The Nuclear Power Thread

[Jon Richfield]

Sorry about that. The whole thing is very irksome. I could paraphrase the article, but...
Then again, I have downloaded the PDF, but I assume that publishing that here would be most unwelcome for all responsible parties.
The article is labelled open access, and free to read, but the only way I can read it myself is when I log in via my email.
If anyone is interested enough to register for free access to such material then what I did some months ago was to go to :
http://www.thelancet.com/access-to-content
There they offered free registration that covered all the editorial and essay material, which I must say, has been quite adequate for my purposes and rewarding, except for passing on stuff as I failed to do before. All they don't offer is the research articles and data. If you do it now, that article should still be available.
Good luck!

 

[jim hardy]

Well ! to my surprise I'm already registered there .

Interesting article.

Indeed people got hurt there, some got killed.. Mother Nature is repairing the damage albeit slowly by a human timeframe.

Last line:

The chief lesson, she says, is
that secrecy is dangerous. “It is a great
mistake. Governments should know
to issue the information”, she said.

Like Watergate, the crime was the coverup .
I respect Nikkom's view that Social science hasn't kept up with technology..
And ... That's a dilemma - can we wait until we're mature enough for it ?
By that logic er, i mean by that standard
i daresay most of us oughtn't marry until we've past child bearing age.

just my thoughts

old jim

 

[mheslep]

...I see Nuclear as mankind's hundred year bridge from carbon fuel to fusion.

Fission is easily a thousand year bridge, if you want to call it that, or ten thousand.

 

[Jon Richfield]

Very likely, but you need a bridge or two to reach the long bridge.
That is the story of Civilisation.
Uncivilisation offers fewer challenges, but won't last as long, because we won't last as long without Civilisation.
Diagnosis is not as simple as it might seem, because it is easier to convince a civilised person that he is not really civilised, than an uncivilised person that he is really uncivilised.
Or something...

 

[nikkkom]

I suspect that my views on bosses like that are even stronger than yours, and probably have been in place a good deal longer, but I draw a distinction between technology and politics.
...
the underlying technology is sound.

I take it you recommend me to just *ignore* nuclear bosses not making nuclear stations under their control safe enough? On the grounds that THEORETICALLY "the underlying technology is sound"? This is stupid.

 

[Jon Richfield]

I take it you recommend me to just *ignore* nuclear bosses not making nuclear stations under their control safe enough? On the grounds that THEORETICALLY "the underlying technology is sound"? This is stupid.

Really, it feels cruel for me to suggest that you go back and re-read what I have said and what you have said and now cannot unsay. But I lack the time not to say it.

 

[Astronuc]

TVA will be selling its 'surplus' Bellefonte NPP site. The site has two older generation B&W 205 units. he core uses a 17x17 lattice. The only plant design of this kind that achieved operation was Mülheim Kärlich in Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany.

http://us.areva.com/en/home-1504/areva-north-america-projects.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mülheim-Kärlich_Nuclear_Power_Plant

TVA spent about $4 billion on the plant, and it would take several more $billions to complete. After a recent board meeting, TVA President and CEO Bill Johnson said that the 1,600 acre site has been appraised at $36 million! There had been some plans to change the plant design to ABWRs, or perhaps ESBWRs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/never-completed-tva-nuclear-plant-that-cost-4b-for-sale/2016/05/05/c7e7d228-1305-11e6-a9b5-bf703a5a7191_story.html

A recent TVA study concluded that the utility will not need any new large-scale baseload facilities that can generate electricity 24 hours a day for at least 20 years.

Neighboring utility Southern Company is building two new units, Vogtle 3 & 4.
http://www.southerncompany.com/what-doing/energy-innovation/nuclear-energy/photos.cshtml
http://www.southerncompany.com/about-us/our-business/southern-nuclear/home.cshtml

 

[anorlunda]

A recent TVA study concluded that the utility will not need any new large-scale baseload facilities that can generate electricity 24 hours a day for at least 20 years.

Very interesting.

