Nuclear Power

[Sigmetnow]

U.S.:  Nevada

Vote likely next week on bill to resume Yucca Mountain licensing process

PAHRUMP — Legislation that would allow the Department of Energy to resume its license application process to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain could see a House vote this week — a prospect that was met Thursday with mixed reaction in Nevada.

A bill approved last year by the House Energy and Commerce Committee to jump-start the licensing process is being reviewed by the Rules Committee, and the legislation will move to the floor next week when Congress returns from a weeklong recess.

The legislation would streamline the process to open Yucca Mountain to store nuclear waste and address the stockpile of spent fuel being stored at power plants across the country.

“We owe it to the 121 communities across 39 states, as well as to every American taxpayer forced to shoulder the daily $2.2 million burden of inaction, to get this done,” said Reps. Greg Walden, R-Ore., and John Shimkus, R-Ill., in a joint statement. ...

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/vote-likely-next-week-on-bill-to-resume-yucca-mountain-licensing-process/

[TerryM]

If a Republican House passes that bill, Nevada will vote in Democrats by about the same percentage as California.
Being against the Nuclear Depository is the first requirement for winning an election in Nevada.
Terry

[Bob Wallace]

There are hundreds of examples of where the IAEA confirms the inherent proven safety features of operating and planned GenIV nuclear reactors.

There are words on paper.  There are opinions.  Not until some GenIV ideas are built and tested will we know if those claims are true.

The nuclear industry has a terrible record of promising and not delivering.  For 50+ years they have promised affordable electricity only to see the cost increase.  The pebble bed reactor was supposed to be passively safe but Germany almost melted theirs down.  The AP1000 was supposed to solve the cost problem but it failed.

The nuclear industry has no credibility.

There is no credible explanation as to how GenIV might make "cheap" electricity.  The global mean unsubsidized price for nuclear in 2017 was $0.14/kWh.  Wind and solar are on their way to $0.02/kWh.  That means that a GenIV would have to cost at least 5x less per MW than a GenIII reactor.  Cut a mature technology cost by 80%?  Tell me another....

Dr James Hansen (ex-NASA-GISS) has a well balanced evidence based view about Nuclear energy combined with renewable energy growth being useful and likely essential to curtail ongoing global warming.

Jim Hansen is a climate expert but an energy idiot.  He's finally had to give up his claim that RE can't power the world without nuclear.  A stand he took when he waded into the energy field without even a cursory read of the literature.  There were multiple papers supporting a non-nuclear RE grid at the time.

There is nothing unique and beneficial that nuclear brings to the grid.  Nuclear brings its own integration problems along with very high cost and unique dangers.

[numerobis]

Powering desalination plants 24/7 isn't a requirement. We can store water cheaply, and indeed storage is often integral to our distribution systems.

Desalination is a load that pairs well with demand response systems -- even better than oil refining or glassmaking or aluminium smelting. Desalinate when power is cheap, stop when the price goes up. And that means it's a great load to match with inflexible systems like wind, solar, or nuclear.

[tombond]

What happens after Japan abandons nukes?  Coal not renewables take over and CO2 emissions rise!

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/bucking-global-trends-japan-again-embraces-coal-power

Most of the world is turning its back on burning coal to produce electricity, but not Japan. The nation has fired up at least eight new coal power plants in the past 2 years and has plans for an additional 36 over the next decade—the biggest planned coal power expansion in any developed nation (not including China and India). And last month, the government took a key step toward locking in a national energy plan that would have coal provide 26% of Japan's electricity in 2030 and abandons a previous goal of slashing coal's share to 10%.

A yet-to-be-published Greenpeace study concludes that if the plants operate for 40 years, they would also emit pollutants that would cause more than 60,000 premature deaths.

40 years ago I went to a presentation by State Energy Engineers who stated that nuclear was the only replacement for fossil fuel electricity generation if hydro is not available.

Just 10 years later France proved the engineers correct when completing the transition from fossil fuels to nuclear.

30 years later this French demonstration model remains the only ever successful transition to low carbon fuels that has resulted in low CO2 emissions.

For the past 30 years just three countries, Norway, Sweden and France have consistently generated low emissions electricity.  All use nuclear or hydro or a combination of both.

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

Facts not political beliefs must drive CO2 emission reduction decision making if we are to be successful.

[Bob Wallace]

What happens after Japan abandons nukes?  Coal not renewables take over and CO2 emissions rise!

Japan could easily power itself with offshore wind.  A French company, Ideol, is teaming up with Acacia Renewables to develop Japan's first commercial-scale floating wind farm.

Japan hasn't yet started residential rooftop solar. 

Coal was a short term solution but Japan does not want to be a contributor to climate change.

