The Nuclear Power Thread

[etudiant]

Truly sad, a huge and reliable power source, regulated to economic death.
What I cannot understand is how the various catastrophic climate change believers can simultaneously fight tooth and nail to block the safest non greenhouse gas emitting power technology.

 

[essenmein]

I'm glad there is at least some players developing new gen reactors, companies like terrestrial energy and nuscale give me hope!

 

[Xforce]

I'd like to start a discussion/debate of nuclear power for the purpose of informing people about it. I am participating in a thread in another forum http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9370 where we are discussing an article about Germany planning to phase out nuclear power. I am STRONGLY against this. It is bad for scientific, economic, political, and environmental reasons.

In the course of discussions of the nuclear power issue, it seems to me that the arguements against nuclear power are based primarily on ignorance and emotion. I'm all for open scientific debate, but on this particular subject, I tend to take the approach of educating, not strictly debating. If that comes off as arrogant, I apologize, but this is a remarkably straightforward issue when you get down to the science of it.

So, to start off, a few facts:
-The US has roughly 98 million kW of nuclear generation capacity in roughly 100 plants and runs at about 90% load.
-For comparison, the US has about 4 thousand kW of wind capacity and that doubles about every other year.
-Virtually all new generation capacity in the US is from oil.
-The US has not started construction on a single nuclear plant since Three Mile Island about 20 years ago.
-According to the WHO, air pollution kills 70,000 people in the US every year and affects virtually everyone.
-electric power generation is the leading producer of air pollution in the US.
-HALF of the electricity in the US comes from COAL.
-No civilian has ever been killed as a result of nuclear power in the US (TMI was the worst accident and a long term study produced no statistically significant increase in cancer rates).
-Chernobyl killed roughly 50 people and injured/sickened maybe 1000, including long-after cancers (I had no idea it was that low, so http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9604/msg00651.html is where I found that).

To me, the evidence is so enormously strong in favor of re-activating our nuclear power program, it should be self-evident. Clearly however, nuclear power is all but dead in the US and indeed much of the world.

I'd also like to discuss research. There has been nuclear power research done over the past 20 years (though not much because of TMI). Pebble-bed reactors for example have potential to be both easy to service and virtually melt-down proof. I'd like to hear of other technologies.

Actually, nuclear power plants produce nasty radioactive waste.
Maybe it’s a great idea to introduce fusion, since it does not go off like Chernobyl (if the reactor chamber break, the reaction just stops), 10 times more energy dense than fission, huge amounts of fuel in the universe. The worst thing it can produce is probably neutron radiation... we better get ITER fired up soon

 

[etudiant]

Actually, nuclear power plants produce nasty radioactive waste.
Maybe it’s a great idea to introduce fusion, since it does not go off like Chernobyl (if the reactor chamber break, the reaction just stops), 10 times more energy dense than fission, huge amounts of fuel in the universe. The worst thing it can produce is probably neutron radiation... we better get ITER fired up soon

Not to be too Pollyanna, but nuclear waste is a relatively small problem. In terms of volume, the cumulative nuclear waste produced since the beginning is about 10% of the amount of coal ash we generate annually and a very minimal fraction of the mining wastes we generate. Note that coal ash is actually pretty nasty stuff, as is much of the mining wastes, not really different from nuclear wastes.
All these residues are toxic, with the heavy metal contamination dangers at least as great and at least as permanent as is the radioactivity in nuclear wastes. We do a more diligent job of managing our nuclear wastes, but it is incoherent to spend billions on that while we cover square miles of land with fly ash or phosphate mining residues, both of which have radioactive burdens as well as other metal pollutants.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, nuclear power plants produce nasty radioactive waste.

I made that post/opened this thread in 2003(!). Germany did indeed set out on one of the most ambitious energy transformations in modern history. It has 3 prongs:
1. Phase out nuclear power.
2. Implement "renewable" energy.
3. Reduce carbon emissions.