• 20+2016=2036. That is the year that we should expect fracked natural gas production to begin falling off. Nuclear, and all non-gas generation, should be more attractive then than now. (That is perhaps why TVA fingered 20 years as the time when a new base load plant will be needed.) The paradox is that unless we continue designing/constructing/operating new nukes continuously, the skills and knowledge atrophy.
• The TVA study cited necessarily uses assumptions about the region's energy growth and energy mix for those 20 years. It would be very instructive to see those assumptions and how sensitive the study results are to those assumptions. Is the study report available online?

 

[jim hardy]

20+2016=2036.

Also about the time existing nukes will be reaching end of (extended) life .

 

[Astronuc]

The TVA study cited necessarily uses assumptions about the region's energy growth and energy mix for those 20 years. It would be very instructive to see those assumptions and how sensitive the study results are to those assumptions. Is the study report available online?

It may be this study - https://www.tva.com/file_source/TVA/Site%20Content/Environment/Environmental%20Stewardship/IRP/Documents/2015_irp.pdf

Nuclear: Complete Watts Bar Nuclear Unit 2 and pursue additional power uprates at all three Browns Ferry units by 2023. Continue work on Small Modular Reactors as part of technology innovation efforts and look for opportunities for cost sharing to render these more cost-effective for our ratepayers.

WB2 is completed and getting ready to go on the grid. Expect uprates of BF1, 2, 3

All three units are scheduled for uprates expected to add another 494 MWe to the grid.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operati...s/status-power-apps/pending-applications.html

Each unit would have an increase of 494 MWt, to a total capacity of 3952 MWt = 3458+494 MWt. Peach Bottom (Exelon), Nine Mile Point 2 (Exelon) and Susquehanna (Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC affiliated with PPL Electric Utilities/PPL Corp.) have done similar uprates.

 

[anorlunda]

It may be this study - https://www.tva.com/file_source/TVA/Site%20Content/Environment/Environmental%20Stewardship/IRP/Documents/2015_irp.pdf

Thank you @Astronuc , that report did have the data I sought. I value it as an example of how future energy decisions are made in real life. They must conform to the expected realities, free of wishful thinking. They must accommodate a range of uncertainty about the future. They must convince potential bond holders that the plans are safe enough to invest in.

Here is a quick summary of the portions of the report that may be of interest to PF members.

It all begins with the load forecast which depends mostly on demographics and energy consumption trends.

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/tva-peak-4.jpg
The figure below shows the primary end result of the study; the expected future mix of additions to generation types. Public forums expend many words expressing personal wishes about these numbers. These are the numbers that hard-headed planners really expect.

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/slask-1.jpg

The plans are also checked for sensitivity to key variables whose future values are unknown. The wide lines in the plan show the planned ranges of the mix. The narrow lines show the extreme ranges that can be accommodated. They list which key variables they used to check the sensitivity.

1. Changes in the load forecast
2. The price of natural gas and other commodities
3. The pricing and performance of energy efficiency and renewable resources
4. Impacts from regulatory policy or breakthrough technologies

I thought it particularly interesting that the report included a "distributed marketplace scenario" which they defined as having 50% of TVA's industrial customers (representing 10% of TVA's load) switch to distributed self generation. That does not include residential rooftop solar. Since most public discussion about distributed generation focuses on consumer level DG, and never considers industrial DG, I think that's very notable. According to the study, industrial DG would have about the same drastic impact on gas prices as a carbon tax would. That's a connection that I never thought of.

 

[Astronuc]

TopFuel 2015 - Conference Proceedings - published by Euronuclear.
Topfuel - https://www.euronuclear.org/events/topfuel/topfuel2015/transactions.htm

Primarily LWR fuel technology from around the world. Covers modern LWR technology, and some of the latest research in various topics related to LWR fuel and nuclear power plants, e.g., spent fuel. The annual conference rotates among Europe, US and Asia.

In 2016, the conference is in Boise, Id. ANS is the principal organizing institution in the US. Unfortunately the proceedings must be purchased, and is rather expensive.