[Bob Wallace]

30 years later this French demonstration model remains the only ever successful transition to low carbon fuels that has resulted in low CO2 emissions.

For the past 30 years just three countries, Norway, Sweden and France have consistently generated low emissions electricity.  All use nuclear or hydro or a combination of both.

Portugal is now having lots of fossil fuel days.  44% of Portugal's electricity in 2017 came from renewables.

n 1972, 92% of Denmark's energy consumption came from imported oil.  Denmark developed its own NG and built its first wind farm.  Denmark generated 43.6% of its electricity consumption with wind in 2017.

Be honest, Tom.  France did not install nuclear in order to have a low carbon footprint.  France, like Denmark was caught up in the OPEC oil crunch and turned to what was the most affordable for them at the time.  For France is was nuclear.  For Denmark it was NG. 

France solved their last century, pre-climate change problem with nuclear but now that approach no longer makes sense.  France is looking to replace at least a third of their nuclear fleet with renewables because the cost of maintaining those reactors is causing their wholesale cost of electricity to be expensive.

Norway is 95% hydro. 

In 2017 Sweden generated 57% of its electricity with hydro and wind.  And Sweden has set a goal of 100% RE by 2040.  They're dumping their nuclear.  Four of the country’s 10 nuclear reactors are currently being phased out due to high operating costs.

[ghoti]

Let's not forget that new small reactors which were thought to be safe turned out to not act like the models predicted. Theory doesn't always work out in practice. Read the story about Canada's MAPLE reactors which were designed to replace the aging NRU in Chalk River.

This isn't a write up by some anti-nuke cranks:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-AECL_halts_development_of_MAPLE_project-1905082.html

[sidd]

First Energy outta luck: PJM sez three of their nukes unneeded for reliability.

"undercuts a key argument from FirstEnergy and its allies — that allowing at-risk coal and nuclear plants to retire in wholesale power markets would undercut the reliability and resilience of the grid. "

"If they do not win emergency support from the DOE, the Davis Besse plant will retire at the end of May 2020, while the Perry plant and one unit of Beaver Island would come offline at the end of May 2021. The final unit at Beaver is scheduled to close in October 2021. "

Lot of jobs gone.

Davis Besse is a disaster, get rid of it quick, problems for a long time. Decommission will b horrible.

sidd

[tombond]

Be honest, Tom.  France did not install nuclear in order to have a low carbon footprint.  France, like Denmark was caught up in the OPEC oil crunch and turned to what was the most affordable for them at the time.  For France is was nuclear.  For Denmark it was NG.

I thought the objective was to reduce CO2 emissions.  It does not matter why a country has moved to a successful low carbon technology. 

[Bob Wallace]

Tom, had France built their nukes with the goal of lowering their carbon footprint then we should applaud them.

But France did not build their reactors for that reason.  They did it for "national security".  They built reactors in order to escape OPEC's control.  And they chose nuclear because they had no affordable coal supply leaving nuclear their least expensive option.

France gave themselves a low carbon footprint by accident.  That has been beneficial for the planet in that it has cause a lesser amount of coal to be burned.  But France nas not earned a place on a pedestal because what they did was an unexpected consequence.

Paraguay produces 10x as much electricity as the country consumes using hydro.  Paraguay has a low carbon footprint but it is also accidental. 

[Neven]

And let's not forget that France has a huge decommissioning problem, that will be very costly, once they figure out how to do it (they still don't know after 30 years).

Of course, when they built the reactors, AGW wasn't on the radar yet. Like Bob says, it was to reduce dependence on oil.

[Bernard]

And let's not forget that France has a huge decommissioning problem, that will be very costly, once they figure out how to do it (they still don't know after 30 years).

Indeed! Just to figure, look at the history of the still unfinished decommissioning of Brennilis site.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_nucléaire_de_Brennilis 
(the English WP article is very sketchy).
It was a "small" experimental nuclear plant (70 MWe) which was in production from 1967 to 1985. It was the first one to enter a "full decommissionning" process started in 1985, and far from over 33 years later. The process has been facing a endless list of technical and legal issues. That's giving an idea of the time frame and cost of decommissioning of the remaining 60 or so reactors. So far six of them have started the process (including Brennilis).

[numerobis]

As with tombond, I don’t get why we care about France’s motivation for building nuclear plants.

Clearly nuclear power has reduced CO2 emissions compared to coal, oil, or gas. At the same time as nuclear was getting built out in France, other countries built hydro with long-distance transmission — far cheaper but not available everywhere. Those were the two clean options at the time. Now there’s new options with solar and wind.

