Nuclear - The cheapest way to decarbonize power

[OVERKILL]

http://judithcurry.com/2016/01/19/is-nuclear-the-cheapest-way-to-decarbonize-electricity/

Excerpt:

Quote:
The cheapest way to decarbonize the British electricity system is with all or mostly nuclear power.


Planning Engineer’s post ‘Renewables and grid stability’ provides an excellent explanation of the issues the electricity networks have to cope with and the impacts of adding variable renewables like wind and solar to an electricity system, but it does not attempt to quantify the costs.

A recent report by the Energy Research Partnership (ERP), ‘Managing Flexibility Whilst Decarbonising the GB Electricity System’ compares the total system costs of decarbonizing the electricity system in Great Britain for various proportions of seventeen technologies. The analysis considers and does sensitivity analyses on important inputs and constraints that are seldom included in analyses intended for informing policy analysts about policy for a whole electricity system. The ERP report has policy-relevance for other electricity systems and the methodology should be broadly applicable.

The ERP is co-chaired by Prof John Loughhead FREng, Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). ERP members include a broad spectrum of stake holders from electricity industry, academics, government agencies and NGOs.


Good read and aligns well with the real costs here in Ontario where Nuclear's all-in cost is 6.3 cents KW/h whilst wind and solar are between 13-15 cents and HEAVILY subsidized.

 

[Ethan1]

"All or mostly nuclear power"? I don't know who Judith Curry is, but even representatives of the nuclear industry don't suggest anything near a 100% nuclear model. It does nicely complement other sources, but the infrastructural barrier to 100% nuclear or even 50% nuclear is insurmountable.

I consider myself a nuclear supporter BTW

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Ethan1
"All or mostly nuclear power"? I don't know who Judith Curry is, but even representatives of the nuclear industry don't suggest anything near a 100% nuclear model. It does nicely complement other sources, but the infrastructural barrier to 100% nuclear or even 50% nuclear is insurmountable.

I consider myself a nuclear supporter BTW


That is covered in the article, in fact it is touched on in the section just past the small excerpt I posted:

Quote:
In light of the increasing penetration of variable renewables the ERP undertook to examine issues around grid flexibility and stability. A model was developed to balance not just the need for energy but also ensure the supply of services critical to the operation of the grid. This was used to produce robust modelling of a real GB system across a wide range of scenarios, supported by more stylised analysis to explore the fundamental constraints within which a secure technology mix must lie. This section introduces the main issues facing the GB system and the lessons from other grids, the GB modelling work is described in the following sections.


The all or mostly is in reference to eliminating carbon-emitting generation sources, not replacing already existing renewables like Hydro with nuclear. Also, this is in reference to Great Britain, which wouldn't have the same infrastructure issues replacing things like coal with nuclear for example.

Ontario has a large installed nuclear capacity which fits in well with our hydro electricity from places like Niagra Falls. Those two generation sources produce the vast majority of our power and they are inexpensive. Much of the hydro capacity is local, the town that I live in has five hydro electric dams for example, all small, along a river. The bigger areas like the GTA get the majority of their power from the big nuclear installs like Darlington, Pickering and Bruce.

 

[Shannow]

There's plenty of scope for it, provided we step away from the reactor designs that seem to intentionally want to produce high level waste (for weapons programmes).

The types of reactors that are being worked on consume waste and make fuel from it, turn thorium (plentiful) into fuel etc. rather than a one pass U to Pu and then what do we do with the Pu (other than to put it into weapons) process.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
There's plenty of scope for it, provided we step away from the reactor designs that seem to intentionally want to produce high level waste (for weapons programmes).

The types of reactors that are being worked on consume waste and make fuel from it, turn thorium (plentiful) into fuel etc. rather than a one pass U to Pu and then what do we do with the Pu (other than to put it into weapons) process.


Yup, I posted an article on that from the Nuclear Energy Board a while back that covered the reprocessing and reusing of the different fuels and a prominent player was the Canadian CANDU reactors.

When you are looking to shutter a coal plant a few ACR-1000's, which make 1200MW a piece are a heck of a lot more viable than trying to install thousands of wind turbines and then supplement them with something else... like the coal plant you are trying to shutter, LOL!!

 

[Shannow]

Posted a link to this preso some time ago in another thread.

It doesn't all have to do with big centralised generation, there are solutions that are decentralised also.

http://www.sydneyminingclub.org/presentations/2013/march/worley/index.htm

Worked with the presenter a few years ago on converting an old coal mine to an ash storage area.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Posted a link to this preso some time ago in another thread.

It doesn't all have to do with big centralised generation, there are solutions that are decentralised also.

http://www.sydneyminingclub.org/presentations/2013/march/worley/index.htm

Worked with the presenter a few years ago on converting an old coal mine to an ash storage area.


