Nuclear Power

[Bob Wallace]

The installed cost of solar and onshore wind is a small fraction of installed nuclear.

Why slow the move off fossil fuels by overspending for nuclear?

[Sciguy]

Economics do dictate a lot. And that is why China is building nuclear power plants and have no signs of slowing. Even though they have the largest manufacturing base for wind turbines and PV in the WORLD, the costs of the renewable and nuclear are comparable.

This link claims 7c/kWh for nuclear, which is cheaper than chinese renewables. But the numbers seem old so its hard to tell if they're still valid. And I wouldn't call them completely reliable.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx

Either way, China is the best indicator for real cost. The state gets to decide which project best suits their national interests. If nuclear was significantly more expensive than renewables, they wouldn't build the plants just for shits and giggles.

LOL.  Are you aware that the Chinese Government sets the prices and dictates what can and can't be built?

Here's a good overview of the Chinese nuclear power industry:

https://piie.com/blogs/china-economic-watch/economics-nuclear-power-china

Second, nuclear power producers benefit from more favorable pricing. In China, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) controls the price at which power producers may sell their electricity to the grid. In order to promote the growth of cleaner forms of electricity (and save dwindling water resources) the rate thermal and hydro power producers receive for their electricity is set lower than nuclear, wind, and now solar power. Since 2007 the on-grid tariff for nuclear power has been between 10 and 25 percent higher than thermal power. This year, NDRC increased this gap further by lowering the on-grid tariff for thermal power, while keeping the tariff for nuclear power essentially stable.

(This article was written in 2013.  The tariff for solar energy has been reduced because China built so much solar in the past few years that they can't afford to continue paying it.)  Here's another way China subsides the costs for nuclear power, from the same article:

Fourth, nuclear power benefits from subsidized capital costs in China. As we have discussed frequently on this blog, controls on deposit interest rates lower the cost of capital for borrowers. According to a projection by the OECD the average investment cost of a 2nd generation nuclear reactor in China is more than double that of a large-scale thermal plant. But at a 5 percent discount rate – due to lower fuel costs – the cost of operating the plant is roughly comparable to that of a thermal plant. However, if the discount rate is doubled to 10 percent, than the cost of operating a thermal plant in China would be one-eighth lower than that of a 2nd generation nuclear plant.  This means that nuclear power producers benefit the most from artificially low interest rates.

As to China showing "no signs of slowing", that's false.  Last year China had to slow down approvals of new nuclear power plants because the rate they were being built was unaffordable:

http://energypost.eu/chinese-slowdown-may-end-nuclears-last-hope-for-growth/

China’s nuclear slow-down is addressed in the latest World Nuclear Industry Status Report and also in an August 2017 article in trade publication Nuclear Engineering International by former World Nuclear Association executive Steve Kidd.

China’s nuclear program “has continued to slow sharply”, Kidd writes, with the most striking feature being the paucity of approvals for new reactors over the past 18 months. China Nuclear Engineering Corp., the country’s leading nuclear construction firm, noted earlier this year that the “Chinese nuclear industry has stepped into a declining cycle” because the “State Council approved very few new-build projects in the past years”.

Kidd continues: “Other signs of trouble are the uncertainties about the type of reactor to be utilised in the future, the position of the power market in China, the structure of the industry with its large state owned enterprises (SOEs), the degree of support from top state planners and public opposition to nuclear plans.”

Over-supply has worsened in some regions and there are questions about how many reactors are needed to satisfy power demand. Kidd writes: “[T]he slowing Chinese economy, the switch to less energy-intensive activities, and over-investment in power generation means that generation capacity outweighs grid capacity in some provinces and companies are fighting to export power from their plants.”

Finally, from the same article:

Kidd states that nuclear power in China may become “a last resort, rather as it is throughout most of the world.” The growth of wind and solar “dwarfs” new nuclear, he writes, and the hydro power program “is still enormous.”

Chinese government agencies note that in the first half of 2017, renewables accounted for 70% of new capacity added (a sharp increase from the figure of 52% in calendar 2016), thermal sources (mainly coal) 28% and nuclear just 2%. Earlier this month, Beijing announced plans to stop or delay work on 95 GW of planned and under-construction coal-fired power plants, so the 70% renewables figure is set for a healthy boost.

[Sciguy]

And here's another good article with the history of nuclear power in China and the role the Government plays in fostering it's growth:

https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/05/14/electricity-policy-and-economics-pub-76315

It's a very lengthy article.  Here are a few excerpts (I bolded a few of the key statements):

Then and now, the profitability of Chinese nuclear investments has benefited from the support of provincial and central government leaders. This assistance is provided in a number of ways, most significant of which are:

Access to Information and Decisionmakers

The number of corporate entities allowed to invest in the nuclear power sector is strictly limited; all firms are owned and controlled by the state. The Communist Party, the most powerful organization in China, is involved in all top-level personnel decisions. Senior SOE managers in the power sector are promoted into central and provincial governments, where they “retain their links to the companies and provide insights from and arguments favorable to the companies.”210 Nearly all high-ranking government officials are members of the Communist Party and subject to its discipline. SOEs have a Communist Party hierarchy parallel to the management hierarchy, in which the party secretary may have more authority than senior managers.211 Management’s access to the Communist Party is influential and can facilitate support from local and provincial industry and governments, including for pre-authorization infrastructural work to support construction of projects in advance of formal approval by the State Council and other regulators. Many or even most of China’s proposed nuclear construction projects may have benefitted in this way.

Power-generating SOEs have not been obligated until recently to pay dividends to their government shareholders. So-called policy banks, such as the China Development Bank, have provided these companies, above all CNNC, loans at favorable, state-subsidized rates.215 More generally, the SOEs benefit from controls on deposit interest rates that permit state-owned lenders to provide nuclear-project financing at selected low discount rates that give nuclear power a clear and very large financing cost advantage.

Perhaps the most effective potential financial perk that the Chinese state affords nuclear power is the arrangement of favorable price conditions to deliver nuclear-generated electricity to the grid. China’s central planning agency, NDRC, controls the price at which power producers sell their output. It sets a different feed-in tariff for each power source: nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, and coal. For as long as the central government has taken this approach, the guaranteed tariff paid to producers for nuclear power—0.43 renminbi per kilowatt-hour (RMB/kWh) in 2016 and 2017—has been higher than the rate for either coal-fired or hydroelectric power, in part reflecting higher capital costs for nuclear plants.217 How important to the welfare of China’s nuclear sector is this remunerative tariff? “We watch this carefully,” said one Chinese nuclear industry executive in 2015. “If the government were to take this away from us, the future of our business would be in a lot of trouble.”