[oren]

The issue is simple - if it's not affordable, nobody's gonna do it just for saving the planet. It's sad but it's reality. So if France's motivation was saving money, everyone would have followed them a long time ago. But their motivation was different, and their achievement - decarbonizing an entire country's electricity system using nuclear - remained unique.
Edit reason: clarification following numerobis' comment.

[numerobis]

Their achievement was replicated in many places: utilities around the world (outside OPEC) switched from oil to other things. Hydro where it could be built; coal and nuclear elsewhere, plus R&D projects in wind, tidal, geothermal, etc.

Coal and nuclear share a lot of attributes, such as that the plant is quite expensive and ramping power up and down is hard on it; the fuel is pretty cheap (nuclear is cheaper than coal, but both are far cheaper than oil and gas were at the time); and they need lots of cooling water but otherwise can be built almost anywhere.

Modern coal plants also have a tendency of going over budget, for largely the same reasons as modern nuclear plants: they are big, complicated construction projects. The bigger you build these plants, the more efficient they are, but also the more likely you'll hit problems in construction.

[tombond]

Notice the reoccurring theme.

Germany is missing its emissions targets
Thanks to a panicked decision to shut its nuclear plants, Germany is a carbon laggard
https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21731171-thanks-panicked-decision-shut-its-nuclear-plants-germany-carbon-laggard-germany

Japan's coal plant construction plans, which could add a possible 17 GW of coal power, remain a concern and pose a serious risk to the government's future mitigation efforts. We project that the coal share could further increase to 34% by 2030 from 32% in 2015 if the nuclear reintroduction fails without a further push for renewables. Coal could add about 100 MtCO2e a year to Japan's emissions.
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/japan/

USA Renewable energy won’t be able to make up for the loss of carbon-free electricity resulting from a wave of nuclear-power plant closures in the coming decades, according to a new report released today by environmental group Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
https://www.axios.com/environmental-group-nuclear-power-key-to-cutting-carbon-emissions-1525807826-19e34d74-1475-468e-a327-a525b522d5c8.html

Nuclear, renewables to help French CO2 reduction goals, Macron says

PARIS (Reuters) - French President Emmanuel Macron said on Sunday he would not follow Germany’s example by phasing out nuclear energy in France because his priority was to cut carbon emissions and shut down polluting coal-fired production.

“What did the Germans do when they shut all their nuclear in one go?,” Macron said.
“They developed a lot of renewables but they also massively reopened thermal and coal. They worsened their CO2 footprint, it wasn’t good for the planet. So I won’t do that.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-macron-nuclear/nuclear-renewables-to-help-french-co2-reduction-goals-macron-says-idUSKBN1EB0TZ

French electricity CO2 emissions are one of the lowest in the world on the Drax low cabon league table.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/11/15/carbon-tax-thrusts-britain-towards-top-low-carbon-energy-league/

[Bob Wallace]

Notice the recurring theme.

Nuclear is getting more expensive.



Nuclear is dying out.

[numerobis]

German emissions from the electrical sector have not increased, they’ve decreased!
https://www.energy-charts.de/emissions.htm?source=lignite&view=absolute&emission=co2&year=all

Renewables grew faster than nuclear fell over the past decade. The year a nuclear plant closes, coal picks up some of the slack, but coal capacity factors are falling overall.

Where Germany is missing targets is the transport sector — mainly cars. That’s still trending up.

I agree prematurely shutting down nuclear plants is foolish.

[Sciguy]

The big problem for nuclear is that there's no price on carbon emissions.  So nuclear's big advantage (carbon free power) is negated.

Due to cost, utilities are building wind, solar and natural gas power plants in free market economies.  A few nukes have been started in Europe and the US, but the cost has skyrocketed after construction started and the inevitable construction delays have occurred.  With the cost of renewables and natural gas plants coming down, it remains to be seen if those plants will be completed.

In a few countries with State controlled economies (China and the mid-east), new nukes are being ordered.  With cheap labor they can be somewhat competitive, but even in semi-free market economies like India, nukes are being priced out.

In the US, when a nuke needs major repairs, more often than not the utility will shut it down as other options have become cheaper.

Gen IV plants may come online before nuclear fusion plants are commercially viable.  Place your bets!

TLDR:  Too cheap to meter has become too expensive too matter.

[sidd]

Nuclear capacity takes a hit in PJM auction:


"The 2021/2022 Base Residual Auction cleared about 20,000 MW of nuclear power, PJM Vice President Stu Bressler told reporters Wednesday, while last year’s auction cleared about 27,400 MW.

Analysts had expected cleared nuclear capacity to decrease, Bressler noted, saying the 7,400 MW drop was “less than some of the expectations I saw as far as nuclear risk.”  "

"It is the fourth year running that TMI did not clear ..."