Watching now. Thanks for the share

 

[andyd]

Good read and aligns well with the real costs here in Ontario where Nuclear's all-in cost is 6.3 cents KW/h whilst wind and solar are between 13-15 cents and HEAVILY subsidized.

Uhmmn I generally agree with you, but for the recent happenings in Japan. When nuclear power goes bad, it goes bad for a long time.The costs can get steep. Somehow, the "what if" should be applied to the cost per kilo watt hour. Don't ask me how.

 

[sleddriver]

Bingo! Wish I could "check" my power as nuclear preferred with my local provider which I'm locked into as they're a monopoly. You can "check" greenie-only at about 4x the cost.

What a shame a society in 2016 that likes to label itself as "progressive" is scared-to-death of nuclear power....still. In comparison, the French have been getting the VAST MAJORITY of their power from nuclear fission for DECADES. AND reprocessing the "waste" rather than burying it. Makes sense!

The rule Carter signed decades ago needs to be ruled NULL and VOID for today's world. After all...what part of 2016 do they not understand????

/rant off

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: andyd


Uhmmn I generally agree with you, but for the recent happenings in Japan. When nuclear power goes bad, it goes bad for a long time.The costs can get steep. Somehow, the "what if" should be applied to the cost per kilo watt hour. Don't ask me how.


1. That wasn't a CANDU
2. It was built on a fault line
3. It was built in a location that could be effected by a Tsunami
4. It was not properly maintained

And there's a laundry list of other faults with the Japan situation which make it a very poor comparison to any sort of properly implemented modern nuclear install.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: sleddriver
Bingo! Wish I could "check" my power as nuclear preferred with my local provider which I'm locked into as they're a monopoly. You can "check" greenie-only at about 4x the cost.

What a shame a society in 2016 that likes to label itself as "progressive" is scared-to-death of nuclear power....still. In comparison, the French have been getting the VAST MAJORITY of their power from nuclear fission for DECADES. AND reprocessing the "waste" rather than burying it. Makes sense!

The rule Carter signed decades ago needs to be ruled NULL and VOID for today's world. After all...what part of 2016 do they not understand????

/rant off


Yes, France is a great example, I think they get something like 80% of their power from nuclear? And they are leading the charge on mitigating the issue of nuclear waste with reprocessing, recycling and different reactor types.

 

[Colt45ws]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: andyd


Uhmmn I generally agree with you, but for the recent happenings in Japan. When nuclear power goes bad, it goes bad for a long time.The costs can get steep. Somehow, the "what if" should be applied to the cost per kilo watt hour. Don't ask me how.


1. That wasn't a CANDU
2. It was built on a fault line
3. It was built in a location that could be effected by a Tsunami
4. It was not properly maintained

And there's a laundry list of other faults with the Japan situation which make it a very poor comparison to any sort of properly implemented modern nuclear install.

Agree. It amazes me that they were running a nuclear plant so shoddily.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Shannow
There's plenty of scope for it, provided we step away from the reactor designs that seem to intentionally want to produce high level waste (for weapons programmes).

The types of reactors that are being worked on consume waste and make fuel from it, turn thorium (plentiful) into fuel etc. rather than a one pass U to Pu and then what do we do with the Pu (other than to put it into weapons) process.


Yup, I posted an article on that from the Nuclear Energy Board a while back that covered the reprocessing and reusing of the different fuels and a prominent player was the Canadian CANDU reactors.

When you are looking to shutter a coal plant a few ACR-1000's, which make 1200MW a piece are a heck of a lot more viable than trying to install thousands of wind turbines and then supplement them with something else... like the coal plant you are trying to shutter, LOL!!

Acr1000? Westinghouse has an ap1000. I don't get why Canada needs its own design. There should be worldwide approved designs and operating procedures. When one of these things [censored] the bed we all get exposed to the radiation. Japan has not been open and forthcoming.

I can't believe they couldn't burp the hydrogen bubbles in the containment buildings and sat on their [censored] and let them all blow.

 

[Dyusik]

Don't have to look as far as Japan. Hanford site is still in not properly disposed of, supposedly the clean up will take effect in the 30's or some stupid date like that.not a fan of nuclear because when discussed, people don't look at waste. It's like a super cheap Yugo. Would you take your family on a road trip to Pikes peak? Or anywhere else?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette

Acr1000?


Yes, that's the designation for the current CANDU design.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Westinghouse has an ap1000.


That's wonderful, but obviously not the same thing

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I don't get why Canada needs its own design.


