Where does Nuclear Power stand as an energy alternative?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by ET16
The problem is that no one has found a good way to store waste.


There's no reason to store the spent fuel, given that it is more than 90% viable fission product still. This is why France reprocesses their fuel and why the US should be. Many of the up and coming reactor designs actually run on the spent fuel from existing designs and the final waste product has a lifespan of around 200 years with very minimal storage requirements before becoming totally benign.

Also keep in mind that the total volume of spent fuel worldwide is, comparable to other sources, incredibly small and ALL of it is presently tracked and contained safely. You cannot say the same thing for any other energy source.
 
Nuke stands tall...just not in the US. This is mainly due to the Nuke Regulatory Commission, which is unwilling to approve interesting designs, and also makes an applicant pay all costs for review...very expensive and has kept progress very incremental.

The most interesting fission concept is Molten Salt Reactor using Thorium fuel. Th is not radioactive, but in a neutron flux it becomes such. Because the fission events occur with lower at wt elements, high at wt elements such as Plutonium are not formed. IT's waste is much more easily handled. Th rx cannot run away, has a neg coefficient of rx with increasing temp. Chop the neutron flux and it merely cools, and rather quickly.

China, Canada, and Russia working on these reactors. Plan is for company called ThorCon to build them in Indonesia using modern shipbuilding (!) technique. It's factory mass production which has loads of advantage over on-site fabrication.

On a long-shot basis, the LPP guys are working on a pretty neat fusion reactor. I give them a 20% chance but wahoo if they succeed. Lawrenceville Plasma Physics = LPP.

Tusky
 
Originally Posted by Tusky
Nuke stands tall...just not in the US. This is mainly due to the Nuke Regulatory Commission, which is unwilling to approve interesting designs, and also makes an applicant pay all costs for review...very expensive and has kept progress very incremental.

The most interesting fission concept is Molten Salt Reactor using Thorium fuel. Th is not radioactive, but in a neutron flux it becomes such. Because the fission events occur with lower at wt elements, high at wt elements such as Plutonium are not formed. IT's waste is much more easily handled. Th rx cannot run away, has a neg coefficient of rx with increasing temp. Chop the neutron flux and it merely cools, and rather quickly.

China, Canada, and Russia working on these reactors. Plan is for company called ThorCon to build them in Indonesia using modern shipbuilding (!) technique. It's factory mass production which has loads of advantage over on-site fabrication.

On a long-shot basis, the LPP guys are working on a pretty neat fusion reactor. I give them a 20% chance but wahoo if they succeed. Lawrenceville Plasma Physics = LPP.

Tusky


Lockheed Martin is another working on a fusion reactor that shows a lot of promise.

Regarding Thorium, it, mixed with plutonium, is already a viable fuel in the Advanced Fuel CANDU Reactor (AFCR). It's just that due to the abundance of Uranium, nobody has bothered to build one
21.gif
The only current use of the AFCR, in the form of the two Qinshan units in China, is to run on spent LWR fuel. It's a really amazing reactor concept though, as it has an amazingly flexible fuel cycle.

My current favourite design, which is apparently slated to be operational by 2030 based on the most recent news release from NBPower is the Moltex SSR (Stable Salt Reactor) which, the first iteration of, is purpose-built to run on used CANDU fuel. The first site will be at the Point Lepreau NPP in New Brunswick. I see a lot of potential for this design in close proximity to our current 20 reactor fleet in Ontario (including the 2x shuttered Pickering units). It could be phased into the existing sites as an augmentation to serve the purpose of supplementing the power of the existing fleet, which, for Darlington and Bruce, means through the 2060's, as well as replacing the output from Pickering as it retires and replacing the gas/wind turbine gong show as the farms reach their end of life.
 
The "no nukes" crowds have run nuclear out of California. They made the regulations so cumbersome that PG&E is shutting down its last nuke plant (it's in my county) which is the last nuke plant in California. California thinks wind and solar will fill the void.
 
Originally Posted by Cujet
Fusion may actually happen. LockMart seems to believe in, and claims to be designing, reduced size fusion reactors. With some wording about sustaining a reaction for 10 seconds.