The surviving reactor at Three Mile Islandis not long for this world.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/pjm-loses-a-quarter-of-its-nuke-capacity-in-latest-power-auction/524247/

www.pjm.com/-/media/markets-ops/rpm/rpm-auction-info/2021-2022/2021-2022-base-residual-auction-report.ashx?la=en

sidd

[Sigmetnow]

Here’s a piece on how the PJM Capacity Auction works:

How a Capacity Market Works

Pretend that the grid operator had to meet 550 megawatts of demand. This is absurdly low of course, it’s closer to 170,000 in PJM, but the process is much easier to imagine with smaller numbers. The grid operator will hold then hold an auction to try to get the 550 megawatts of demand met at the lowest cost to consumers.

So then every resource bids into the auction in at its total cost of operation. In our hypothetical auction below, I’ve arranged the stack from lowest to highest cost bids, and drawn a line at the point where enough capacity has been acquired to meet demand.

As you can see [below], the cheapest resource is one wind turbine bidding in 50 MW of capacity at $30 per MW. But wait! Just because they bid in $30 per MW, that does not mean that the turbine receives 30 per MW. All it means is that the wind turbine is now committed to have 50 MW of power available in 3 years from now. Looking further up the stack, another turbine bids in 50 MW at $50 per MW. Even higher up the stack, you can see efficiency bid into the auction at $130 per MW, and a coal plant bid in at  $150 per MW.

So what compensation do they receive? In this example, all of the resources, including the wind turbine at the bottom, receive $150 per MW. This is called the “clearing price,” and it is set by the most expensive unit needed to meet demand. In this case, that is the coal plant (shown in orange).

This is important to understanding the dynamics between different resources in the market.

In this example, efficiency actually displaced a coal plant (shown in purple) whose total cost of operation was $160 per MW. Think about it this way; if efficiency had not bid into the market, then demand would have been 100 MW higher and that coal plant would have to be called on to meet demand. Then the clearing price would have been $160 per MW.

...

The other story here is that in capacity markets, lower cost resources can have the effect of suppressing prices for all of the resources since they ensure that demand can be met at a lower cost. For utilities who own lots of expensive generation, this is bad for business. For a company who owns lower cost resources, it is good. Consumers always benefit from lower prices. ...

http://www.theenergycollective.com/adamjames/237496/energy-nerd-lunch-break-how-capacity-market-works-and-why-it-matters

[tombond]

It seems unbelievable but Germany is now working to increase CO2 emissions beyond its borders. 

Not content with its own failure to significantly decrease emissions it is now coming after its neighbors’ nuclear reactors.

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-nuclear-energy-belgium-doel-tihange-targets-the-atom/amp/

The facts are simple, stark and uncompromising.

70 years ago CO2 levels were just over 300ppm, today they are just over 400ppm a rise of 100ppm, the fastest rise in the geological record.

The last time CO2 levels were 400ppm, was 3 million years ago when global temperatures were 2C to 3C higher and sea levels were 15 metres to 25 metres higher than today so by any measure this is a serious issue.

The highest priority for human civilisation has to be reducing CO2 emissions to near zero ASAP.

After almost 20 years installing 100GW of intermittent renewables that incur annual subsidies of 24 billion euros, German electricity CO2 emissions are still 500g/kWh.

https://www.reuters.com/article/germany-power-explainer/explainer-german-electricity-costliest-in-europe-en-route-to-decarbonisation-idUSL8N1PE3TG

Page 26 in  https://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2018/Jahresauswertung_2017/Agora_Jahresauswertung-2017.pdf

Germany continues to prove that a large build out of intermittent renewables does not mean lower CO2 emissions.

There has only ever been one successful transition from fossil fuels to non-carbon fuels that resulted in low CO2 emissions.

France reduced electricity emissions by 80%, from 500g/kWh in 1971 to just 100g/kWh in 1987 by replacing their fossil fuel generating capacity with nuclear. 

For the past 30 years France has consistently emitted the 3rd lowest electricity emissions in the world and consistently less than 100g/kWh.  Only Norway (hydro) and Sweden (nuclear and hydro) are lower.

No other country has reduced overall emissions to less than 100g/kWh for electricity generation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/11/15/carbon-tax-thrusts-britain-towards-top-low-carbon-energy-league/

[Bob Wallace]

Solid proof that Germany has not decreased its CO2 emissions....

[Sleepy]

Maybe start mitigating instead of pushing nuclear or growth as solutions? Hopefully viewable elsewhere as well:
https://urplay.se/program/205843-ur-samtiden-baltic-sea-future-stabilitet-eller-kaos-vagval-for-klimatet
Also adding four screenshots.

[numerobis]

You do realize that:

There has only ever been one successful transition from fossil fuels to non-carbon fuels that resulted in low CO2 emissions.