Under five-year plans covering 2011 through 2020, China has been aggressively expanding investment in power production capacity from wind, solar, and nuclear sources. If goals are met, China’s capacity for wind-powered power generation will have increased from 31 GWe in 2010 to 200 GWe in 2020; solar-powered capacity will have increased from about 1 GWe in 2010 to 70 GWe in 2020; and nuclear power capacity will increase to 58 GWe in 2020 with an additional 30 GWe under construction.

Far from headlines with official boasts about new records for China’s ever-growing installed nuclear capacity, data made available to Chinese media in March 2017 underscored the potential threat to nuclear power economics posed by reduced plant availability. According to Chinese nuclear utility executives, a nuclear power plant in China must be operated for about 7,000 hours per year to service the loans that financed the project. Beginning in 2015, in some regions where nuclear power capacity has been steadily built up, availability has dropped to 5,000 hours per year.

Whether recent local and regional trends toward a decline in nuclear power production become generalized will depend on how the state balances the interests of the different participants who sell their power to the grid. Just over a decade after Wen Jiabao ushered in a nuclear construction bonanza, potential investors today—and perhaps for years to come—can no longer assume that new nuclear power plants in China come with a license to print money.

There is a lot more information in the article, especially how the Government has to balance the concerns of the coal industry, which employs a lot of people, with their desire to clean up air pollution and pursue carbon-free sources of power.  It's an excellent read.

[Sciguy]

Again, from the same article in the above post:

https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/05/14/electricity-policy-and-economics-pub-76315

Thanks in large part to inefficient dispatching, capacity overbuilding, lack of transparency in pricing, and selective protectionism, electric power in China today may cost 30 percent more on average than in the United States.

Interestingly, the US Department of Energy, at the request of President Trump, is rumored to be issuing an order requiring some electric utility operators to buy electricity from coal-fired and nuclear power plants at above market rates to keep those power plants from shutting down.  It seems the US is following your advice and becoming more like China.  MAGA!

[Bob Wallace]

A point on the relative cost of nuclear, wind, and solar in China.

China has equal, if not better, access to solar and wind hardware as the rest of the country.  China has inexpensive labor.  New wind and solar projects are not going to meet meaningful resistance as can happen in some countries.  There will be no construction delays or costly court battles.  The Chinese government can offer the same low cost financing to wind and solar as what they offer nuclear.

Wind and solar electricity should drop below the cost of wind and solar in most other countries.  Comparing similar resource levels.  Any 'wind and solar more expensive than nuclear' is most likely due to immature renewable industries working their way down the learning curve.
--

Nice info, Ken.  Thanks.

[tombond]

Exelon Corporation, America’s largest nuclear power operator, First Solar, and the American Wind Energy Association are supporting a carbon tax.

The message however won’t have the word “tax” in it, the proposed policy is to eliminate most federal regulations related to carbon emissions and send the carbon tax back to consumers as a carbon dividend as championed by Jim Hansen. 

https://www.axios.com/nuclear-renewable-firms-fund-new-group-pushing-carbon-tax-1529446710-8183d682-e725-4897-b6d8-f8469c09b211.html

Carbon taxes already have a history of success at reducing carbon emissions as shown by the UK.   
Carbon emissions from electricity halved in four years thanks to the growth of renewable energy, and the switch from coal to gas driven by the UK’s carbon price of £23 per tonne of CO2 versus just £5 per tonne in the European Union.
 
The top six countries with emissions under 200 g/kWh are either mountainous countries blessed with substantial hydropower resources, or heavily rely on nuclear power (ie France has 58 reactors).

It will be difficult for Britain’s electricity to decarbonise much further without a massive shift in either geography or opinion towards infrastructure megaprojects (nuclear power).  Nonetheless, Britain’s example shows just what can be achieved in four years with a modest price on carbon emissions.

http://electricinsights.co.uk/#/reports/report-2017-q3/detail/the-low-carbon-electricity-league-table?&_k=breusz

[Bob Wallace]

Exelon Corporation, America’s largest nuclear power operator, First Solar, and the American Wind Energy Association are supporting a carbon tax.

The message however won’t have the word “tax” in it, the proposed policy is to eliminate most federal regulations related to carbon emissions and send the carbon tax back to consumers as a carbon dividend as championed by Jim Hansen. 

https://www.axios.com/nuclear-renewable-firms-fund-new-group-pushing-carbon-tax-1529446710-8183d682-e725-4897-b6d8-f8469c09b211.html

Carbon taxes already have a history of success at reducing carbon emissions as shown by the UK.   
Carbon emissions from electricity halved in four years thanks to the growth of renewable energy, and the switch from coal to gas driven by the UK’s carbon price of £23 per tonne of CO2 versus just £5 per tonne in the European Union.
 
The top six countries with emissions under 200 g/kWh are either mountainous countries blessed with substantial hydropower resources, or heavily rely on nuclear power (ie France has 58 reactors).

It will be difficult for Britain’s electricity to decarbonise much further without a massive shift in either geography or opinion towards infrastructure megaprojects (nuclear power).  Nonetheless, Britain’s example shows just what can be achieved in four years with a modest price on carbon emissions.

http://electricinsights.co.uk/#/reports/report-2017-q3/detail/the-low-carbon-electricity-league-table?&_k=breusz

The UK has massive offshore wind resources and the cost of electricity from turbines is very affordable.

[Bob Wallace]

When China began its nuclear program wind and solar were much more expensive than they are today.  As prices for wind and solar fell both have seen increased installation rates with wind already producing more electricity in China than nuclear, which had a very large head start.  Solar is ramping up faster than did nuclear.

This is a plot of ramp rates.  Each curve starts at the point where the technology first produced 1 TWh in a year.




(I need to update this chart with 2017 data.)

Supposedly China will start construction on as many as eight new reactors this year so nuclear might pull ahead of wind a few years from now.  We'll have to wait to see how China chooses to spend its energy money over the next decade or so.  I expect China to make smart decisions, its leaders seem to be math competent.

[Bob Wallace]

Here's the update. 



Wind has done in 15 years what nuclear took 25 to accomplish.  Solar in ~7 vs. ~21 for nuclear.

And both wind and solar are showing faster acceleration than nuclear in the last few years.

[ghoti]

Bob you're calling this like it's a horse race. It isn't.

OK so you say this - "Wind has done in 15 years what nuclear took 25 to accomplish.  Solar in ~7 vs. ~21 for nuclear." - and I ask so what?

Excuse me? Nuclear is losing dramatically to wind and solar worldwide. The deployment numbers make that clear.

[Bob Wallace]

Bob you're calling this like it's a horse race. It isn't.

OK so you say this - "Wind has done in 15 years what nuclear took 25 to accomplish.  Solar in ~7 vs. ~21 for nuclear." - and I ask so what?

What's your point exactly, as in what does this supposed to mean to you/others? Besides, assuming your graph is accurate, the rate of deployment growth was faster for win and solar than it was for nuclear.