2012 - Manchester
https://www.euronuclear.org/events/topfuel/topfuel2012/transactions.htm

 

[Astronuc]

Exelon's Quad Cities and Three Mile Island nuclear power plants failed to clear in the PJM regional capacity auction for the 2019-2020 planning year, meaning those units will not be able to receive capacity revenue for that period. Meanwhile, over 1500 people rallied in Illinois to support the passage of legislation that would protect nuclear plants from early closure.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C...-plants-fail-in-capacity-auction-2605167.html

Earlier this month, Exelon said it will move forward with the early retirements of Clinton - which operates in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) RTO - and Quad Cities if the state of Illinois fails to pass the Next Generation Energy Plan (NGEP), which would support their continued operation. The two plants have made combined losses of $800 million over the past seven years despite being two of the company's highest-performing plants. Although Clinton cleared MISO's recent capacity auction, Exelon said that the unit will not receive enough revenue to avoid continued losses.

Back in April - In a statement, Exelon said that the single-unit 1065 MWe boiling water reactor continues to lose money and will have to close unless market and energy policy reforms are implemented.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Future-unclear-for-US-unit-despite-auction-success-1804168.html

Clinton is one of the most modern BWRs in the country, along with River Bend, Perry and Grand Gulf. All are BWR/6s.

 

[mheslep]

Nuclear Energy Assembly 2016 occurred this week: "Preparing for new reactor development"

The session featured interviews with five CEOs of nuclear design or operating companies. I was unaware of Oklo, a startup with a 2 MW design out of Silicon Valley to target the replacement of diesel gensets. Though unsaid, I imagine the military must be a likely target customer for such a design, escaping one size fits all, bloated, plant security requirements from the US NRC.



Summary from nuclear advocate Rod Adams here

 

[mheslep]

They must conform to the expected realities, free of wishful thinking.

That's seldom completely true about forecasts unfortunately. In the electricity business, the players have for a century been use to steady, year after year increases of a few percent in demand. That trend allowed utilities and ISOs to keep a couple large new power projects going, and cut regular dividend checks to investors. But this trend has stopped; there's been no aggregate US electric growth for years now and per capita growth has been slowly but surely falling, yet the industry has been stuck in denial.

 

[anorlunda]

That's seldom completely true about forecasts unfortunately. In the electricity business, the players have for a century been use to steady, year after year increases of a few percent in demand. That trend allowed utilities and ISOs to keep a couple large new power projects going, and cut regular dividend checks to investors. But this trend has stopped; there's been no aggregate US electric growth for years now and per capita growth has been slowly but surely falling, yet the industry has been stuck in denial.

When I wrote that about wishful thinking, I had generation mix in mind, not load growth.

Load growth forecast is most strongly coupled with GDP, and GDP forecasts are pressured by politicians and doomsayers to bend one way or the other. But utility load grows forecasts are not optimistic/pessimistic thinking but instead are mandated. Many facilities, including transmission, take 10-15 years from first proposal to operation. If a utility forecast zero or negative growth and that turned out to be wrong, the result could be a catastrophic shortage. That would tank the economy and make the lowball forecast the cause of the decline rather than a symptom.

In 2000, Enron in California demonstrated conclusively that having too little electricity available is vastly more profitable than having enough or having a surplus. If you like to believe that the utility industry is a conspiracy of greedy fat cats, then you should expect them to under-forecast the load.

On the other hand, if you believe as I do that the mantra of the industry is reliability (i.e. keep the lights on at all costs), then conservative assumptions about load growth are mandatory. Those conservative assumptions drive long-term projects to prepare for whatever the future may bring.

If you want to argue that the electric utility is in a death spiral, you can find support in some quarters. But you can't look for support in the engineering community. Engineering is necessarily conservative, and planning for a death spiral is not a conservative assumption.

 

[Astronuc]

The shutdown of Fitzpatrick as been postponed until 2017.

Meanwhile, Exelon followed through with plans to close Clinton and Quad Cities (3 reactors).
http://www.powermag.com/exelon-makes-good-on-threat-quad-cities-and-clinton-nuclear-plants-to-close/

Clinton is one of the youngest NPPs - Operating License: Issued - 04/17/1987, Expires - 09/29/2026
With life extension, it could operate another 30 years.