And:

Only Norway (hydro) and Sweden (nuclear and hydro) are lower.

Are direct contradictions of each other, right?

This map shows that there are in fact many places with clean electric grids, not just France. Most of them are on hydro plus a smidgen of wind and solar.
https://www.electricitymap.org

Of course wind, solar and batteries haven’t yet displaced entire grids’ worth of fossil fuels like hydro and nuclear have — they’re much newer technologies to have at scale. Wind has been growing at about the speed that nuclear started up, solar is growing rather faster. Installation of intermittent renewables has dramatically reduced diesel use on various islands, and it’s reduced coal in China relative to if there were no renewables to use.

[Sleepy]

I would rather express it like this:

There has never been one successful transition from fossil fuels to non-carbon fuels that resulted in required CO2 emissions.

Edit; crossposting here as well.
Renewables 2018 Global Status Report
http://www.ren21.net/status-of-renewables/global-status-report/

https://twitter.com/Oliver_Geden/status/1003565372258377728

Result is obvious but not known by most policymakers, journalists & public: #Renewables volume has drastically increased, but share in overall energy consumption hasn't. See @REN21 numbers for 2006 (note that accounting methods have changed since) http://www.ren21.net/renewables-2007-global-status-report/ … #GSR2018

[Bob Wallace]

Sometime during the previous century I became aware of and concerned about climate change.  At that point I began to wonder how we might be able to stop using fossil fuels and move to clean electricity and transportation.

At the time wind was incredibly expensive ($0.39/kWh) as were solar panels ($12/watt).  Nuclear, was the least expensive low carbon way to generate electricity.  Hydro and geothermal might have been less expensive but too resource limited. 

With low carbon electricity from nuclear we might be able to perfect fuel cells enough to allow driving with hydrogen.

But moving to nuclear generated electricity and FCEVs would have meant higher electricity rates and transportation costs.  Which led me to trying to figure out how to get people to accept paying more when concern over climate change was very limited.

Having been involved in trying to get people to adopt less wasteful, organic lifestyles since the 1960s I couldn't generate much hope.  Most people won't spend money or effort on things that don't benefit them immediately.  People, in general, were not likely to spend money on something to benefit their yet unborn grandchildren.

Then the cost of renewables began to drop.  It became clear that renewables were going to become less expensive than nuclear.  So my thinking shifted from how do we get people to pay more for nuclear to how do we get people to pay more, but not as much more, to switch to renewable energy.  At that point I left nuclear behind.

Now we've reached the point at which wind and solar have become our two least expensive ways to generate.  As we add renewables to grids we should see the cost of electricity drop (or at least not rise as fast as the inflation rate). 



We are now (post 2015) in a new reality.  One in which renewables are replacing fossil fuels based on cost alone.  The external costs of health damage and climate change don't even need to be factored in. 

Renewables have dropped in cost while the cost of nuclear has risen.  It makes no sense to consider nuclear based on cost alone.  We don't even need to consider the possibility of a nuclear disaster or the unsolved problem of safe storage of nuclear waste.

Nuclear is dying.  Globally a large majority of reactors are aging out and new reactors are not being built in adequate numbers to replace them.



It's unlikely we'll ever see another reactor built in North America or western Europe.  South Korea is unlikely to build more.  Only China and Russia are likely to build more than one or two reactors going forward.  Some countries will probably need to build a reactor in order to prove to themselves that nuclear simply is a bad economic decision as has just happened in the US (South Carolina and Georgia).

This development seems to bring a lot of grief to a handful of individuals who, for some reason I can't fathom, have placed their faith in the future of energy firmly in nuclear.  For some reason they can't look at numbers that clearly show nuclear to be doomed and adjust their opinion.

Wind and solar are expected to continue to drop in price to the point at which electricity from wind and solar farms will cost only a bit more than the cost of fuel for a nuclear reactor.  There is simply no physical way to lower the cost of a nuclear plant to allow nuclear to become competitive.

[Bob Wallace]

The decommissioning cost for the Oyster Point reactor which is shutting down has just been announced.  $1.4 billion.

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/18/06/03/oyster-creek-shutdown-will-cost-1-4-billion-take-60-years/

It is anticipated to take 60 years to complete so make what you will of the $1.4 billion estimate.

For $1.4 billion we could install 1,296 MW of single-axis solar ($1.08/watt).

At 30% CF those panels would be the equivalent of 389 MW of "always on" generation.

Oyster Point is a 636 MW reactor.  At 90% CF that would be the "always on" equivalent of 572 MW generation.

$1.4 billion invested in solar would buy us 68% as much generation as the cost of shutting down Oyster Point.  Just the cost of decommissioning.