Because we apparently think we can do it better, LOL! And we've got a pretty good track record with the CANDU's. This isn't going to be an Avro Arrow discussion is it?

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
There should be worldwide approved designs and operating procedures.


This sort of runs a bit contrary to an opinion you cited in a previous thread:

Originally Posted By: turtlevette

Standards are not necessarily providing for the best oil. I detest standards in my work. It limits creativity. The people creating the standards aren't the best and brightest. Small companies live on word of mouth and one can argue that's the best criteria.

In the power world, the relay made by the smallest company reigns supreme because of real world experience observed by utility companies, not laboratory testing or standards. These are extremely important smart devices that assure the grid works properly, avoiding widespread blackouts.


Which also I think aligns with why we have our own design.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
When one of these things [censored] the bed we all get exposed to the radiation.


Well luckily a CANDU has never "pooped the bed", hey I guess that's another reason we have our own design, LOL!

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Japan has not been open and forthcoming.


Agreed, they most certainly haven't been and their attempts to save face and downplay the severity of the situation compounded with the poor maintenance and state of repair of the facility resulted in the situation being much, MUCH worse than it should have been.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I can't believe they couldn't burp the hydrogen bubbles in the containment buildings and sat on their [censored] and let them all blow.


My understanding of the situation was that the backup generator failure/lack of maintenance and then the unwillingness to explore alternative cooling methods until things already had gone full melt-down was ultimately what led to the failure. Down-play down-play down-play don't let it appear as bad as it is and then BOOOM, oh [censored].... and then they ended up cooling with sea water anyways after the poopola had already hit the fan.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Dyusik
Don't have to look as far as Japan. Hanford site is still in not properly disposed of, supposedly the clean up will take effect in the 30's or some stupid date like that.not a fan of nuclear because when discussed, people don't look at waste. It's like a super cheap Yugo. Would you take your family on a road trip to Pikes peak? Or anywhere else?


France looks at waste, as do we. But you are right, the issue of waste and who is dealing with it is a big concern, some countries are a lot more responsible and proactive about proper storage, disposal, reprocessing, recycling...etc than others.

 

[turtlevette]

Well I think the innovation and design should be done here (USA) and then a standard provided for the rest of the world. Apparently a top tier country like Japan cant even handle it. So that doesn't give me warm fuzzies about your country. Sorry. If that makes me elitist then so be it.

Bottom line. I hate standards. But they are necessary in some environments.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Well I think the innovation and design should be done here (USA) and then a standard provided for the rest of the world. Apparently a top tier country like Japan cant even handle it. So that doesn't give me warm fuzzies about your country. Sorry. If that makes me elitist then so be it.

Bottom line. I hate standards. But they are necessary in some environments.





The Japan reactor was a US GE design. Apparently Canada should be handling the standards

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

Quote:
Fukushima was the first nuclear plant to be designed, constructed and run in conjunction with General Electric, Boise, and Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO).


Quote:
The reactors for Units 1, 2, and 6 were supplied by General Electric, those for Units 3 and 5 by Toshiba, and Unit 4 by Hitachi. All six reactors were designed by General Electric.


Quote:
The reactor's emergency diesel generators and DC batteries, crucial components in helping keep the reactors cool in the event of a power loss, were located in the basements of the reactor turbine buildings. The reactor design plans provided by General Electric specified placing the generators and batteries in that location, but mid-level engineers working on the construction of the plant were concerned that this made the backup power systems vulnerable to flooding. TEPCO elected to strictly follow General Electric's design in the construction of the reactors.


That worked out well eh?

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
[



The Japan reactor was a US GE design. Apparently Canada should be handling the standards

When i took nuke power classes in college we studied the GE BWR 6 and the Westinghouse pressurized water reactor. Candu was only mentioned in passing like it was an experiment or something. All the nuke navy guys at the various plants I worked at liked the pwr design as that's how the sub's and ships worked.

We were taught that the fuel was designed with a negative thermal coefficient of reactivity so the meltdown theory was a myth. Also water needed to be present to slow down neutrons as thermal (slow) neutrons have the best chance to cause fission.

Who knew? Hokey players and nuclear scientists...

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette

When i took nuke power classes in college we studied the GE BWR 6 and the Westinghouse pressurized water reactor. Candu was only mentioned in passing like it was an experiment or something.


I don't find that surprising. How much about French reactors did you learn? Probably not much eh?

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
All the nuke navy guys at the various plants I worked at liked the pwr design as that's how the sub's and ships worked.

Who knew? Hokey players and nuclear scientists...



Yeah, if they were familiar with it that would probably be their favourite. Ask one of our guys and you'd probably get the same answer with respect to our reactors. Also, CANDU's are PWR's as well.

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

If you want a quick read-up on them.