Apparently, at the root of the problem, is generation vs demand. Some areas have excess capacity, while other areas are deficient. Unfortunately, the markets are separated geographically. Some of Exelon's plants can't sell their power at reasonable rates, while NY is hurting for affordable power.
Standing in the way are state and federal governments, and regional operators.
http://www.pjm.com/~/media/about-pjm/pjm-zones.ashx
http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/market_data/maps/index.jspLast year, Exelon announced a $500 million deal with GE for gas turbine generation.

On May 24, GE and its joint-venture partners in Global Nuclear Fuel-Americas (GNF-A) announced that they had signed a deal with Rosatom subsidiary TVEL to design and fabricate fuel rods for U.S. reactors.
http://www.powermag.com/uranium-production-near-historic-lows-as-u-s-reactors-look-to-russia/

 

[Astronuc]

The Realities of Nuclear Power: International Economic and Regulatory Experience, May 1988
https://books.google.com/books?id=4HW8aGfyACkC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false

Table 1.1 provides a summary of where things were ca. 1988. The US LWR fleet peaked at ~115 reactors before we started shutdown the oldest reactors like Yankee Rowe, Big Rock Pt and others. In the US, ~108 reactors, including 8 HTGRs, were canceled as of 1990. Construction had started on 27 of the canceled plants.

 

[anorlunda]

I just finished reading an interesting paper. http://www.engineeringthefuture.co.uk/government/pdf/Nuclear_Lessons_Learned_Oct10.pdf The discussion section says succinctly a point that I have been trying to make in several PF threads regarding investments. The added emphasis is mine.

The investment needed to secure a mature and licensed design and make a commit to building a fleet of stations is vast. For the private sector to invest such sums there must be a significant degree of certainty about planning consents, grid requirements, electricity supply market stability and the disposal of spent fuel and waste over the six decades or more that these stations will supply electricity. Investment on this scale has to be viewed in the international context; why invest in low-cost, low-carbon electricity supply in the UK rather than elsewhere in the world? EDF have proposed a fleet of four stations which would be a very substantial investment but it is modest compared with the number of nuclear station China is proposing to build. This confidence, stability and reason for favouring the UK can only come from a Government commitment. The UK Government have made progress with the identification of suitable sites, proposals to simply the planning consents process, and the instigation of the Generic Design Assessment (GDA) process which will clarify the nuclear Regulatory position. However UK utilities are under no obligation to provide security of supply or low-cost, low-carbon electricity.

This is the challenge for nuclear power. The US federal government does not seem willing to commit that strongly to nuclear. The prospect of a carbon tax looms, but it is never conclusively included or excluded. But even disregarding government policies, the prudence of a financial investment in anything technological that requires a six decade planning horizon is highly questionable. The low prices of natural gas are a major factor, but even if gas prices were high, gas plants offer the advantage of short lead times and rapid ROI. Even if the useful lifetime of a natural gas power plant is only 7-20 years, the up-front investors can walk away with a profit.

The key word is uncertainty. Uncertainty about the future works against long-term investments and favors short-term investments.

 

[mheslep]

The situation you describe largely applies to nuclear development in the US, Europe in recent decades. Elsewhere, reactors have been built recently in five years, and for half or a third the cost of that in the US.

 

[Hiddencamper]

The shutdown of Fitzpatrick as been postponed until 2017.

Meanwhile, Exelon followed through with plans to close Clinton and Quad Cities (3 reactors).
http://www.powermag.com/exelon-makes-good-on-threat-quad-cities-and-clinton-nuclear-plants-to-close/

Clinton is one of the youngest NPPs - Operating License: Issued - 04/17/1987, Expires - 09/29/2026
With life extension, it could operate another 30 years.

Apparently, at the root of the problem, is generation vs demand. Some areas have excess capacity, while other areas are deficient. Unfortunately, the markets are separated geographically. Some of Exelon's plants can't sell their power at reasonable rates, while NY is hurting for affordable power.

Some stuff about Clinton, for the interested:

It's the only GE BWR to utilize a solid state protection system. It also is the most energy dense BWR core in the US (and possibly in the world). It's 624 bundle core producing 3473 MWth (compare to Columbia Generating Station's 764 fuel bundles producing 3468 MWth). The plant essentially had a first power uprate during initial design. The plant was overbuilt for its initial power rating, including additional pumps, valves, larger steam lines, higher pressure scram accumulators, and other design features which ultimately allowed the high power density.