 

[jacksmith4tx]

For some reason there has been a big reset on energy policy WRT US and China.
In the last 3 days there has been a massive shift to increase emissions. Trump's move was predictable but the Chinese surprised me.
Trump commands utilities to use more coal (at a market premium!).
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-trumps-soviet-style-coal-directive-would-upend-power-markets/524906/
China just slashed wholesale solar power prices and cut future building by up to 30%.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/06/04/china-2018-installations-could-drop-by-more-than-a-third/

Looks like we can toss those low end emission forecasts.
I predict there will be a big price drop in PV modules followed by a huge plunge in inventory that will take years to rebuild. The US will loose 50% of it's domestic manufacturing capacity when this cycle bottoms out.

[silkman]

It's unlikely we'll ever see another reactor built in North America or western Europe.

Unfortunately Bob, you're incorrect. The UK government is committed to Hinkley Point C and EDF has started construction of a pair of EPR reactors despite the fact that no one has yet managed to get one of these complex 20th century dinosaurs to generate a single kW of power anywhere in the world. Worse, should they succeed in solving the technical challenges UK consumers will have to pay an indexed massive premium on the 2013 wholesale price which is already way above the cost of solar and off-shore wind power for 35 years.

At the same time, management of the legacy our Magnox reactors at Calder Hall continues to cost billions.

Finally, the May government has today agreed Heads of Terms with Hitachi for a further project at Wylfa with more in the pipeline:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/04/uk-takes-5bn-stake-in-welsh-nuclear-power-station-in-policy-u-turn

Smart grid, V2G, insulate our ageing housing stock? Forget it - build baby build!

[Bob Wallace]

I thought of that after I posted.  But then I decided that since the UK is removing itself from Europe the UK should be considered a group of islands off the coast of Europe.   

Hinkley construction has already started.  I'll give it a 50:50 chance of being completed.  And I'll set the odds of further nuclear builds a lot closer to zero as UK citizens change governments.

Will the London government be able to shove some of the Hinkley costs onto Scotland?  If not, imagine living in England, watching your electricity costs go up, and looking across the boarder to see electricity costs declining.

We're in the transition.  Some people and governments are more fact sensitive than others.  Some are moving  rapidly to cheaper renewables, some may have to build one more reactor in order to get a clue, and some are trying to run back to the previous century.  (I'm looking at us, US.)

[jacksmith4tx]

Hi Bob,
I noticed Toshiba withdrew from the South Texas Nuclear Expansion last week after they had already dumped all their Westinghouse assets. I wonder how this affects plans for new nuclear plants?
I posted something about a significant shift in energy policy but it got stuck in moderation.
In a nutshell, The US is considering forcing utilities to buy coal and nuclear power and China slashed their PV pipeline and cut their FIT rates (is this an effect of the tariffs?
Unless something changes it looks like we are going over 1.5c.

[Sleepy]

Unfortunately, there's a whole planet out there.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

Countries with existing nuclear power programs

Argentina has three operating reactors and nascent plans for two units to be constructed by China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC).

In Armenia construction is planned to start on a new reactor in 2018 following government approval in May 2014.

Bulgaria is planning to build a large new reactor at Kozloduy.

In Brazil construction of the country's third unit is ongoing following the signing of an agreement with CNNC in September 2017.

In China, now with 38 operating reactors on the mainland, the country is well into the growth phase of its nuclear power program. There were eight new grid connections in 2015, and five in 2016. 20 more reactors are under construction, including the world's first Westinghouse AP1000 units, and a demonstration high-temperature gas-cooled reactor plant. Many more units are planned, including two largely indigenous designs – the Hualong One and CAP1400. China aims to have more nuclear capacity than any country except the USA and France by 2020.

In the Czech Republic the government remains strongly committed to new nuclear capacity. Talks were held in early 2017 with parties interested in constructing new units in the country.

In Finland, construction is under way on a fifth, very large reactor which is expected to come online in 2019, and plans are progressing for another large one to follow it.

France is building a similar 1600 MWe unit at Flamanville, for operation from 2019.

India has 22 reactors in operation, and six under construction. This includes two large Russian reactors and a large prototype fast breeder reactor as part of its strategy to develop a fuel cycle which can utilise thorium. Nineteen further units are planned, and proposals for more – including western and Russian designs – are taking shape following the lifting of nuclear trade restrictions.

In Iran a 1000 MWe PWR at Bushehr began commercial operation in September 2013, and further units are planned.

Japan has two reactors under construction.

Pakistan has two Chinese ACP1000 reactors under construction.

Romania's second power reactor started up in 2007, and plans are being implemented for two further units to be built there.