Now, can you tell me the specific years when they each first hit 1 TW please? I want to check the facts - all of them.

Yet again you fail to include a link to the source webpage with supporting refs/info - I wish you did not do that.

What does it mean? 

China is installing wind and solar at a faster rate than they are installing nuclear.

China started installing nuclear years before starting with wind and solar.  I assume that is due to the cost of wind and solar falling below nuclear over time.  Wind got there first, at least in the West.  Solar later.



If you look on the graph it clearly states "2018 BP Statistical Review of Global Energy".  You can download the data and check it for yourself.  Please let us know if I made a mistake.  I do once in awhile.

You can get the dates from the database or you can do some simple math.  The last data point on the second graph is for 2017.  Read the numbers on the horizontal axis and subtract.

If you want to check to make sure I didn't "doctor" the Lazard graph then search for the most Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis ver. 11 and download the PDF.

[Bob Wallace]

Bob you're calling this like it's a horse race. It isn't.

OK so you say this - "Wind has done in 15 years what nuclear took 25 to accomplish.  Solar in ~7 vs. ~21 for nuclear." - and I ask so what?

Excuse me? Nuclear is losing dramatically to wind and solar worldwide. The deployment numbers make that clear.

And there's the starting bell!

Nuclear is first out of the gate and takes a commanding lead!

Coming around the first turn wind is catching up with nuclear and has pulled ahead!!  Looks like nuclear might not have the stamina it needs to keep up with wind.

But now in the backstretch solar is starting to hit it's stride and is gaining quickly on the pack!!!

Looks like it may be wind and solar crossing the line first!!!!

Get ready to cash in those winning tickets folks.

[Bob Wallace]

Why does it matter?

It tells us what is happening in China.

China is the love interest of nuclear advocates.  It looks like their loved one might be letting them down by turning her attention to renewable energy.

It's the sort of thing some of us like to track.

[Bob Wallace]

If you look on the graph it clearly states "2018 BP Statistical Review of Global Energy".  You can download the data and check it for yourself.

If you want to check to make sure I didn't "doctor" the Lazard graph then search for the most Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis ver. 11 and download the PDF.

No need for the paranoia Bob. "2018 BP Statistical Review of Global Energy" has multiple docs and files - would it kill you to provide a proper ref (page number) and a url while you are there choosing which "image graph" to save and attach to your post?

Can you not use "a browser history" search and provide the ref? You have been asked to do this repeatedly (maybe for years now?) and refusing to do so is being obstinate and very disrespectful and unnecessarily discourteous of others.

Are you such a delicate flower that you can't do a simple search when told exactly what to look for?

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

1) Download the database. 

2)Copy the data for China from the Nuclear Generation TWh, Renewables - Solar consumption - TWh (from 1965), and Renewables - Wind consumption - TWh (from 1965) pages. 

3)Put them in a spreadsheet. 

4) Do the math to determine growth post hitting 1 TWh.

5) Graph the data.

[Bob Wallace]

Thanks for the url but that was not what I actually asked for.

You asked for the data source.  That is the data source.  I told you on which specific pages to find the data.  And how to recreate the graph.


Please go to your profile and 'ignore' me.  I think your life will be significantly happier.

[Bob Wallace]

Asking you to simply provide a ref URL to the webpage/s from which you extracted your quotes and images isn't such a big deal.

There is no URL to the webpage from which I extracted my graph because it did not come from a webpage.

It is a graph that I created. 

I gave you all the information you need to check my work.

Look, you're new here.  You signed up less than two months ago.  Several of us have been here from the beginning.  In fact, I encouraged Nevin to create the forum to give us a place to discuss topics which were not directly on topic for his Arctic Sea Ice blog.

People who have been around for awhile know what the BP database is.  They know what Lazard is.  If you don't know then the polite thing to do would ask for an explanation.  Not to try to set standards for others to follow.

[Bob Wallace]

The graph I am speaking of is this one:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,776.msg160250.html#msg160250

I made the graph.  The data source is 2017 BP Statistical Review of Global Energy.

... far more people than I have asked you for refs and urls before.

Please link your sources.

[Bob Wallace]

My, my, my.  You've had your bloomers all in a twist because sources weren't documented as you wished them to be. 

But when asked to provide links to backup your claims we're told "Go Fish".

[oren]

Wow. The level of discussion has deteriorated again.
ASILurker - some of us like to create our own graphs out of available data. It was not very difficult to understand. And showing some respect to longtime posters is a necessary behavior trait in a forum, where you may have missed years worth of discussions and may not be aware of the conclusions of these discussions. I signed up in 2014 and I still feel like a newbie sometimes. And I did read a whole lot of back-pages before I dared to post stuff, and even then some (most?) of my earlier posts were cringe-worthy in retrospect. Today I often avoid posting until I have something half-worthwhile to say. I appreciate a lot of the info brought by fellow posters here, and don't see them as slaves that I can order about, but as volunteers who are out to educate me (and others) on their own free time.
Instead of worrying about cherry-picked graphs, create your own. Make them as objective/cherry-picked as you wish. People appreciate a good graph more than they appreciate long-winded posts (especially those filled with bolded complaints about others).

As to the nuclear discussion - "so what?" you ask. Well nuclear has been touted on these pages many times as the solution to the CO₂ problem. The downside of that argument is that nuclear is expensive, and there are newer (and safer) alternatives available - namely solar and wind - that can be deployed faster and cheaper by those people and nations mindful of their economics (which is most people and nations). In the context of this argument and counter-argument, speed of deployment of the various solutions is certainly interesting, as we are dealing with a time-constrained problem of climate change, and as the deployment speed is a proxy indicator of economics.
If nuclear magically appeared in mass across the globe, somehow ignoring the economics (as it did in France in the 70s), climate change would be served a very good solution. Putting aside other concerns (safety, waste disposal, inherent delays of large projects, risk of failed maintenance during civilizational collapse, susceptibility to attacks during war) I would be happy to see this happen, regardless of solar and wind deployment. But when looking for the fastest and most effective (and therefore economical) deployable solution to climate change, nuclear is currently not the first choice, and is not expected to be the first choice in the foreseeable future (while it may have been the first choice at the time when Hansen examined the problem in detail).

[BenB]

The world actually installed significantly more solar and wind than fossil fuels and far more than nuclear.
Yes, that's only talking about electricity generation and you have to make adjustments for capacity factors, but with current trends, virtually all net new electricity generation will be solar and wind within a few years.

 https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/banking-sunshine-world-added-far-more-solar-fossil-fuel-power

[Bob Wallace]

"Go fish" means that you refuse to provide requested links.

I suspect you realized that you made an exaggerated claim and are trying to tapdance away....

[Bob Wallace]

In 2017? In electric power generation? Yes. I was speaking of ALL energy demand growth

Electricity generation is what matters at this point in time.  (In my opinion, which you don't have to accept.)