Because of Clinton's small core, it means to maintain its high power density, a 2 year fuel cycle requires close to 50% of the fuel to be reloaded. Clinton has just finished its first single year fuel cycle, where much less fuel is required to maintain a high power density, bringing cost reductions along with it. Clinton set a world record for 11 days for the fastest refuel outage in the world, and set the record for lowest refuel outage dose for a BWR (around 16 Rem I believe), while also setting a record for station capacity factor in the previous cycle.

What people at Clinton have been told, is that the only thing wrong with Clinton is where they poured the concrete. It's one of the most cost efficient single units to run (from what I've been told), but suffers from issues in MISO zone 4, where power prices are depressed and the region is surrounded by regulated markets.

 

[Astronuc]

It's the only GE BWR to utilize a solid state protection system. It also is the most energy dense BWR core in the US (and possibly in the world). It's 624 bundle core producing 3473 MWth

It's the leader in the US BWR fleet and among the BWR/6 group. On a MW/assy basis, Leibstadt is a close second.

    BWR/6 units
Unit        Assy/core  MWt  MW/assy
Clinton        624     3473  5.5657
Leibstadt      648     3600  5.5556
Grand Gulf     800     4408  5.5100
Cofrentes      624     3237  5.1875
Perry          748     3758  5.0241
River Bend     624     3091  4.9535
Kuosheng 1,2   624     2940  4.7115

I assume Kuosheng did a MUR uprate of 1.7%, otherwise, it would be at it's original thermal rating of 2984 MWt.

Some BWR/4 and /5 units have realized 20% uprates.

Unit           Assy/core     MWt    MW/assy
Nine Mile Pt2    764         3988    5.2199      BWR/5
Brunswick        560         2923    5.2196      BWR/4
Susquehanna      764         3952    5.1728      BWR/4
Peach Bottom     764         3951    5.1715      BWR/4

However, Oskarshamn 3 (ABB-III, BWR-3000) producing 3900 MWt in 700 assemblies has a slightly higher power density 5.5714 MWt/assy.

 

[mheslep]

... It's one of the most cost efficient single units to run (from what I've been told), ...

So, in what sense is Clinton cost efficient? Is there a way to ascertain staff required, and compare that to coal and gas plants? Are there other significant costs beyond staff?

 

[anorlunda]

What people at Clinton have been told, is that the only thing wrong with Clinton is where they poured the concrete.

IMO one of the saddest facts in the history of the industry was the failure of Offshore Power Systems (OPS). If nukes could be built on barges and then semi-permanently moored, then they also could be moved if needed. (Yeah I know that is just a pipe dream, but those people who backed OPS were not fools. The arguments in favor of OPS were powerful.)

Barsebäck 1 is an example. It was a perfectly good plant that was sacrificed to the anti-nuclear political forces in Sweden. If it could have been re-floated, instead of decommissioning it could have been floated to Finland to become Olkiluoto 3 thus making today's Olkiluoto 3 project unnecessary. It would have been a very big win-win. In the 1990s I tried to promote a study to look at the feasibility of digging underneath Barsebäck 1 to build a barge underneath it and ship it to Finland. Nobody would listen to me.

Moving the Clinton plant elsewhere is a similar idea. Too bad it can never happen.

 

[Hiddencamper]

So, in what sense is Clinton cost efficient? Is there a way to ascertain staff required, and compare that to coal and gas plants? Are there other significant costs beyond staff?

On a cost per MWh basis, it is one of the most efficient single unit nuclear plants.

 

[mheslep]

On a cost per MWh basis, it is one of the most efficient single unit nuclear plants.

Then based on utility comments about the closure, it is fair to assume that this cost, well after the capital cost has been retired, is still considerably higher than that of the several coal plants in the region for some reason, requiring delivery from 100 car coal trains every day. Why this is so is escapes me.