That is long enough to provide plenty of usable energy, especially if restarts can follow.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Compact_Fusion_Reactor


It's one of those things like AI, always about 20 years away although it seems like it's actually getting closer these days. ITER will still take a while start up and the costs of the project is high. It seems like every time they get close, they run into some instability problem and that problem takes a while to figure out.

Remember cold fusion? Even after it was dead, there was always some talk of someone being able to do something with it and it was just around the corner. Reminds me of hydrogen powered cars and fuel cells.
 
Originally Posted by tom slick
The "no nukes" crowds have run nuclear out of California. They made the regulations so cumbersome that PG&E is shutting down its last nuke plant (it's in my county) which is the last nuke plant in California. California thinks wind and solar will fill the void.


And the gas companies are delighted.

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-utah-coal-los-angeles-climate-20190711-story.html

865 million to replace the coal plant with a gas plant in Utah to help power LA.
 
Originally Posted by jhs914
so renewable energy can't replace stand alone power generation.

My publicly owned utility company gets darn close (~70%)... And my rates locally are amongst the lowest in the nation (see pic) at $0.0813/kWh and would be lower, if Bonneville didn't sell (their obligated by Congress to do so) all that dam (pun intended ...‚) power to AZ, CA and NV.

This is the breakdown from my PUD's website...
Hydro 62.8 percent
Natural Gas 28.7 percent
Coal 2.1 percent
Nuclear 5.9 percent
Other * 0.5 percent
* "Other" includes biomass, other non-biogenic, and petroleum.
[Linked Image]
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by buster
Bill Gates doesn't sound that optimistic.

I wouldn't be optimistic about using any of his OS products for any mission critical application anywhere, much less a reactor.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
This is the breakdown from my PUD's website...
Hydro 62.8 percent
Natural Gas 28.7 percent
Coal 2.1 percent
Nuclear 5.9 percent
Other * 0.5 percent



Newsflash....those who wish to stand in the way of everything no longer support hydro as "renewable"...
 
At the moment utility scale nuclear is just too expensive for a list* of reasons.


*
- Construction related cost overruns. Think billions of dollars.
- Unable to quickly adapt to the daily fluctuations in demand. Especially as solar gains more acceptance. This makes it very expensive.
- Site limitations (Requires a lot of water for cooling).
 
Originally Posted by Alfred_B
With clean coal, who needs nuclear? Too expensive to build without government subsidies and too dangerous when something happens. Also, what do you do with spent fuel...

With clean coal, you have cheap, healthy electricity.


Meh,

Coal still creates a lot of waste (coal ash, and mercury infused gypsum). Then there's the heavy metal pollution created down stream of the mines.

NatGas is significantly cleaner.
 
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by buster
Great info OVERKILL, thank you. So beside the cost factor, what is the main obstacle facing nuclear energy as an alternative? Perception of safety? The Chernobly series on HBO probably didn't help any. What are the current risks facing modern nuclear plants? Making nuclear establishments safe from natural disasters?

*Please don't make this political, we are all adults here. This is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with IMO.
55.gif


I posted this to learn. I'm not familiar with this subject.


Biggest obstacle beyond cost is regulatory environment followed by public perception, which varies massively by geography. Remember, there have been disinformation campaigns waged by the likes of the Sierra Club (fossil fuel front) and Greenpeace conflating civilian nuclear power with nuclear weapons, spreading fear and lies....etc for decades. There was an oceanographic wave height chart being used at one point as a map of the radiation flow from Fukushima for example, and people believed it and shared it, even though the legend on the bloody map indicated wave height!
crazy2.gif


Current risks also vary on reactor design and siting. Our plants in Canada are insanely safe because of how they were designed, and this was because we had our own tiny incident back in the 1950's at Chalk River that resulted in a leak, and so preventing that in all future iterations of anything designed by AECL became paramount. Our plants are also not going to get exposed to a tsunami (Fukushima) because none of them are on the ocean.