The very high probability that we are moving to mostly electricity powered transportation and toward mostly electric heating means that we can largely ignore primary energy use.  We waste about two thirds of the primary energy we consume due to highly inefficient internal combustion engines and steam turbines.

This is US only but is indicative of how little primary energy is actually used (services) and how much is wasted (rejected).



Growth in oil use for vehicles does mean more CO2 but it's almost certainly a short term problem.  EV production should soon reach levels equal to annual vehicle growth.  And then EV production should start lowering the number of ICEVs on the road.

Natural gas capacity and use is growing.  NG capacity is needed to replace closing coal and nuclear plants.  We don't yet have affordable alternatives for when wind and solar are not providing.  NG gives utilities the ability to maximize wind and solar penetration and keep the lights on 24/365.

Wind and solar electricity costs are falling below the cost of fuel for CCNG plants.  When the wind or Sun is providing CCNG plants will be curtailed.  Coal plants are not flexible to serve as fill-in for wind and solar.

In the US new natural gas is replacing coal generation but overall NG and coal are losing market share to wind and solar.

From 2016-2040 net additions in coal-fired power generation is projected to grow by another 400 GW

The EIA is terrible when it comes to predictions.  They are predicting that US coal will maintain a large market share in 2040 as they are posting the closure of US coal plants and recognizing that no new coal plants are being built.  They are ignoring the fact that many US coal plants are losing money and are almost certain to be closed for economic reasons.

Globally, coal consumption seems to have plateaued.  Major banks, including the World Bank, have announced  that they no longer intend to finance coal plants. 

At no point in the last 30 years has the annual growth in low-carbon hydro, nuclear and renewable energy ever met the annual increase in total energy demand.

History is not a good predictor of the future.  It's only in the last few years that wind and solar have become cheaper than coal and natural gas generation. 



Forget the first 25 years of your 30 year span.  It's only in the last five years that wind and solar have become bargains. 

And it takes time for organizations to take on new information and change their activities.  We're seeing wind and solar installations accelerating but it will take a little while for them to cover annual increases in demand and to start significantly cutting fossil fuel use.

[tombond]

Cold, hard, reality has finally set in for the Japanese Government. 

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Japanese-Cabinet-approves-new-basic-energy-plan-0307184.html

"A new basic energy plan that sets goals for Japan's energy mix to 2030 and presents scenarios to 2050 was today approved by the Cabinet. Under the plan, nuclear will remain a key energy source, accounting for 20-22% of the country's electricity generation up to 2030."

"The Fifth Basic Energy Plan calls for nuclear energy to account for 20%-22% of power generation by 2030, with 22%-24% coming from renewable energy sources, while coal's share will be reduced to 26%, LNG's to 27% and oil's to just 3%. The plans aims to reduce Japan's carbon dioxide emissions by 26% by 2030, compared with 2013 levels, and by 80% by 2050. It also aims to raise the country's energy self-sufficiency to about 24% by 2030, compared with just 8% in 2016."

"The plan says that in 2030 nuclear energy will continue to be "an important baseload power source that contributes to the stability of the long-term energy supply and demand structure". In the longer term, to 2050, nuclear will remain a "viable choice for decarbonisation"."

"METI considered nuclear power to be a quasi-domestic source that gives stable power, operates inexpensively and has a low greenhouse gas profile."

"Nuclear power is an 'important power source that supports the stability of the energy supply and demand structure' it said."

The bottom line is, only one country has transitioned from fossil fuels and significantly reduced CO2 emissions in the last 50 years.  France decarbonised its electricity grid in just 20 years using nuclear and for the past 30 years has been producing low carbon electricity, less than 100g/kWh.

https://www.rte-france.com/fr/eco2mix/chiffres-cles


Hansen may be old but he still understands meaningful data and can separate the wheat from the chaff.

[oren]

I have just re-read the beginning of this thread, and I'd like to re-post a couple of posts made by JimD back in early 2014. I have long been bothered by the risk of big projects that require constant maintenance in the face of possible/inevitable collapse mid-century. It's not just nuclear, as the Mosul Dam crisis in collapsed Iraq helped exemplify. In these posts JimD touches on this issue among other stuff, with his usual flare for presenting harsh realities and radical solutions.
(I am not sure about some of his conclusions for renewables, but that is besides the point for this thread.)
I know people can read the whole thread for themselves, but that is time-consuming, and many don't normally do that.
I hope the re-posting is okay with JimD ,but I think this is too important to keep buried.

I think Hansen is simply irrational on this subject. 

Not that we live in a world which has even a small tendency to evaluate decisions based upon a rigorous risk benefit analysis, but if there is even one technology that begs for such basic rational thought it is certainly expanding or even continuing operating nuclear power plants.

The risk far outweighs the possible gain. By orders of magnitude.  If we were really basing our decisions off of risk vs gain we would be well into the process of shutting down all nuclear plants in the world right now and we would certainly not be building any more.  Post collapse taking care of the all the non-depleted nuclear fuel rods and all of the nuclear waste is going to be onerous already.  Let's not add to that problem any further.  Not to mention our chances of nuclear accidents rises significantly as civilization continues it's slow crumble.  Review where we are at in regards to Fukishima for reference as it is expected to require another 30-40 years of effort to resolve that situation.     

Perhaps new generation or advanced designs could be developed and eventually deployed, but not for many years yet.  We simply do not have time left to consider that as an option and it would have to be an option which solved the AGW problem and it just does not even address it.  Time to avoid a severely disrupted climate is long past.  Carbon emissions are of such magnitude and human decision making such that it is virtually certain that the best we can hope for at this point in time is a CO2 level of 450ppm and quite possibly much higher.  This will result in AGW conditions well beyond the point where anything resembling current civilization can continue to function.   

We are already on the downward slope of rising energy costs (declining EROEI) and resource availability.   We will increasingly struggle to maintain the infrastructure we already have.  Resources and wealth are already in short enough supply that the idea of converting our entire power generation system to renewables is well beyond our capability, thus forcing us to continue fossil BAU power generation approaches for at least another generation and likely until we just collapse.  And do not forget that a world powered solely by industrial scale renewable power generation is not even close to being sustainable either. We are adding some 75 million people to the world population every year and doing our damnedest to raise the standards of living of everyone on Earth (thus adding to the vast emissions of carbon we are already emitting).  Everything we are doing is putting us even further beyond the earth's carrying capacity than we are now.  Food production is under constantly increasing stress and is virtually certain to reach population limiting points by 2050 and has a good chance of doing so much earlier.

We already lack the resources to properly manage the shutdown and mothballing of the current nuclear power plants and this shutdown requirement is virtually certain to happen and the resources to manage it 'must' be taken from all the other critical requirements which are constantly building.