 

[jim hardy]

it is fair to assume that this cost, well after the capital cost has been retired, is still considerably higher than that of the several coal plants in the region for some reason, requiring delivery from 100 car coal trains every day. Why this is so is escapes me.

Bureaucracy.
When it takes a couple thousand extra employees just to shuffle 'The Paperwork Blob' , the fuel differential gets eaten up.
To re-phrase Parkinson's Law : bureaucracy expands to occupy the available money.
.............

http://herald-review.com/news/local...cle_d0f310ba-5d3c-59c9-8d1b-5c9423b1c926.html
Exelon had previously said it would close the Clinton plant on June 1, 2017, and the Quad Cities plant a year later if the General Assembly did not pass the Next Generation Energy Plan this spring. Its main provision would extend to nuclear plants state subsidies given to wind and solar power suppliers for the production of carbon-free electricity.

Political pushback ?

 

[anorlunda]

Then based on utility comments about the closure, it is fair to assume that this cost, well after the capital cost has been retired, is still considerably higher than that of the several coal plants in the region for some reason, requiring delivery from 100 car coal trains every day. Why this is so is escapes me.

As @jim hardy said, fuel is just a fraction of the costs of running a power plant. There can also be long term contacts that would be expensive to cancel. To fully understand a financial decision by anybody public or private, you need access to all the confidential data they used.

 

[mheslep]

As @jim hardy said, fuel is just a fraction of the costs of running a power plant. There can also be long term contacts that would be expensive to cancel. To fully understand a financial decision by anybody public or private, you need access to all the confidential data they used.

That's not the case with a natural gas plant, or least it didn't use to be the case. There, gas was easily the dominant cost when gas was ~$8 per million btu.
EIA LCOE by component, for gas fired CC ($/MWH for new plants as of 2020)
capital: 14
fixed O&M: 2
variable O&M including fuel: 58
transmission: 1

Aside: I see the fixed O&M of a nuclear plant is six times higher than that of gas CC: 12

 

[mheslep]

Bureaucracy.
When it takes a couple thousand extra employees just to shuffle 'The Paperwork Blob' , the fuel differential gets eaten up.
?

It doesn't take a "couple thousand" people to run a gas plant, or to do the paper work. More like a couple dozen on a shift. So, what bureaucracy? I'll grant the nuclear operators, not the entire staff, need intensive training, but I don't grant 100 times the number of people per Watt.

http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2001/12/intergen-completes-financing-on-900-mw-project-in-mississippi.html

The project [Magnolia Energy Project, a 900-megawatt (MW) natural gas-fired, combined cycle power facility located near the town of Ashland in Benton County, Mississippi] will have a significant positive economic impact on the area, creating approximately 25 permanent, full-time operations period jobs

To re-phrase Parkinson's Law : bureaucracy expands to occupy the available money.

BTW, for the long term, that "law" only applies in the public sector, in government. In the private sector, when the incumbent has grown bureaucratic, somebody *always* sooner or later comes along that can do the same job or a better one for less money, and the money goes away, because there money is the boss and not bureaucracy. Thus, I suppose, the closing of Clinton.

 

[mheslep]

Per the News-Gazette in Il, Clinton is 1.1 GWe, with staff size:

The 29-year-old Clinton nuclear power plant, which employs some 700 people in central Illinois,

For Clinton and Quad Cities combined (3 GWe):

"The premature closures will lead to a loss of 1,500 direct jobs, 4,200 indirect jobs

 

[jim hardy]

So, what bureaucracy?

When you decide to run a nuke plant
you become obligated to exchange letters with USNRC's bureaucracy regarding every "what if" scenario anybody in the world can think up.

This involves analyzing the systems and structures in minute detail , figuring out whether the "what if du jour " could result in a compromise of safety,
writing up reports on same, running computer programs to analyze and support your conclusion, and proposing what if anything to do about it.
That's how you wind up with a support staff of a few thousand people for a single nuke plant. It is to utility's advantage to have either several nuke plants and enjoy economy of scale via one engineering staff serving them all, or to have no nukes and enjoy a lean organization.

