First new Nuclear Reactor in Canada since 1980's

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: pbm
Maybe those who oppose nuclear energy should be taxed more for heating and electricity?
Put their money where their mouth is....


Well the last US plant that went online was Watts Bar and that was 1150 megawatts and cost about $6 billion. A 1000 megawatt gas plant is a little under a billion although you have much higher fuel costs with a gas plant that you wouldn't have with a nuclear plant. So in essence, those who end up with nuclear are actually paying more for it. That's why nuclear plants are being shut down, the economics don't work anymore.
 
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: pbm
Maybe those who oppose nuclear energy should be taxed more for heating and electricity?
Put their money where their mouth is....


Well the last US plant that went online was Watts Bar and that was 1150 megawatts and cost about $6 billion. A 1000 megawatt gas plant is a little under a billion although you have much higher fuel costs with a gas plant that you wouldn't have with a nuclear plant. So in essence, those who end up with nuclear are actually paying more for it. That's why nuclear plants are being shut down, the economics don't work anymore.


This is one of the rare occasions where Ontario's pricing model, if one omits the insane compensation for wind and solar, actually makes sense. Nuclear in Ontario is paid a fixed rate, so they aren't driven out of the market by gluts of intermittent supply that can't do the same level of heavy lifting but drive prices negative when they decide to come online. Australia has been having this problem with their traditional thermals of all stripes, so it isn't something that just applies to Nuclear.

On the other hand, the way American operations have traditionally done Nuclear differs significantly from how we've done it here in Ontario. Our plants were all designed to be packs of 8 units starting with Pickering and ending with Darlington, which, due to cost overruns, never had its "B" built. On the economies of scale, this method makes more sense because of the levels of staffing necessary at a nuclear facility they are best suited to be run near maximum capacity and the bigger that capacity is, the more compensation that plant can reap.

To compare your example to one of ours:

- Watts Bar unit 1 began construction in 1973 and experienced massive delays to eventually come online in 1996. Unit 2 came online in 2016. Total plant cost was $17 billion and total output is 2,288MW and it runs at an average capacity factor of 73%. For 2017 it produced 13,650GWh giving it an average annual output of 5.97GWh per MW of installed capacity.

- Bruce Nuclear "A" began construction in 1971 and was fully online by 1979. Bruce "B" construction started in 1978 and was fully operational in 1987. Total plant cost was $7.8 billion and total output is now 6,394MW (after a few upgrades). It runs at an average capacity factor of 89% (2017) and in 2017 it produced 49,019GWh putting its average annual output at 6.67GWh per MW of installed capacity.

Bruce is paid a fixed price of $0.067/kWh for its output and provides 30% of Ontario's electricity.
 
I would pay more for non-nuclear energy. I don't think anyone is worried about a coal meltdown contaminating the area and drifting who knows where.
 
Nukes make the most sense to me in Naval ships, where they can literally bury the problem at the bottom of the ocean if one occurs, and provide 20-25 years of essentially unlimited operations in the meantime. It’s all in the administration of the operation, other than the loss of the Thresher and the Scorpion for non-reactor failures, the US Navy has never had a nuclear incident in over 60 years.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
...Pretty exciting news. One of the main purposes of this activity is to develop a technology that can be reliably deployed in remote locations with no grid access. Additional uses include central heating for northern communities as well as the ability to run mining operations and their auxiliary components.
It is indeed.

I stumbled upon this site recently and spent hours reading all through it. Nuclear power isn't foreign to me. The big waste concerning that very issue is the disposal of so much U-238 rather than recycling it.

Also found a link to this excellent site Nuclear Energy Option , explaining all of the details as well.

I remember studying all of this in engineering school, then studying all of the pros & cons, the politics, separating facts from myth and so much reading/week. Also had to write a paper/week. Anti-nuclear protests were common on the other side of campus.

I was surprised to read that Westinghouse declared bankruptcy last year over the AP1000 plants in both Georgia & South Carolina. They chose poorly a contractor who had no real expertise left anymore after a brain-drain, leading to large cost overuns and construction delays. They've now enlisted Fluor to have a look and finish.

WITW was Westinghouse thinking?
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: Yah-Tah-Hey
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
This is good news. Hopefully the have a lot less red tape and regulation getting this done than the Americans.