BAU destroys civilization.  Green-BAU destroys civilization.  Industrial civilization is just not sustainable.  As much as Hansen deserves respect for his work warning us about AGW and is impacts he has failed to follow his own work to see what the rest of the story is going to be.  Like many of those fully into the technological world and having experienced over a long life the constant increase in complexity of civilization he opts for another level of complexity to address a problem.  This is the standard response that complex civilizations make (whether BAU or Green-BAU).  History and simple follow through to the end logic say it just will not work.  It is basing our rather slim chances of a future on a miracle and is just a form of magical thinking.  Going nuclear would make the crash worse (potentially catastrophically worse) and very likely make it come quicker.  It just makes no sense.     

There is no logical reason to assume we can avoid a dramatic reduction in civilizational complexity and, if we want to leave any kind of livable world to our descendants, we must do everything in our power to dramatically cut population (before the four horsemen step up and finish the job for us - which they are certainly going to do), resource consumption, our standards of living, carbon emissions, and 50 other things as soon as we can.  We need to head in the direction of the world's carrying capacity as fast as our little feet will carry us not the other direction. 

No new nuclear, shut down the current nuclear, shutdown the coal plants, do not build renewable unless there is a one to one shutdown of a coal plant for each new renewable plant.  No additions to power generation capacity at all.  Shut down globalization as fast as possible.  Cease any kind of exploration for new fossil fuel sources as we already have far more than we can afford to burn.

As is said, "Deal with reality or it will deal with you."         

Jim

As I tried to say earlier.  New designs may have promise but that promise has to be considered in light of where civilization is headed.  It is far too late to execute gradual changeovers in technology which take a couple of generations.  We simply do not have time to execute before we are overtaken by the collapse of the environment and the rolling impacts that will have on society.  Nuclear is a solution to a problem, but not to the problem of AGW.

Advocates of nuclear and renewables as solutions for AGW do not seem to be considering our problems in a systemic fashion.  They look at energy production in a laboratory sense in that they mentally isolate it from all other factors and then examine it in a sterile fashion.  This is where the constant analysis keeping coming from which indicate that in mathematical terms we could switch from fossil electrical production to all alternatives and maintain BAU.  But when looked at in a real world perspective (i.e. the difference between a laboratory model and a full up functioning industrial process) one can easily see that it will not work.  There are two primary and many secondary reasons for the why of not working.  First is time.  We ran out of time to execute a long time ago.  Industrial global energy system changeovers require vast amounts of resources and time.  We have neither in sufficient supply.  Second is that even if we managed to execute we do not achieve a solution to the AGW problem.  Why?  We are collapsing because we are far past the carrying capacity of the Earth and we are not living sustainably.  An all nuclear or all renewable energy production system does not move us towards the carrying capacity nor towards sustainability.  BAU and Green-BAU are not sustainable so they do not fix AGW.  The goal of  those who advocate for those types of responses to AGW is to maintain a close approximation to the lifestyle we have now.  Which is not sustainable and is no solution.  It is worth keeping in mind that if we all (and that all is going to be 9 billion eventually) lived like the average African we would still be adding significantly to rising CO2 levels and on a  path to catastrophe and collapse.   We are also in an declining EROEI situation and past the production peak of dozens of critical minerals. Going forward it will become harder each year to  maintain our current infrastructure, spare the resources to create new infrastructure, provide food and housing for the 75 million new citizens borne ach year, repair damage from AGW generated storms and conditions.  Industrial civilization is not sustainable in any sense.  Solutions designed to maintain BAU make things worse not better.  We can live a pretty nice (non-sustainable) lifestyle on this earth only if we have a small population. 

We badly need to accept our circumstances and to quit wasting energy on silver bullet fixes.  There is no easy solution.

To point out what I was trying to say earlier about needing to shut down existing nuclear facilities while we still have time and can mange to devote enough resources to do it (I think we might still be able to manage this - but maybe not).  And accepting that spending those resources to shut down means they will not be available for a host of other purposes which need them also is stuff like the below.

Three years after a 9.0-magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami nearly triggered a nuclear cataclysm in central Japan, conditions at the shattered Dai-Ichi power plant in Fukushima don't inspire confidence. Radiation levels in the surrounding area will keep more than 150,000 residents from returning to their homes for years, if ever. Groundwater flowing under the rubbled reactors, where it is contaminated by radioactivity, is accumulating at the rate of 400 tons a day in more than 1,100 tanks, some of which are leaking the water into the nearby ocean. Dismantling the plant will call for an unprecedented removal of molten fuel from the three reactors that melted down; all told, the decommissioning process could take four decades and cost as much as 11 trillion yen ($106 billion). And that’s if things go well and, God forbid, another huge earthquake doesn’t hit.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-03-11/on-fukushima-anniversary-remember-pearl-harbor

We quite possibly do not have the time left to execute the fix for Fukashima.  That should scare the shit out of people. We are still trying to clean up after Chernobyl and it will take some billions of dollars and at least another 5 years.  And Chernobyl occurred in 1986.

It is certain that there will be other nuclear accidents at other fission reactors over the next 40 years.  The next one will almost certainly be beyond our ability to manage it.  Post collapse how are the survivors going to deal with nuclear reactors which we did not shut down in time?  How are they going to deal with vast quantities of nuclear fuel rods (both used and not-depleted) that need to be stored, maintained and secured for generations?  They will not be able to do this.  This means more accidents and whole areas of the world irradiated and unusable.  We dare not take such chances.  It is a risk vs gain calculation that is totally one sided.

...
Working from the premise's I am taking as a given - which you may or may not accept - doing anything but figuring out how to shut it down as fast as possible does not make sense.  Even if one is not convinced that collapse is certain it is very difficult to come up with reasoning that arrives at any thing but the chance of collapse is very high.  The global resource base is severely degraded and getting worse, population is rising fast, AGW is getting worse fast, and so on.  All of the relevant factors which are pertinent to maintaining, building, developing, storing waste from nuclear technology are very likely to follow the trajectory of what is happening to the rest of the global civilization.  If we play the nuclear card and we are wrong about it saving civilization then we have materially made the prospects for the post collapse world much worse.  Is it a rational choice to make in light of the risk vs gain calculation?

I note in support of my position that even if you could avoid collapse before 2100 by deploying vast new quantities of nuclear and renewables that would not change in any way that we would be running a system that bears no resemblance to the word 'sustainable'.  So what is the point in taking the risk as we would still be pumping out vast quantities of carbon and we would somewhere post 2100 trigger the large methane emissions often mentioned.

Besides dealing with the existing nuclear problems, which will be very difficult going forward, and future accidents - there are always accidents, the time to develop, test, verify, and build large numbers of new technology nuclear power systems just does not appear to be there.  As this quote from your link seems to support..