When you ask about modern plants, are you talking about 3rd gen or 4th gen designs? 3rd gen designs like the EPR are more like evolutions of existing designs with even better safety mechanisms and more automation, whilst the 4th gen designs (think SMR's) are mostly clean slate which vary significantly in design, cooling, fuel....etc. Many of them are passively cooled and don't require traditional waterbody cooling for example. Others are designed to run on existing waste stores. All of them are designed to be "walk away safe"; essentially meltdown proof.

China's indigenous Hualong One design, which borrows heavily from the builds they partnered on with Westinghouse and Areva, is a 3rd gen design, so, unlike the SMR's, these are big, high output plants. While China is actively pursuing SMR's, they lack the CAPEX problem (state funding) that new builds elsewhere are facing, and so pursuing series builds of a 3rd gen design appears to be their current trajectory, with 30+ of these units planned.



You Canadians are fairly protected from natural disasters compared to the US, you have plenty of water and your climate makes nuclear a good choice.


Solar is extremely viable on the lower half of the United States. The climate is much more conducive outside of the Great Lakes area and NE US. Interestingly those are great places for Nuclear.


[Linked Image]
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
At the moment utility scale nuclear is just too expensive for a list* of reasons.



*
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
- Construction related cost overruns. Think billions of dollars.

Changing goal posts tend to change project related costs...

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
- Unable to quickly adapt to the daily fluctuations in demand.

Can load follow as required...


Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Especially as solar gains more acceptance.

Look over there, an elephant in the room....
What is solar's ability to load follow ?

Install MORE solar and turn it off when not required ???


Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
This makes it very expensive.

To replace 1,000MW of thermal...you need 5,000MW of ideally located solar, and enough storage capacity to store 4000MW, for 16 hours (actually, 3,200MW for 16 hours, as about 20% of that electricity goes missing.

Now when run on renewables, and thermal is gone...THAT's expensive power

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
- Site limitations (Requires a lot of water for cooling).


If it's run of river, or coastal, the "billions of gallons" that anti's use is nonsensical...it's a temperature rise in a body of water that is not consimed...power stations aren't David Copperfield.


Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Meh,

Coal still creates a lot of waste (coal ash).

Firstly, the waste is about 80% less volume than the coal in the first place...there's plety of hole left to store it.

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
and mercury infused gypsum

gypsum isn't a natural use of coal ash...Gypsum is Calcium Sulfate, and that's not normal ash....ash may be used as a co-mixture, but if it's got traces above legal limits (and natural gypsum would have mercury as well), it's a regulatory and compliance failure.

BTW, how's the asbestos in your talc ?
 
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
At the moment utility scale nuclear is just too expensive for a list* of reasons.



*
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
- Construction related cost overruns. Think billions of dollars.

Changing goal posts tend to change project related costs...

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
- Unable to quickly adapt to the daily fluctuations in demand.

Can load follow as required...


Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Especially as solar gains more acceptance.

Look over there, an elephant in the room....
What is solar's ability to load follow ?

Install MORE solar and turn it off when not required ???


Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
This makes it very expensive.

To replace 1,000MW of thermal...you need 5,000MW of ideally located solar, and enough storage capacity to store 4000MW, for 16 hours (actually, 3,200MW for 16 hours, as about 20% of that electricity goes missing.

Now when run on renewables, and thermal is gone...THAT's expensive power

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
- Site limitations (Requires a lot of water for cooling).


If it's run of river, or coastal, the "billions of gallons" that anti's use is nonsensical...it's a temperature rise in a body of water that is not consimed...power stations aren't David Copperfield.


Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Meh,

Coal still creates a lot of waste (coal ash).

Firstly, the waste is about 80% less volume than the coal in the first place...there's plety of hole left to store it.

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
and mercury infused gypsum

gypsum isn't a natural use of coal ash...Gypsum is Calcium Sulfate, and that's not normal ash....ash may be used as a co-mixture, but if it's got traces above legal limits (and natural gypsum would have mercury as well), it's a regulatory and compliance failure.

BTW, how's the asbestos in your talc ?