Can you imagine a new Nuclear plant being built in America today and the nashing of teeth that would go along with it?
Three Mile Island scared the tin foil hat crowd so badly that even the mention of nuclear power causes their eyeballs to cage and spastic shaking like even the mention of the subject causes radiation poisoning. Only way to go. The taxpayers need to start seeing the utilization of Yucca Mountain which is as safe as mankind can make it.


It's nice to see that somebody else remembers the existence of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility. It was all but forgotten by the national press during the Obama years.


I thought that one had a Problem? Or am I thinking of another storage place. I seam to remember one of those storage places emitting a ton of radiation and heat a few years ago.
 
Originally Posted By: TheLawnRanger
I would pay more for non-nuclear energy. I don't think anyone is worried about a coal meltdown contaminating the area and drifting who knows where.


I believe technically less people have died from Nuclear than coal. Coal you always having those mining accidents and you also have black lung.

Flying can also be pretty dangerous, yet the death rate from flying has been falling for years. More dangerous to drive.
 
Originally Posted By: TheLawnRanger
I would pay more for non-nuclear energy. I don't think anyone is worried about a coal meltdown contaminating the area and drifting who knows where.


Coal slurry pond failures tend to contaminate the area and drift who knows where when they happen. Ask some people in West Virginia if they worry about that.
 
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: pbm
Maybe those who oppose nuclear energy should be taxed more for heating and electricity?
Put their money where their mouth is....


Well the last US plant that went online was Watts Bar and that was 1150 megawatts and cost about $6 billion. A 1000 megawatt gas plant is a little under a billion although you have much higher fuel costs with a gas plant that you wouldn't have with a nuclear plant. So in essence, those who end up with nuclear are actually paying more for it. That's why nuclear plants are being shut down, the economics don't work anymore.


This. No one in their right mind would spend 10B+ to build a nuke plant with uncertain (in today's market) demand or supply. Fuel like natural gas is cheap and your ROI is fast and you can scrap the project as quick as the wind change literally.

Nuke is only good if you do not have a good way to guarantee your fuel source. France and Japan have no choice as they do not have oil or gas security. China started the same approach with a variety of nuke as a hedge against any one failure will shut the whole country down, but recently nuke falls out of favor vs solar and wind.

The nuke age is over, and the only reason new nuke will be build is to consume all the waste we already have, not because they are cheap and secure. Securing a nuke plant in US can easily cost more than the fuel to run a CCGT plant, and government has to guarantee the financing which can easily bankrupt it if things go bad.

Toshiba pretty much got bankrupted by their nuke division and have to sell its crown jewel flash memory business to cover the loss.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
No one in their right mind would spend 10B+ to build a nuke plant with uncertain (in today's market) demand or supply.


Which is the entire purpose of this increasing interest, and investment, in Small Modular Reactors (SMR), since they are pegged to be around $600 million

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Nuke is only good if you do not have a good way to guarantee your fuel source.


Nukes make a ton of sense if you want to decrease your carbon emissions while retaining reliable baseload power.

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
China started the same approach with a variety of nuke as a hedge against any one failure will shut the whole country down, but recently nuke falls out of favor vs solar and wind.


China is still actively building nuclear power plants. Of course they come online slowly, which is the nature of the beast, but they have had a great deal of good news with new units coming online quite recently and these are units that were developed elsewhere but installed in China because of the more receptive climate. Canada developed a reactor capable of running on spent US PWR/BWR waste yet it got built in China, not here.

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
The nuke age is over, and the only reason new nuke will be build is to consume all the waste we already have, not because they are cheap and secure. Securing a nuke plant in US can easily cost more than the fuel to run a CCGT plant, and government has to guarantee the financing which can easily bankrupt it if things go bad.


The $0.067/kWh that Bruce Power is paid covers all the operating costs of the facility, which includes securing it. This is less than half of what we pay wind and 10x less than what we pay solar. As I mentioned earlier, economies of scale are an important consideration. I'm quite sure Point Lepreau costs more to operate than Bruce does by a significant margin (per kWh) because of the fact that its output is 1/10th of Bruce's.

I will agree that the age of the traditional nuclear power plant, with its massive units, is likely nearing its end, but I do not agree that the age of nuclear power as a whole is ending. There is a lot of investment globally in SMR's because they aren't hindered by the albatrosses of cost and time that plague the traditional "big build" and will require less security due to a smaller footprint and self containment.