The first two goals are self-contained: you just do them. The third goal is an effect, not an action. So how'd they do in this arguably most critical endeavor ever undertaken by humanity?

Germany has spent roughly 500 billion Euros to date on its energy transition and has succeeded in reducing their CO2 output by about 17% and yet today has an electrical grid that is 40% coal. If instead of shutting down nuclear plants, they had built nuclear plants, for about the same amount of money they could have eliminated coal and with it another 14% of their emissions.

The waste issue would really be a non-issue if people put rational thought into it -- or even no thought. Most people would probably not remember where our 60 years of nuclear waste is currently stored, if asked. It's just not something that matters in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Astronuc]

I recently read a biography of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover who directed the Naval Nuclear Program. Besides following the career of Rickover, it provides some background on the development of various reactor systems and provides some insight into how we got from Naval propulsion systems to commercial nuclear power plants.

Norman Polmar & Thomas B. Allen, "Rickover: Controversy and Genius: A Biography," Touchstone Book, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1982.

 

[Astronuc]

A Step-by-Step Guide to Nuclear Innovation Policy
https://www.thirdway.org/report/a-step-by-step-guide-to-nuclear-innovation-policy

I have a problem with the article in that it has a single person with a reactor concept. Reactors, and even the fuel, are extraordinarily complicated. It takes a multi-discipline team to design and develop a reactor. There are nuclear engineers/physicists with neutronic design/analysis capability, there are materials scientist/engineers who specialize in materials design and performance, there are mechanical engineers who specialize in mechanical design and analysis (mechanical and materials engineers work together), there are civil/structural engineers specializing in structural design and analysis, and there are electrical engineers specializing in electrical generation, instrumentation and control systems. There is no way a single person can perform a comprehensive nuclear plant and nuclear reactor design.

What's Missing in U.S. Nuclear? An Innovation Culture
https://www.thirdway.org/report/whats-missing-in-u-s-nuclear-an-innovation-culture
I disagree. I've seen a lot of innovation during more than 30 years in the nuclear industry.

I have seen policy flip flops with successive administrations and congresses. It takes at least 10 years for a plant to go from concept through design and construction, and that is everything goes right. If policy changes during that period, projects drop dead.

Usually things go wrong - Westinghouse sold an unfinished product, then the problems snowballed
https://www.post-gazette.com/busine...-the-problems-snowballed/stories/201710290008

June 2018 - Nine years after construction on it began, first Westinghouse AP1000 nuke goes critical in China as US project continues
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/1d11p6ft3fdctvgzgedqmq2
Construction of the 7,500-MW Sanmen nuclear power plant began in 2009, with the hope of having it enter service in 2014. Westinghouse and partnering developer and contractor China State Nuclear Power Technology Corp., or SNPTC, announced June 21 that the first of two units at the Sanmen nuclear project outside Shanghai in the eastern Zhejiang province has achieved initial criticality.

 

[bhobba]

What's Missing in U.S. Nuclear?

You are lucky - you have a nuclear power industry. Until recently here in Aus you were described as a nut, and by this I mean even I was described as a scientific illiterate, for just discussing it. And this from a person that did not know the difference between fission and fusion. That is now changing a little in that there is some discussion about it now, but the latest government report still says Australian culture will not accept nuclear so is ruled out of consideration here in Aus. It's madness to rule out even considering nuclear as part of a country's energy mix. We are even spending unnecessary billions, with long time delays, on converting French nuclear subs to non-nuclear to replace our ageing submarine fleet:
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/5993636/sinking-billions-on-an-outdated-weapon/#gsc.tab=0

The existing French nuclear sub would meet our needs without much modification (as would some US designs without any modification at all) - but no - because of the nuclear 'fear' we can't do that.