In the US. Coal plants produce ash and gypsum. Limestone is used to remove sulphur/mercury via the scrubbers and the end product is gypsum but because it contains mercury it has little use. In the US, coal waste was typically stored on site in ponds along river banks.


BTW..Solar doesn't need to load follow. What's needed is better distribution system. For example parts of the system in California are almost 100 yrs old. Capacity isn't really an issue in the United States.


Nuclear consumes a lot of water. It accounts for almost 40 percent of freshwater usage in the United States of which approx one-half is sent to the atmosphere via the cooling towers. The best place for nuclear in the United States is the great lakes region and the east coast. Plenty of water and low seismic concerns.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Originally Posted by jhs914
so renewable energy can't replace stand alone power generation.

My publicly owned utility company gets darn close (~70%)... And my rates locally are amongst the lowest in the nation (see pic) at $0.0813/kWh and would be lower, if Bonneville didn't sell (their obligated by Congress to do so) all that dam (pun intended ...‚) power to AZ, CA and NV.

This is the breakdown from my PUD's website...
Hydro 62.8 percent
Natural Gas 28.7 percent
Coal 2.1 percent
Nuclear 5.9 percent
Other * 0.5 percent
* "Other" includes biomass, other non-biogenic, and petroleum.


Yes, it can be done with hydro. Typically when people plug renewables they are referring to VRE, aka Wind or Solar. Though you'll often see claims that X country decarbonized their grid with renewables and subsequent claims about VRE, when the vast majority of the work is done with hydro-electric.
 
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
At the moment utility scale nuclear is just too expensive for a list* of reasons.


*
- Construction related cost overruns. Think billions of dollars.
- Unable to quickly adapt to the daily fluctuations in demand. Especially as solar gains more acceptance. This makes it very expensive.
- Site limitations (Requires a lot of water for cooling).


Nuclear can, and does, load follow. This happens regularly in both Ontario and France, who have majority nuclear grids. Traditionally, nuclear isn't used in that manner because of the poor economics of doing so: An NPP is a manned generator and its costs of operation are essentially fixed. Fuel makes up an extremely small part of an NPP's operating budget, so small that it is essentially negligible. Unlike a gas plant, which has few staff and pays for fuel, an NPP has many staff, who are there whether it is maxing out its CF or not. Ergo, the higher the CF the unit(s) can achieve, the lower the per kWh cost of the facility. This is how places like Bruce can be quite profitable at $0.067/kWh, despite employing 4,200 people.

In Ontario, the contract with Bruce stipulated that they "accommodate" VRE, which was given grid priority. So it does. OPG's fleet (Darlington/Pickering) don't. But OPG spills hydro to load follow, which makes up 25% of our mix.

Current plants, particularly those without cooling tower, certainly do require a fair sized body of water for cooling. However, with cooling towers and good engineering, this can be mitigated to a degree. See Palo Verde:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station

CAPEX issues and cost overruns are arguably the biggest hindrance to a new build.

BTW, in case you are interested, this is what Bruce following load looks like:
[Linked Image]
 
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
BTW..Solar doesn't need to load follow. What's needed is better distribution system. For example parts of the system in California are almost 100 yrs old. Capacity isn't really an issue in the United States.

Then why did you bring up load following as a weakness in nuclear, yet give solar a pass for actually not being able to load follow?

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Nuclear consumes a lot of water. It accounts for almost 40 percent of freshwater usage in the United States of which approx one-half is sent to the atmosphere via the cooling towers.

That 40% is a very dubious figure. Try closer to 3% for consumption.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

OVERKILL
Ontario Nuclear Update: January 15th, 2024
Replies
12
Views
572
oil pan 4
S
German public now favors extending life of Nuclear power plants
3 4 5
Replies
94
Views
4K
sk_pete
OVERKILL
Ontario Nuclear Update: March 13th, 2024
Replies
0
Views
216
OVERKILL
OVERKILL
NOS Nuclear power plant in the Philippines may be brought to life
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
BMWTurboDzl
OVERKILL
Seismic qualification of nuclear plants
2
Replies
23
Views
798
OVERKILL
Back
Top