The option of utilising fourth generation reactor types (GEN IV), such as fast reactors, has been screened out as not credible at this time. There are no GEN IV reactor systems commercially available and it is not considered that they will be commercially available for several decades. Even though the technology for fast reactors is well developed at the research reactor scale, the supply chain has yet to give indication of any substantive commercial development of these systems in the short to medium term. 

If we can barely pay for shutting the existing coal (and hopefully nuclear) down and we try and put vast resources into building out some 2000 GW of renewables where are the resources to then build out the new generation of nuclear going to come from?  All to get to just another unsustainable system?  How does that make sense?
...

[tombond]

More real world reality.

Grid operator warns wind will not fill Sweden's nuclear gap in winter

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-sweden-power-nuclear/grid-operator-warns-wind-will-not-fill-swedens-nuclear-gap-in-winter-idUKKBN1JS1G1

"OSLO (Reuters) - Sweden will have to import more electricity during winter as the country, a net power exporter to the rest of Europe, shifts from nuclear to wind, its grid operator said."

"Last winter, the first since the closure of its Oskarshamn 1 reactor, stretched Sweden’s resources as peak consumption rose by 800 megawatt (MW), triggering start-up procedures in its reserve energy plants."

"Sweden’s power balance will deteriorate further from next winter, the country will need imports and the situation will become worse with two more of its reactors closing by 2020, state-grid Svenska Kraftnat (SVK) said in a report on Monday."

"Of Sweden’s eight remaining nuclear reactors, two will close soon, Ringhals 2 in 2019 and Ringhals 1 the year after, cutting a combined production of 1,700 MW from its power system, 40 percent of which is nuclear output-dependent."

“Wind power cannot contribute to the power balance during winter peak hours with the same availability as the nuclear power it replaces,” SVK said."

For more than 30 years Sweden has been second to Norway with the lowest electricity CO2 emissions in the world using hydro and nuclear.  Now they face energy insecurity as nuclear is closed and the failure of intermittent wind to provide reliable electricity.  Where electricity supply gaps are met by imported electricity generated by fossil fuels, CO2 emissions will rise.

[TerryM]

Oren
Thanks so much for digging back and re-posting JimD's thoughts on the topic.
It's a very dark future that Jim sees, but one that seems increasingly likely as the years pass.
Terry

[Csnavywx]

A lot of the cost problems with nuclear come from constantly changing reactor designs and subsequent lack of crew experience. Capex drops significantly when reactor design is standardized and those crews are familiar with installation. That's in addition to economy of scale reductions that would happen if ya know -- they actually start getting built in number.

Wind and solar are great at lower penetration, but lose value steadily at higher penetration due to curtailment and lack of significant grid-scale storage (daily and especially seasonal):

http://sci-hub.tw/10.1039/c7ee03029k

Battery based storage runs into issues at the fundamental level. We're already using the lightest element possible (lithium) and while further advances will make some headway into the issue, large scale storage is likely to remain prohibitively expensive for some time (except for peaker replacements and the like). We don't have a lot of time and nuclear is the best short to medium term bet to plug the gap. Phasing it out means a lot longer before CO2 emissions peak for good.

[James Lovejoy]

Nuclear as a short to medium term option?

Any nuclear started now will not be up and running in the short term.  It may be barely running in the medium term.

The experience of WPPSS shows the dangers of trying to build too fast.  Different projects, owned by the same owner, were bidding against themselves for the same workforce.  The result was skyrocketing costs, schedule delays, and the cancelling of 4 of the 5 plants.

Any attempt to make nuclear a major player in even the medium term would result in the same problems only exponentially worse.

[oren]

The good news IMHO regarding China, nuclear and collapse risk, is that China is less prone to collapse than other countries. Its population growth is very slow, its demographics signalling a peak, it's organized quite well such that it's (at least sometimes) possible to make hard decisions, and its energy policy is to shift away from imported fossil fuels such that its dependence on imports will be much reduced. So nuclear that gets built now in China has a better chance of still being maintained mid-century, compared to the rest of the world.
(I'm sure others such as JimD could offer 100x better analysis though... these are just my random thoughts)

[Sciguy]

Here's a slighty more up to date (July 5, 2018) assessment:

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/a-double-first-in-china-for-advanced-nuclear-reactors

Both of the design debuts happened in China late last month. On Thursday, 29 June, a 1,400-MW EPR designed in France and Germany synced up to the grid at the Taishan nuclear power plant. The next day the U.S.-designed 1,117-MW AP1000 delivered first power at China's Sanmen plant.

Both projects are coming online years behind schedule, and they are still at least several months away from full commercial operation.

Heavy dependence on China, meanwhile, puts the global nuclear industry in a vulnerable position. Total nuclear generation declined last year if one takes out China, notes Schneider. And he says a Chinese nuclear growth gap is coming, since it hasn’t started building a new reactor in 18 months.

All the while, nuclear is falling further behind renewable solar and wind power. As Schneider notes, the 3.3 GW of new nuclear capacity connected to the grid worldwide in 2017 (including three in China and a fourth in Pakistan built by Chinese firms) pales in comparison to the 53 GW of solar power installed in China alone.

[AbruptSLR]

The USA is asleep at the wheel:

Title: "Fearing climate change, experts in San Diego warn U.S. nuclear industry faces collapse"

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-nuclear-collapse-20180702-story.html

[Tor Bejnar]

From the article:

However, the researchers argue, the second option is very unlikely as it would require accelerating the regulatory review process and a sizable infusion of public cash.

Does nuclear power still need a sizable infusion of public cash?  After some 65 or 70 years of infusions of public cash...

Here is (from an internet search) an article about comparable infusions of public funds:

Solar and Wind Subsidies Are a Clear Success. The Coal and Nuclear Industries Just Aren’t Ready to Admit It.

The coal and nuclear industries criticize subsidies for solar and wind power based on their belief that the subsidies distort the market.

However, a closer look shows the coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear sectors enjoy substantial subsidies, and federal outlays for solar investments are decreasing as the price of solar declines. Wind costs have also dropped significantly over the last decade.

All sources of energy receive subsidies. The question is why continue to throw money at the dying coal and nuclear power industries, whose costs continue to rise despite subsidies.   
...
According to EIA, just over $1 billion in subsidies leveraged up to $30 billion in investment [in solar power]. Weaver suggests a higher number for subsidies, but, anyway you look at it, the solar ITC in 2016 leveraged much more investment than it cost.
...
But Congress is still dumping money into these [coal and nuclear] technologies. According to EIA, the total combined tax expenditures for coal and nuclear power for years 2010, 2013 and 2016 were well over $4 billion combined. This doesn’t include the pay-as-you-go subsidy dumped on ratepayers at the state level to essentially force construction of these financially risky projects.