Canada is one of many countries that has identified the potential value in SMR's and is running with it. With this announcement, we may actually be the first to end up with a commercialized unit.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
No one in their right mind would spend 10B+ to build a nuke plant with uncertain (in today's market) demand or supply.


Which is the entire purpose of this increasing interest, and investment, in Small Modular Reactors (SMR), since they are pegged to be around $600 million

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Nuke is only good if you do not have a good way to guarantee your fuel source.


Nukes make a ton of sense if you want to decrease your carbon emissions while retaining reliable baseload power.

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
China started the same approach with a variety of nuke as a hedge against any one failure will shut the whole country down, but recently nuke falls out of favor vs solar and wind.


China is still actively building nuclear power plants. Of course they come online slowly, which is the nature of the beast, but they have had a great deal of good news with new units coming online quite recently and these are units that were developed elsewhere but installed in China because of the more receptive climate. Canada developed a reactor capable of running on spent US PWR/BWR waste yet it got built in China, not here.

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
The nuke age is over, and the only reason new nuke will be build is to consume all the waste we already have, not because they are cheap and secure. Securing a nuke plant in US can easily cost more than the fuel to run a CCGT plant, and government has to guarantee the financing which can easily bankrupt it if things go bad.


The $0.067/kWh that Bruce Power is paid covers all the operating costs of the facility, which includes securing it. This is less than half of what we pay wind and 10x less than what we pay solar. As I mentioned earlier, economies of scale are an important consideration. I'm quite sure Point Lepreau costs more to operate than Bruce does by a significant margin (per kWh) because of the fact that its output is 1/10th of Bruce's.

I will agree that the age of the traditional nuclear power plant, with its massive units, is likely nearing its end, but I do not agree that the age of nuclear power as a whole is ending. There is a lot of investment globally in SMR's because they aren't hindered by the albatrosses of cost and time that plague the traditional "big build" and will require less security due to a smaller footprint and self containment.

Canada is one of many countries that has identified the potential value in SMR's and is running with it. With this announcement, we may actually be the first to end up with a commercialized unit.


Thanks for posting this up, OK. I learn more from you than I do at work!
cheers3.gif


 
No problem. I've been actively lobbying the new premiers office to come up with a long-term redevelopment plan for Pickering and I'm not on the only one. While a few of us may disagree on what should be fitted there (I think AFCR's for the "green" look and fuel flexibility others think good 'ol CANDU 6's) we all agree that the site needs a future beyond 2024.

Bruce and Pickering are very close in age, yet Bruce has a future until at least 2064. At that point I expect Bruce Power will already have SMR sites and lord knows what else. Shuttering the A side at Pickering is doable, and perhaps so is a single-unit replacement project. We could start with the two shuttered units, replace them with new ones, then shutter the two other units, replace them, that would result in an "A" side of 2,600MW if we were to do AFCR's, more if we were to use bigger units. Then we could evaluate doing B, depending on demand and finances. It's a heck of a lot cheaper to do it on an existing site when compared to building a new one.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: Yah-Tah-Hey

Three Mile Island scared the tin foil hat crowd so badly that even the mention of nuclear power causes their eyeballs to cage and spastic shaking like even the mention of the subject causes radiation poisoning. Only way to go. The taxpayers need to start seeing the utilization of Yucca Mountain which is as safe as mankind can make it.


It's nice to see that somebody else remembers the existence of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility. It was all but forgotten by the national press during the Obama years.


There is no Yucca Mountain waste storage facility. Politicians picked the site, scientists determined it was unsuitable. When your needs to be dry for 1000+ years geologic repository starts dripping water after one slightly above average wet winter during the study phase, you've got a big problem. Funding was pulled. It's an empty tunnel with no NRC license to store radioactive material.

https://www.yuccamountain.org/faq.htm

Quote:
On The Ground Accomplishments: Today the Yucca Mountain site has been abandoned and nothing exists but a boarded up exploratory tunnel; there are no waste disposal tunnels, receiving and handling facilities, and the waste containers and transportation casks have yet to be developed. Moreover, there is no railroad to the site, and the cost to build a railroad through Nevada could exceed $3 billion. Today, the only thing that actually exists at Yucca Mountain is single 5 mile exploratory tunnel.