In Russia, several reactors and two small ones are under construction, and one recently put into operation is a large fast neutron reactor. About 25 further reactors are then planned, some to replace existing plants. This will increase the country's present nuclear power capacity significantly by 2030. In addition about 5 GW of nuclear thermal capacity is planned. A small floating power plant is expected to be commissioned by 2019 and others are expected to follow.

Slovakia is completing two 440 MWe units at Mochovce, to operate from 2018.

South Korea plans to bring a further three reactors into operation by 2019. All of these are advanced PWRs of 1400 MWe. These APR1400 designs have evolved from a US design which has US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) design certification, and four have been sold to the UAE (see below).

In the UK, 11 units are planned, including four 1670 MWe EPR units, four 1380 MWe ABWR units and three 1135 MWe AP1000 units.

In the USA, there are plans for two new reactors, beyond the two under construction now.

[Bob Wallace]

Some of those reactors your list probably will not be constructed.  Plans don't count.  Many are planned but never built. 

Unless something has happened recently China has not approved a new reactor in the last couple of years.  China may or may not break ground on a few reactors this year.  It's kind of coming down to China, Russia and India.  Both China and India are putting a lot more resources into renewables than nuclear so we might see them slow, or even stop, new reactor builds within the next few years. 

Finland and France.  Boondoggles.  Olkiluoto 3 is more than a decade past target date and at least 5 billion euros over budget.  Flamaville's cost initially set at €3.3 billion is now expected to be more than €10 billion.  The reactor was supposed to be online in 2012.  Very recently more problems were detected extending the start date to sometime in the future.

But even if most of the reactors on your list were built there are more reactors scheduled to close than are listed.  The global nuclear fleet is shrinking.

And the bulk of aging out reactors is stumbling toward the grave.  We're looking out only seven years to 2025 right now.  By 2025 things may be looking very bleak for nuclear.

[Sleepy]

Your words count even less, Bob.

[Bob Wallace]

You don't have to take my word for it.  Here's what the nuclear industry has said about upcoming closures (modified some from the original publication and changes were announced).

Global Nuclear Reactors Scheduled to be Closed by the End of 2025

September 23, 2017

Country Totals and Cumulative Count in Parentheses

( 7) Belgium
Doel 1  2025
Doel 2  2025
Doel 3  2022
Doel 4  2025
Tihange 1   2025
Tihange 2   2023
Tihange 3   2025

 (+10 = 17) Canada
Pickering A1  2022
Pickering A4  2022
Pickering B5  2024
Pickering B6  2024
Pickering B7  2024
Pickering B8  2024
Darlington 1  2025
Darlington 2  2025
Darlington 3  2025
Darlington 4  2025


(+3 = 20) Czech Republic
Dukovany 1   indefinite
Dukovany 2     2017
Temelin 1     2020
Temelin 2      2022

(+17 = 37) France
Expected to close one-third of their reactors by 2025.

(+9 = 43) Germany
Germany has scheduled all remaining reactors to close by 2022

(+7 = 50) Japan
Fukushima II-2  2024
Ikata 2  2022
Onagawa 1   2024
Sendai 1  2024
Sendai 2  2025
Takahama 3  2025
Takahama 4  2025

(+1 = 51) Pakistan
Karachi 1   2019

(+10 = 61) Russia
Beloyarsk 3     2025
Bilibino 1-4  2021
Kursk 1 2022
Kursk 2  2024
Leningrad 1  2019
Leningrad 2     2021
Leningrad 3  2025


(+2 = 63) Slovakia
Bohunice V2-1  2024
Bohunice V2-2  2025

(+2 = 65) South Africa
Koeberg 1  2024
Koeberg 2  2025

(+4 = 69) South Korea
Kori 2  2023
Wolsong 1  2022
Kori 3     2024
Kori 4  2025

(+6 = 63)Spain  (Licenses Expire)
Almaraz 2  2020
Asco  2021
Asco 2  2021
Cofrentes  2021
Trillo  2024
Vandellòs 2  2020

(+2 = 65) Sweden
Ringhals 1   2020
Ringhals 2   2019

(+3 = 68) Switzerland
Beznau 1  2019 (or 2030)
Beznau 2  2021 (or 2031)
Mühleberg 2019   

(+9 = 73)  Ukraine
Khmelnitski 1  2018
Rivne/Rovno 3  2017
South Ukraine 1 2023   
South Ukraine 2   2025
South Ukraine 3   2019
Zaporozhe 1  2025
Zaporozhe 3 2017
Zaporozhe 4  2018
Zaporozhe 5 2019


(+8 = 81) UK
Hartlepool 1&2  2024
Heysham I 1&2  2024
Hinkley Point B 1&2  2023
Hunterston B 1&2   2023


The World Nuclear Association does not total US reactors scheduled to close.