The only reason nuclear power became a viable option in the first place was because Congress passed the Price Anderson Act in 1957 to shift the bulk of the costs of a major nuclear accident onto the public. These costs could come close to $1 trillion, according to CNN.
...

I'm pretty sure these subsidies ($1b solar in 2016 vs $4b in 2010, '13 and '16 coal & nukes + $1t) aren't apples to apples, but the article ends with

... subsidizing wind and solar investment has yielded very positive results. Any complaints from the fossil fuel and nuclear industries about those subsidies are hypocritical at best.

[tombond]

Fearing climate change, experts in San Diego warn U.S. nuclear industry faces collapse

“We’re asleep at the wheel on a very dangerous highway,” said Ahmed Abdulla, co-author and fellow at the UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy. “We really need to open our eyes and study the situation.”

“It’s really surprising that one of our best weapons in our fight against climate change is at risk of utter collapse because of the economic and political challenges and not the technical ones,” Abdulla said.

While it might be a longshot, the promise of nuclear power has captured the imagination of many younger academics in recent years.

More students are pursuing nuclear engineering degrees than at any time since the early 1980s, with graduation rates in the field tripling between 2001 and 2015, according to survey data from the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education.

“Where else are you going to get a job where you can tell your grandkids that you saved the world?” said Per Peterson, a professor in UC Berkeley’s department of nuclear engineering. “They don’t think they’re going to get rich.”

Nuclear energy constitutes roughly 20 percent of nation’s energy supply, compared to about 17 percent for all renewables combined, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.  Wind and solar, for example, make up about 7.6 percent of the country’s power portfolio.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-nuclear-collapse-20180702-story.html#

Perhaps there is hope for the future if young people start looking at reality and support the only non carbon technology that has ever successfully replaced fossil fuel electricity generation and reduced CO2 emissions.
 
The reality is France replaced nearly all its fossil fuel generation with nuclear in just 20 years, reducing CO2 emissions by 80% from 500g/kWh in 1971 to 100g/kWh in 1987 and remains the only ever successful transition to non carbon energy in the last 50 years.

Today using 63GW of nuclear French emissions are just 74g/kWh.

https://www.rte-france.com/fr/eco2mix/chiffres-cles

This is about 6 times less than Germany which has CO2 emissions of 500g/kWh after installing 100GW of wind and solar in the last 20 years.

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

[James Lovejoy]

As long as these 'French went nuclear' posts continue, one should remember that France went nuclear at a cost of about 6 months GDP.  If the US were to spend 6 months of GDP on wind and solar, even at current prices they would be overbuilding the renewables by several times.

[Sam]

There are many problems with nuclear that make it non viable.

Not least is that even if all of the technical, political, energy and other problems could be hand waived away (which they can't), that it would be technically and financially impossible for nuclear to make a major dent in the energy demand required. It only serves to bolster the absurd notion that we can continue to use energy as profligately as we do in the west without severe civilization ending consequences.

But there are other problems even more severe than those already known and discussed.

In order to make large power stations affordable, they use enormous amounts of concrete. That in turn generates immense amounts of CO2. Everyone knows that.

What is not commonly known is that the entire basis for the safety of the use of concrete under radiation exposure is based on a handful of data points at high doses to assess what radiation exposure destroys the concretes integrity. The data that is used in those assessments is entirely based on fully wetted concrete (high moisture contents).

The very limited set of data available for dry concrete suggests either of two things. Either 1) the concrete fails at about 1,000 times lower total gamma dose than the safety bases use for design. Or, 2) the concrete actually fails in a non dose dependent fashion. I.e., after some unidentified but low dose of high energy gamma rays, the concrete loses structural integrity in a very short time dependent fashion.

This is especially critical in spent fuel pools, where the lack of deep geologic storage has lead operators globally to tight pack the spent fuel basins. This often places the high dose emitting fuel within four centimeters of the concrete walls and floors.

For unlined pools, this pushes the dose to exceed the wetted concrete standards within 15-25 years. For the lined pools where the concrete dries out behind the steel or epoxy liners or coatings, the exposure standard for severe damage may be exceeded in as little as weeks. The basin structure then becomes dependent on rebar, rubble and liner for integrity.

How bad is the problem? No one knows. No one is willing to test the concrete to find out.

[oren]

Compared to solar and wind power (even including storage due to their intermittent nature), nuclear costs much more to deploy, costs much more to maintain, costs much more to decommission, has much more safety issues, and is more of a liability under threats of war or terrorism. In an ideal world all countries had already switched to nuclear in the 1970s like France did. In a real world, countries are unfortunately limited by political will and by budgets. For the same budget being deployed today and in the near future, solar and wind will save much more GHG emissions than nuclear. It's really very simple.

[Sleepy]

Speed is paramount here as I see it.

First mitigation step; cut back consumption while banning leisure fossil fuel usage world wide.
Second mitigation step; cut back consumption while banning leisure fossil fuel usage world wide.
Third mitigation step; cut back consumption while banning leisure fossil fuel usage world wide.

Then implement the quickest available technology to cut remaining emissions from fossil fuels, as much and as fast as possible.

Don't forget the first, second and third steps above.

[jacksmith4tx]

While we were being distracted by other news;
"Historic Russia - China Nuclear Power Cooperation, U.S. Loses Big"

27 June 2018
"The record-setting nuclear deal inked between China and Russia earlier this month is the latest blow to America’s declining influence in commercial nuclear power across the globe.

The deal envisions the construction of four third-generation (Gen 3+) VVER-1200 reactors designed by Russia’s Rosatom Corp., along with the supply of generator parts for China’s ambitious lunar program and the joint development of an advanced CFR600 “fast breeder” reactor. In total, the contract could reach over 100 billion yuan ($15 billion) in construction costs, making it the largest bilateral nuclear deal ever signed between the two countries. The value of the initial set of contracts is estimated to be between $3 and $5 billion."
http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=610:in-historic-russia-china-nuclear-power-cooperation-us-loses-big&catid=146:cenrg&Itemid=439

Meanwhile back in USA Inc. I see this:
http://world-nuclear-news.org/NN-GEH-receives-federal-funds-for-BWRX-300-development-1707184.html

"GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) is to receive USD1.9 million in funding from the US Department of Energy (DOE) to lead research into ways to efficiently building a power plant based on GE Hitachi's BWRX-300 small modular reactor. The research team includes Bechtel, Exelon, Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy (HGNE) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

The team will examine ways to simplify the reactor design, reduce plant construction costs, and lower operations and maintenance costs for the BWRX-300. The research aims to identify ways to reduce plant completion costs by 40-60% compared with other SMR designs in development. This, GEH says, would make it cost-competitive with combined cycle gas and renewables."

Yeah we are just getting around to funding a study, no plan to deploy.
Insight: This maybe why we saw the dramatic reduction in China solar build-out and tariff reductions. All things considered nuclear is the clear winner in low cost CO2/Megawatt generation.

