Nuclear power plants are being squeezed economically at a time when we need every source of low-carbon power we can get to replace retiring coal plants and prevent an overreliance on natural gas,”

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/415715-green-group-backs-keeping-nuclear-plants-open

https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power/retirements

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/11/Nuclear-Power-Dilemma-full-report.pdf

sidd

NevB

  • New ice
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #894 on: November 13, 2018, 12:16:48 PM »
America’s nuclear waste failure:

Quote
But the San Onofre nuclear power plant will loom for a long time as a landmark, its 1,800 tons of lethal radioactive waste stored on the edge of the Pacific and within sight of the busy 5 Freeway.

Across the site, deep pools of water and massive concrete casks confine high-power gamma radiation and other forms of radioactivity emitted by 890,000 spent fuel rods that nobody wants there.

And like the other 79,000 tons of spent fuel spread across the nation, San Onofre’s nuclear waste has nowhere to go.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-stranded-nuclear-waste-20170702-htmlstory.html

Quote
Edison is building a massive concrete monolith for more storage, using a Holtec design called Hi-Storm UMAX. It will hold about two-thirds of the plant’s spent fuel in 73 stainless-steel canisters about 125 feet from the ocean. The 25-foot structure is about half-buried with the underground foundation just above the mean high-tide line. Tall cranes and swarms of hard hats are moving construction ahead.

Let's hope they are not seriously relying on the mean high tide line not increasing over the next 20 or so years.


gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8646
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3367
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #895 on: November 13, 2018, 01:01:30 PM »
America’s nuclear waste failure:

Quote
But the San Onofre nuclear power plant will loom for a long time as a landmark, its 1,800 tons of lethal radioactive waste stored on the edge of the Pacific and within sight of the busy 5 Freeway.

Across the site, deep pools of water and massive concrete casks confine high-power gamma radiation and other forms of radioactivity emitted by 890,000 spent fuel rods that nobody wants there.

And like the other 79,000 tons of spent fuel spread across the nation, San Onofre’s nuclear waste has nowhere to go.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-stranded-nuclear-waste-20170702-htmlstory.html

Quote
Edison is building a massive concrete monolith for more storage, using a Holtec design called Hi-Storm UMAX. It will hold about two-thirds of the plant’s spent fuel in 73 stainless-steel canisters about 125 feet from the ocean. The 25-foot structure is about half-buried with the underground foundation just above the mean high-tide line. Tall cranes and swarms of hard hats are moving construction ahead.

Let's hope they are not seriously relying on the mean high tide line not increasing over the next 20 or so years.
I don't think hope is an adequate strategy in this case.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2018, 08:50:40 PM by gerontocrat »
"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)

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1308
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #896 on: November 20, 2018, 07:42:15 PM »
Another nuclear power plant project wont be completed due to high costs (this time in the UK):

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Another-Nuclear-Megaproject-Bites-The-Dust.html

Quote
Toshiba, the troubled Japanese electrical and electronics conglomerate and former owner of the bankrupt Westinghouse, Corp., decided last week cancel its Moorside nuclear project in the UK. If completed, this large nuclear power station would have provided about 7 percent of the UK's electricity needs. Not that this announcement was a surprise.

Toshiba's announcement follows word of a breakdown in negotiations with prospective buyer, Korea Electric Power (KEPCo). It appears the Koreans, like others, are rethinking their commitment to nuclear energy worldwide.

Absent the cancellation decision, Toshiba is likely to have had trouble financing a project of this magnitude especially given the stress on its finances from its troubled venture into American nuclear construction. The Moorside project in Cumbria will have cost Toshiba over £400 million and management announced it was taking a write off of £125 million. Toshiba described its decision as “economically rational.” Amen to that.

A government spokesperson commented, “All proposed nuclear projects in the UK are led by private sector developers and … this is entirely a commercial decision for Toshiba.” This is an interesting statement. The only UK nuclear construction project currently underway is owned by French and Chinese state controlled entities, financed  with liberal debt guarantees provided by the UK government.

But let's review the UK's nuclear energy plans. There were at a minimum three large facilities planned. One for Cumbria, the Toshiba NuGen entity, is now cancelled. The Hinkley Point C units, being built by a French and Chinese consortium, are under construction and slated for commercial service in 2025-27. Lastly, Hitachi had a planned nuclear site in Wylfa.

Given the turmoil surrounding new nuclear construction, we have our doubts about the financial viability of Wylfa. This plant would cost at least 20 billion pounds ($26 billion). Press reports indicate government support would be necessary for close to two thirds of that amount. To further encourage developers, a government minister said in June that the government might directly invest 5 billion pounds into the project for a one third ownership share.

Since wind and solar are now the cheapest forms of new electrical generation and it isn't that much more expensive to add batteries to make the power dispatchable, nuclear can't compete in market economies.

Sebastian Jones

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 383
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 97
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #897 on: November 30, 2018, 06:35:44 PM »

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 902
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #898 on: December 03, 2018, 06:17:46 AM »
Meanwhile in the East Siberian sea, Russia is moving ahead with the delivery of its floating nuke:https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic-industry-and-energy/2018/11/worlds-first-floating-nuclear-power-plant-making-pevek-arctic#.XAFxXD1UAWQ.twitter
Sebastion
Can I ask how Carson Dawson City is powered? edited - no idea how I moved Carson City so far north  :-[
Any thoughts on how a tiny nuclear plant would work in your environment?
Your thoughts on how powering northern communities could be improved, both to serve the community but also the environment in general?


Thanks
Terry
« Last Edit: December 03, 2018, 04:19:30 PM by TerryM »

Sebastian Jones

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 383
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 97
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: Nuclear Power
« Reply #899 on: December 03, 2018, 08:13:33 PM »

Sebastion
Can I ask how Carson Dawson City is powered? edited - no idea how I moved Carson City so far north  :-[
Any thoughts on how a tiny nuclear plant would work in your environment?
Your thoughts on how powering northern communities could be improved, both to serve the community but also the environment in general?


Thanks
Terry

Dawson City gets its electricity from the Yukon grid, which is 95% hydro. There is redundant diesel capacity in all communities for when the grid trips off. Yukon has the highest penetration of residential solar power in Canada, related to its forward thinking Micro-Gen program.
http://www.energy.gov.yk.ca/pdf/microgen_policy_summary.pdf
Most Yukon communities are connected to the grid, those few that are not are exploring options to reduce diesel consumption.
https://www.yukon-news.com/business/vuntut-gwitchin-first-nation-plugs-in-old-crow-solar-power-project/
Yukon's crown corporation owned utility is planning an 8MW lithium battery for grid stabilization and to facilitate additional renewables.
Yukon's Independent Power Producers policy is expected to roll out in the new year; several solar and wind projects are ready to go when the IPP sets out how IPPs will get compensated.
Yukon is fortunate in that it has lots of solar potential in summer, balanced by lots of wind potential in winter, and buffered by lots of hydro. Complicating factors include the periodic opening of large mines which can put a strain on the grid and have led to a steady increase in fossil fuel electricity over the past decade.
It is clear that remote northern communities will benefit from solar and storage projects, with wind where feasible.
Sitting as does on the Ring of Fire, Yukon has untapped and unexplored geothermal potential.
Key to addressing the power issues here, as elsewhere is community agency- and here with its self governing First Nations, Yukon has a real advantage.