(+11 = 92)  US
Oyster Creek  2018
Palisades  2018
Pilgrim  2019
Three Mile Island I  2019
Davis-Besse  2020
Perry  2021
Beaver Valley  2021
Indian Point  2021
Palisades  2022
Diablo Canyon I  2024
Diablo Canyon II  2025

France has changed their plans since the WNA list was created in September 2017.  France is apparently going to first replace their coal plants with renewables and then close reactors so the total at the moment is more likely 77. 

Expect more to be added over the next six years. 

Data Source
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles.aspx

[Sleepy]

You don't have to take my word for it.  Here's what the nuclear industry has said about upcoming closures (modified some from the original publication and changes were announced).

Global Nuclear Reactors Scheduled to be Closed by the End of 2025

September 23, 2017

That's why I posted the link and summary above, updated January 2018.

[TerryM]

I hope the Ukrainian reactors hold up until they're decommissioned. As we speak they're hammering Westinghouse fuel rods into Soviet reactors.
Terry

[Bob Wallace]

You don't have to take my word for it.  Here's what the nuclear industry has said about upcoming closures (modified some from the original publication and changes were announced).

Global Nuclear Reactors Scheduled to be Closed by the End of 2025

September 23, 2017

That's why I posted the link and summary above, updated January 2018.

And it was a crackin' fine list thee posted, laddie.  About 50 reactors that may come online by 2025. 

Of course that good news for those who love nuclear energy is a bit offset by the list of over 70 reactors scheduled to close by the same date.

Net loss....

[Sleepy]

From the link I posted:
It should not be assumed that a reactor will close when its existing licence is due to expire, since licence renewal is now common. However, new units coming online have more or less been balanced by the retirement of old units in recent years. Over 1996-2015, 75 reactors were retired as 80 started operation. There are no firm projections for retirements over the next two decades, but the World Nuclear Association estimates that at least 80 of those now operating will close by 2035. The 2017 edition of the Association's Nuclear Fuel Report has 140 reactors closing by 2035 in its Reference Scenario, using very conservative assumptions about licence renewal, and 224 coming online, including many in China.

[oren]

Unfortunately, there's a whole planet out there.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

Thanks for this long list Sleepy. I believe this is mostly "inertia" of big projects and heavy government processes. Economics almost always wins at the end (usually sadly for the planet, in this case maybe not). Nuclear is costly, and renewables have become a very cheap alternative. I expect that most of the decision makers will come around over the next few years, though projects in process may continue for a long while.

[Bob Wallace]

It should not be assumed that a reactor will close when its existing licence is due to expire, since licence renewal is now common.

The list I gave is, except for the six Spanish reactors, a list of announced closures.  Not when their licenses expire. 

Oyster Creek, for example, is scheduled to close this year and it was just announced that fuel will be withdrawn in September.

[Bob Wallace]

However, new units coming online have more or less been balanced by the retirement of old units in recent years. Over 1996-2015, 75 reactors were retired as 80 started operation.

I'm not sure your numbers are correct.



At the end of 2015 and 2016 there were fewer reactors operating than in 1996.

[Sleepy]

Why don't you go and have an argument with the World Nuclear Association, Bob? It's their numbers, not mine and you don't read. You are assuming reactors in operation.
If you go to worldnuclearreport (where your graph is from) you will see graphs for reactor startups and shutdowns. Also how many that was constructed since 2006, which has increased since then. Or do you want me to provide those graphs for you?

Edit; here they are.

[Bob Wallace]

Over 1996-2015, 75 reactors were retired as 80 started operation.

That would be net 5 gain.  It would mean 5 more reactors in operation in 2015 than there were in 1996.

Your last graph shows fewer reactos in operation in 2015 than in 1996.

Are you perhaps counting the Japanese reactors that were shut down following the Fukushima disaster and have not come back online as operational?

[Sleepy]

That's your graph updated with 2017, Bob. You never provided a link to it above. Why not?
They also provide a whole section about Japan. Go read your own source Bob.

[Bob Wallace]

Why haz you big harsh?

The source of the graph is printed right on the graph.

[Sleepy]

Haz not, just trying to read facts and examine sources. You are not providing them. I had to zoom in on your graph to see it's origin (old bad eyes). But it still doesn't provide information about where you read or got it. Get it?

[Bob Wallace]

Haz not, just trying to read facts and examine sources. You are not providing them. I had to zoom in on your graph to see it's origin (old bad eyes). But it still doesn't provide information about where you read or got it. Get it?

Are you confusing this discussion site with a scientific journal?

There's no rule that one must document everything they say here.  But most of us do expect people to proffer a source if one is requested.

Most of us 'regulars' have grown to know each other and how much each can be trusted to make fact based statements.