[oren]

Unfortunately some may cry foul that without all the grants and subsidies Nuclear would be noncompetitive with renewable energy options.

I don't have any problem with governments subsidizing research and initial or even ongoing deployment of any emission-free energy technology. However I still don't think there will be mass deployments of nuclear in enough quantities to significantly slash global GHG emissions, due to the high cost even after subsidies. OTOH I think wind and PV solar may be deployed in mass, thanks to their low cost.

[tombond]

Industry’s failure to ditch coal a cause for concern

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/industry-s-failure-to-ditch-coal-a-cause-for-concern-1.3560019

“Astonishingly, the share of coal in 2017 was exactly the same as in 1998,” says Dudley."

 “The share of non-fossil fuels was actually lower, as growth in renewables has failed to compensate for the decline in nuclear energy."

"The failure to make any inroads into the power sector since the turn of the century should be both a cause for concern and a focus for future action.”

[Sigmetnow]

Who Wants to Buy a Pair of Half-Built Nuclear Reactors? Nobody

Nobody seems keen to buy the partially built V.C. Summer nuclear plant in South Carolina, so now the state’s biggest power provider is trying to sell off the equipment.

“No other utilities have shown interest in purchasing part or all of the Summer construction project,” Jim Brogdon, interim chief executive officer of Santee Cooper, said in an emailed statement Monday. The board declared the equipment as “surplus property” and authorized the state-owned utility to pursue a sale.

Santee Cooper and its partner Scana Corp. pulled the plug on the project about a year ago after costs ballooned to more than $20 billion and put the two half-done reactors on the block.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-23/who-wants-to-buy-a-pair-of-half-built-nuclear-reactors-nobody

[jacksmith4tx]

The failure at the Fukushima nuclear power plants may have changed Japans nuclear future.

Japan signals major shift from nuclear to renewable energy.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Tepco-seeks-overseas-partners-in-renewable-energy-pivot

Tepco seeks overseas partners in renewable energy pivot

Fukushima operator plans to move away from nuclear and shrinking Japanese market
Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holdings will pursue renewable energy projects worth tens of billions of dollars in a sharp turn away from nuclear power and an effort that will require finding partners abroad, the power company's president told Nikkei on Monday

Tepco aims to develop renewable energy installations in Japan and overseas that produce 6 gigawatts to 7 gigawatts of power.

If we are going to use nuclear to offset CO2 it won't be cheap so we really do need a fair price for carbon to get the economics right.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-the-us-nuclear-power-plants-at-risk-of-shutting-down

[sidd]

Re: Tepco pivot to renewable

This is significant. Tepco is heavily influenced by the state, especially after Fukushima, and this reflects a shift in attitude at very senior levels of bureaucracy.

sidd

[Sigmetnow]

U.S.:  Owner of Iowa's lone nuclear plant plans to shutter it by 2020

NextEra Energy, owner of the Duane Arnold Energy Center, says it will retire Iowa's lone nuclear plant in late 2020, five years earlier than anticipated.

The Florida-based utility said Alliant Energy, the plant's largest power user, has agreed to pay NextEra $110 million to shorten its agreement to purchase power from Duane Arnold.

Alliant said it will partially replace the nuclear energy with wind energy from NextEra and expects new energy deals will save Iowa customers nearly $300 million over 21 years, even after the utility pays NextEra to end its contract early.

Alliant Energy's plan must go through the Iowa Utilities Board for approval. Duane Arnold, which is located near Cedar Rapids, was licensed to operate until 2034. ...

https://amp.desmoinesregister.com/amp/848824002

[oren]

I think the bolded sentence says it all. It's the economics stupid.

[jacksmith4tx]

oren,
It's also stupid economics. When you don't put a price on carbon emissions then you are committing accounting fraud. That carbon could be worth hundreds of dollars per ton in cost avoidance. The general arc of technology in toward distributed systems so nuclear's golden years may still be ahead if they can perfect fail-safe Small Modular Reactors.

[oren]

I think carbon pricing is sorely missing from the economics, and I'd rather see nuclear plants kept in operation while coal plants are first shut down. But wind would still win over nuclear. Nuclear is simply too expensive in today's environment. And given the speed of development in other carbon-free areas and the lack of near-term economies of scale, I quite doubt these nuclear golden years will ever come.

[magnamentis]

oren,
It's also stupid economics. When you don't put a price on carbon emissions then you are committing accounting fraud. That carbon could be worth hundreds of dollars per ton in cost avoidance. The general arc of technology in toward distributed systems so nuclear's golden years may still be ahead if they can perfect fail-safe Small Modular Reactors.

accounting fraud in nuclear is way higher even, nothing is paid or reserves are held for, not for big accidents, not for proper disposal of nuclear waste and not for dismantling and back-forming of the plants itself.

ultimately major costs are either paid by taxpayers or major and necessary tasks are neglect.

[jacksmith4tx]

As the global temperature rises the carnot/Rankine cycle that supports all thermal power plants (regardless of fuel type) eventually hits a point when the efficiency falls. When it gets bad enough they have to shut the power plant or risk serious damage to the equipment.

Sweden's Ringhals-2 nuclear reactor offline due to high water temperature

OSLO, July 30 (Reuters) -

* Sweden’s Ringhals-2 nuclear reactor has been taken offline due to high water temperatures, operator Vattenfall said on Monday

* Ongoing warm weather in Sweden means that seawater has reached 25 degrees Celsius over the the last few days, Vattenfall said in a statement

* To maintain cooling capacity in the Ringhals nuclear plant, seawater is used to cool different systems and components

* “When the water gets warmer, its cooling effect reduces and in order to maintain the cooling capacity needed for different systems, we need to now take Ringhals 2 out of operation,” said Sven-Anders Andersson, production manager at Ringhals.

https://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL5N1UQ5X3

This is happening world wide on rivers, lakes and even on some ocean coastlines but is rarely noticed or the cause (AGW) identified.

[Sigmetnow]

Along with countries like Niger, Mali and Mongolia, Kazakhstan has an advantage: lax regulations that allow it to process uranium cheaply from in situ leaching, which involves pumping chemicals into uranium reserves and carries serious risks to the environment if it's not carried out responsibly.

Nuclear wasteland: The explosive boom and long, painful bust of American uranium mining
- Government incentives and trade barriers once sparked a gold rush for uranium, leading to a boom in mining for the nuclear fuel.
- However, U.S. uranium miners have endured decades of distress as foreign competition entered the market and demand faltered as nuclear energy fell out of favor.
- Uranium miners are now asking the Trump administration to erect trade barriers torn down more than 30 years ago to preserve the industry.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/04/the-miners-that-fuel-americas-nuclear-power-and-atomic-arsenal-are-di.html