Sadly it can deteriorate to a parlor game or a means for aspiring bureaucrats to grow an organization underneath them dealing in faux worries .
Fortunately the NRC came up with the concept of "Probabilistic Risk Assessment" which evaluates significance of "What If's" and allows dismissal of ones that were thought up just for harassment or self aggrandizement. An attempt to put a number on practicality of an idea, if you will. (edit- Somehow it dismissed the Fukushima tidal wave risk, though.. i assume they use something similar there)

"The premature closures will lead to a loss of 1,500 direct jobs, 4,200 indirect jobs

I don't know that utility. Would be interesting to see how much of those 4200 indirects is their design&review organization.
4000 engineers at $75K a year is 300 million bucks
at today's price of $40 for Appalaichan ( www.quandl.com/collections/markets/coal )
that'd buy 7.5 million short tons of coal

per EIA

Kilowatthour generated per unit of fuel used:
1,927 kWh per ton, or 0.96 kWh per pound, of coal

that 7.5 million tons would make 1.927 X 7.5E6 = 1.445E10 kwh
spread over the 8766 hours in a year is 1.66 E6 kw, or 1.66 gw
So,,,,,
it's about same cost to buy coal for a 1.6 gigawatt coal plant as to pay 4000 engineers to shuffle paper for a 1.1 gigawatt nuke.
Hence my earlier remark "Bureaucracy expands to occupy the available money."

A wag at my plant said : "This industry went from infancy to senility without passing through maturity."

Nuke is a great way to make electricity . Societally we're almost ready for it.

 

[Astronuc]

Duke Energy says it is poised to get a federal license to build and operate the plant this fall. On June 6, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced it had completed a final safety evaluation report for the plant, which could lead to a vote on issuing the license.

http://www.politico.com/states/flor...ant-even-after-scrapping-plans-in-2013-102735

I believe they plan for two AP-1000 units.
https://www.duke-energy.com/about-us/nuclear-overview.asp
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/levy.html

Meanwhile, Watts Bar 2 is up and running.
https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Our-Power-System/Nuclear/Watts-Bar-Nuclear-Plant
https://www.tva.gov/Newsroom/Watts-Bar-2-Project

From the NRC Plant Status Reports

Date     %RatedPower
June  7,   0
June  8,   3
June  9,  12
June 10,   8
June 11,  14
June 12,  22
June 13,  28
June 14,  28
June 15,  28

 

[mheslep]

I'm curious about the staffing levels at nuclear power plants in the other 30 countries that have them.

Something will have to change in staff requirements for the several small modular companies to succeed. Nuscale plans to be up and running in Utah by 2024 with its 50 and 100 MW scale reactors. And, if the staffing per MW is reduced to accommodate SMR, just for SMR, is that not a direct threat to all the existing and aging large GW scale nuclear plants with their high overhead?

 

[Astronuc]

In a reversal of sorts, a NY State representative is seeking a way for NY Power Authority to take back Fitzpatrick. NYPA ran Fitzpatrick for years until they sold it to Entergy, now Entergy wants to shut it down since it is not profitable. NYPA also operated Indian Point, two Westinghouse PWRs (193 assemblies of 15x15 in the cores). Some in NY State government want to shutdown Indian Point since it is in the midst of a populated area (Westchester County).

Last week, New York State Sen. Patty Ritchie (R-Heuvelton) proposed a bill (S08032) that would authorize and direct the New York Power Authority (NYPA) to acquire the James A. Fitzpatrick nuclear power plant either by a direct purchase or by using the power of eminent domain.

She http://www.oswegocountynewsnow.com/ritchie-proposes-nypa-takeover-of-fitzpatrick/article_00d7a9dc-2e5e-11e6-b617-5ffedd5530ad.html as part of an effort to do everything in her power to keep the plant operating. Her “number one priority” is saving the 615 jobs associated with operating the plant; she noted that achieving her goal requires continued conversation, prompt decisions and effective actions.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadam...-plant-seized-by-eminent-domain/#3b7a8f456073
http://www.oswegocountynewsnow.com/...cle_00d7a9dc-2e5e-11e6-b617-5ffedd5530ad.html

Being a merchant producer is a bit of a challenge in some regions.