Quote:
Current Status of the Yucca Mountain Project

2017 Update — Here the most recent comprehensive press news about the status of Yucca Mountain

Background: As of 2016 the status of the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain remains uncertain. As way of background, in 2002 Yucca Mountain was officially designated as the site to store the nation's spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste. At that time Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham recommended the site to President George W. Bush, who approved it. As allowed under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), then Governor Kenny Guinn of Nevada vetoed the decision, but the veto was subsequently overturned by Congress.

Prior to 1987, and as required under the NWPA, the Department of Energy had selected ten locations in six states for consideration as potential repository sites. After detailed studies of these sites, President Ronald Reagan approved three sites for detailed site characterization. The three sites were Hanford, Washington; Deaf Smith County, Texas; and Yucca Mountain, Nevada. In 1987 Congress amended the NWPA and directed DOE to study only Yucca Mountain. The Act did provide that if Yucca Mountain was found unsuitable, "site characterization studies" would be stopped. The amended law was subsequently labeled the "Screw Nevada Bill." (More details about how/why Yucca Mountain was chosen)

Site Investigation & Regulatory Oversight: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) are primarily responsible for the regulation and disposal of the nation's spent nuclear fuel. NRC regulates the construction and operation of commercial nuclear power plants and spent fuel repositories (e.g., Yucca Mountain). The NRC also regulates the storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuel. Under the NWPA as amended, DOE is charged with site investigation and constructions and operation of a federal geologic repository (e.g., Yucca Mountain). By law, the DOE must also apply to the NRC for a license to build the repository and the license must be granted before any construction begins. In 2008 the DOE submitted a license application to the NRC for Yucca Mountain. The 8,600-page license application was submitted by the Bush administration's Energy Department and was accepted for consideration and license review by NRC.

Existing Regulatory Status: In 2011 funding for the Yucca Mountain repository was terminated by the Obama Administration; effective via amendment to the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act. This action left the United States without any long term storage site for the disposal of civilian spent reactor fuel and defense generated High Level Waste.

Given funding limitations and other constraints, the DOE and the NRC subsequently and separately suspended their efforts to license the repository at Yucca Mountain; this action lead to law suits filed by several parties aimed at forcing the NRC to resume the licensing proceeding. Specifically, in 2011, the States of South Carolina and Washington, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, and others, filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit asking for a writ of mandamus requiring the NRC to restart licensing proceeding for Yucca Mountain.

The court subsequently upheld the desires of the petitioners (granting the writ of mandamus) and on November 18, 2013, the NRC ordered the licensing proceeding restarted and directed its staff to complete work on the Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation Report (SER). The SER contains NRC's review of the DOE license application, i.e., to insure compliance with NRC licensing regulations for Yucca Mountain. As of January, 2015 the NRC completed all five volumes of the SER. While the NRC staff has concluded that DOE's license applications is "acceptable" it is recommending the NRC deny construction of the repository because DOE doesn't own or have jurisdiction over the land or water where the repository would be built. Recently a supplement to DOE's environmental impact statement for Yucca Mountain was completed which documented that DOE doesn't hold the necessary water rights to support the project. The land encompassing the repository site is also under the control of several different federal agencies, including DOE, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Defense; and an act of Congress is needed to transfer the lands in question to DOE.

Regarding water rights, DOE would need to obtain those rights from the state of Nevada. Nevada has refused to appropriate the water and litigation challenging that refusal is stayed.

In any event, the NRC has not made a final decision on the repository license application, but the agency could easily vote on DOE'S application to build the repository once environmental reviews are complete, land and water issues are resolved, and after a series of lengthy and complex hearings on challenges from third parties are entertained.

Funding: Federal funding for DOE's repository program is currently nonexistent; as of January 2016, no federal appropriations have been authorized to support NRC licensing and/or DOE site investigations at Yucca Mountain. It's worth noting, however, to date the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has spent at estimated $8 billion studying the site and constructing the exploratory tunnel beneath Yucca Mountain. Moreover, to actually construct and operate a repository at Yucca Mountain, DOE's own estimate suggests the cost could reach $97 billion.