Thanks
Bill

 

[artis]

wow @bhobba that is interesting, so your government is doing the equivalent of buying a ferrari but swapping the original engine with a 2 stroke single cylinder + paying extra for such an "added bonus"

 

[bhobba]

wow @bhobba that is interesting, so your government is doing the equivalent of buying a ferrari but swapping the original engine with a 2 stroke single cylinder + paying extra for such an "added bonus"

Exactly. As the saying goes - 'A Camel is a Horse Designed by a Committee'. Having worked for the government for over 30 years, what was it Madeline Kahn said in Blazing Saddles after seeing it's 'hero' in his birthday suit - It's Twu, It's Twu.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Imager]

The Westinghouse Project reminded me of a term we often used for Senior Executive Presentation, a Powerpoint Reality.

 

[TeethWhitener]

The existing French nuclear sub would meet our needs without much modification (as would some US designs without any modification at all) - but no - because of the nuclear 'fear' we can't do that.

This may not be strictly true, depending on what Australia wants them for. New diesel electric subs are much quieter than older nukes. It’s one reason China’s pouring so much money into them: the South China Sea is really shallow and the Chinese run a pretty tight ship (pun intended) in those parts, so the ability to pop up anywhere and project sea power is pretty important to them.

 

[Astronuc]

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The executive who spent billions of dollars on two South Carolina nuclear plants that never generated a single watt of power is almost certain to spend time in prison.

https://apnews.com/article/state-co...olina-courts-6f4f8417fc32bf6a0e0faaf7792fdf04

SCANA and its subsidiary, South Carolina Electric & Gas, were destroyed by the debt and poor management and were bought out by Dominion Energy of Virginia in 2019.

https://www.wistv.com/2020/11/24/fo...ud-charges-connection-with-vc-summer-project/

https://www.wfae.org/energy-environ...ing-the-15-billion-dominion-energy-scana-deal

 

[BWV]

Problem is building new nuclear plants are impossible without substantial regulatory reform and even then, cost is uncompetitive with renewables or nat gas. You can finance contracted renewables at a mid-single digit cost of equity capital with easy debt financing while nuclear remains uninvestable. New renewables are now competitive with the operating costs of existing nuclear plants

 

[BWV]

a piece from the pro-nuclear World Nuclear Association details some of the difficulties financing Nuclear power

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/financing-nuclear-energy.aspx

The key paragraph, is below, which essentially admits financing nuclear will always be at a cost disadvantage to gas or renewables due to the lack of non-recourse financing (where the collateral is limited to the specific project, rather than the sponsor's balance sheet). Hard to understate the importance of financing and capital cost to power investments, and nuclear is dead on that basis:

Limited versus full-recourse financing

Finance for a project can be raised on a limited/non-recourse basis or on a recourse basis. If a project is financed on a recourse basis, lenders’ collateral is provided by the existing assets of the project’s promoters. In the case of limited-recourse financing (or project financing), by contrast, the capital raised is backed only by the project itself.

In the case of project finance, a separate corporate entity is set up to own the project, and shares in the new entity are bought by participants in the project. Debt may be raised to pay for part of the construction cost, but lenders' only collateral will be the shares in the project company itself. As a result, whilst the arrangement has the advantage of shielding equity holders’ other assets, it is riskier for lenders. It is normally therefore more difficult and expensive to obtain loans from lenders.

Project finance is used widely in the power sector, but mainly for renewable projects and natural gas turbines – assets that are less capital-intensive, more flexible and have shorter construction times. It has not been used in any significant way for nuclear power plants or hydropower projects.

Contracts guaranteeing future revenues (see section below) may provide some additional security to lenders, but such arrangements are of limited value in a non-recourse arrangement if the project fails or the plant is prevented from operating. Until a promoter can demonstrate a strong track record of building and operating nuclear plants with a standardised design, it is unlikely that nuclear plant projects will be financed on a limited-recourse basis.

 

[PeterDonis]

financing nuclear will always be at a cost disadvantage to gas or renewables due to the lack of non-recourse financing

Smaller modular reactors would seem to be a good way to avoid this problem.

 

[Dale]

even then, cost is uncompetitive with renewables or nat gas

Is that cost including the cost of the regulations or just the kind of "physical" operational cost (not sure if there is a specific word for that)?