On The Ground Accomplishments: Today the Yucca Mountain site has been abandoned and nothing exists but a boarded up exploratory tunnel; there are no waste disposal tunnels, receiving and handling facilities, and the waste containers and transportation casks have yet to be developed. Moreover, there is no railroad to the site, and the cost to build a railroad through Nevada could exceed $3 billion. Today, the only thing that actually exists at Yucca Mountain is single 5 mile exploratory tunnel.



Ed
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Bruce is paid a fixed price of $0.067/kWh for its output and provides 30% of Ontario's electricity.


It's been a while, but when I worked for an IPP, the gas plant was paid about 6 cents a kilowatt in the summer. Summer was worse because output dropped due to the high heat and less oxygen in the air. I think in the winter they got around 4 cents a kilowatt and those were base load plants with 20 year contracts for power. The fuel was about 2 cents a kilowatt. That was just for generation. That was a long while ago, not sure what the number are today. Security in the plant was way different too, this was back in the late 90's. They did have a gate you had to enter a code to get in, but when I was there after 4pm when everyone was gone, the only people you saw were the ones in the control room, no roaming security guards. But they did have cameras everywhere.
 
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Bruce is paid a fixed price of $0.067/kWh for its output and provides 30% of Ontario's electricity.


It's been a while, but when I worked for an IPP, the gas plant was paid about 6 cents a kilowatt in the summer. Summer was worse because output dropped due to the high heat and less oxygen in the air. I think in the winter they got around 4 cents a kilowatt and those were base load plants with 20 year contracts for power. The fuel was about 2 cents a kilowatt. That was just for generation. That was a long while ago, not sure what the number are today. Security in the plant was way different too, this was back in the late 90's. They did have a gate you had to enter a code to get in, but when I was there after 4pm when everyone was gone, the only people you saw were the ones in the control room, no roaming security guards. But they did have cameras everywhere.


It's not less oxygen per se.

Turbine inlet temperatures are a problem...when the air starts off hot, it gets hotter through the compression phases, and you can add less heat energy to it (fuel) before reaching that temperature...that's why a lot of the stationary power application ones use "fogging"...air has same oxygen content, just cooler.

As to marginal cost of generation...
Go here
http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/web_qfer/Heat_Rates.php
to get typical power station heat rates.

http://www.naturalgasintel.com/data/data_products/daily?location_id=CALRAVG&region_id=california
To get wholesale gas costs...

For an e.g.

A simple cycle GT peaker will have a heat rate of (say) 13...at $3.50/MMBtu, that's 13*$3.50 per MWh...$45.50/MWh, or 4.5c/KWh for fuel alone (note no statistical analysis for the heat rate, just a scan).
 
That's not fair to talk about a gas turbine designed for peak use, which since it will be run only at seldom times, is optimized for first cost over fuel efficiency. It's like how it makes sense to buy an incandescent bulb instead of a LED for the attic stairs that are used only 10 minutes per month. The fracking boom has also resulted in gas prices considerably less than $3.50.

I don't understand the concept of an array of small reactors. If any one of the reactors were to melt down, the whole site would end up shut down and abandoned. More reactors running increases the chance of one malfunctioning. So go big or go home.
 
Originally Posted By: mk378
That's not fair to talk about a gas turbine designed for peak use, which since it will be run only at seldom times, is optimized for first cost over fuel efficiency. It's like how it makes sense to buy an incandescent bulb instead of a LED for the attic stairs that are used only 10 minutes per month. The fracking boom has also resulted in gas prices considerably less than $3.50.

I don't understand the concept of an array of small reactors. If any one of the reactors were to melt down, the whole site would end up shut down and abandoned. More reactors running increases the chance of one malfunctioning. So go big or go home.


I offered a site in which you could choose any of the available options...THAT's fair.

Pick a Combined cycle if you will.

However, the model for the future is renewables with gas open cycle peakers...I didn't choose it as the future, I chose it for the cost basis...

As to the gas cost... that's the market price then and there on my link...was today's price, including the after effects of fracking.

I chose California as the data source, as they are the ones claiming that they are the future...their generation portfolio, their heat rates, their gas prices.

Check the links..if they don't marry up to what you expect, correct me rather than claiming "not fairness"...

Post YOUR links that you consider "fair" in the discussion.


As to your understanding of the aggregate of risks...clueless best describes the quantum of your demonstrated ability.

(as always, happy to be corrected)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top