 

[BWV]

Is that cost including the cost of the regulations or just the kind of "physical" operational cost (not sure if there is a specific word for that)?

Including - also the 29 $/mwh cost number for existing plants includes decommissioning costs - so reaching a point where it is cheaper to shut down a nuclear plant and replace with renewables (ignoring grid capacity issues, as nuclear plants are far larger than individual solar or wind installations).

Regulations impact the financial risks for sponsors which in turn impact financing options. Solar, wind and gas are simple and don't have a big 'left tail' of adverse outcomes, so capital markets are happy to only take the project as collateral to lend against. Given the (low) probability of large liabilities associated with nuclear, there would need to be a transparent set of regulations / gov guarantees that would absolve to the corporate sponsor (typically a utility) of exposure to liabilities in case of some sort of accident. This, of course, is politically difficult and fraught with moral hazard issues.

 

[Astronuc]

substantial regulatory reform

What would constitute "substantial regulatory reform"? The NRC has worked with industry and the public to improve regulation and reducing burden. Some may take a position it's been too much and others will argue not enough. Besides the NRC, there is EPA, FERC, OSHA, SEC, . . . .

Consider the technical side of regulation, how well did it work with FAA and Boeing with respect to assuring the quality of MCAS? What would it look like for a utility to install a faulty control system in a reactor, which then initiates a substantial reactivity insertion event, let's say 5$ of excess reactivity instead of $0.05?

 

[BWV]

What would constitute "substantial regulatory reform"? The NRC has worked with industry and the public to improve regulation and reducing burden. Some may take a position it's been too much and others will argue not enough. Besides the NRC, there is EPA, FERC, OSHA, SEC, . . . .

Not up on the details, but the current impossibility of building new plants indicates the need. The amount of regulation required due to the nature of nuclear power relative to solar & wind puts it at a severe disadvantage

Consider the technical side of regulation, how well did it work with FAA and Boeing with respect to assuring the quality of MCAS? What would it look like for a utility to install a faulty control system in a reactor, which then initiates a substantial reactivity insertion event, let's say 5$ of excess reactivity instead of $0.05?

That is the moral hazard issue I pointed to above. Solar and wind cannot catastrophically fail so they don't have this issue, therefore nuclear cannot compete

 

[PeterDonis]

Solar and wind cannot catastrophically fail

So if a nuclear reactor is designed so it also cannot catastrophically fail (and a number of new designs have this property), then it should be regulated the same way solar and wind are regulated, which is not the way nuclear has been regulated up to now.

 

[BWV]

So if a nuclear reactor is designed so it also cannot catastrophically fail (and a number of new designs have this property), then it should be regulated the same way solar and wind are regulated, which is not the way nuclear has been regulated up to now.

Absolutely, but politically feasible?

 

[PeterDonis]

politically feasible?

I said "should be", not "will be". I won't try to predict which way the politics would end up.

 

[Astronuc]

So if a nuclear reactor is designed so it also cannot catastrophically fail (and a number of new designs have this property), then it should be regulated the same way solar and wind are regulated, which is not the way nuclear has been regulated up to now.

There is the matter of regulating the exposure of personnel and the public to radiation, which is a major factor in regulating nuclear plants and which does not apply to other forms of power generation.

Modern NPP designs are supposed to be more resistant to catastrophic failure, but certain designs can still fail, in the sense of releasing fission products outside of the fuel. With failed fuel, when it comes time to refuel, the staff have to deal with the noble gases Xe, Kr and solubles Br, I, Cs, . . ., and fuel particles. Even with the fuel intact, staff must be shielded by water in the fuel transfer systems and wet pool storage. Spent (used) fuel is maintained in the spent fuel pool until the fuel has radiologically (and thermally) cooled to the point where it can be transferred to a dry cask in which the fuel will sit in an inert gas (e.g., He) until final disposition (sent to a repository or reprocessed). In general, standards for materials used in nuclear systems are much stricter than for the same materials used in non-nuclear, non-power applications. Some regulations are found in ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (BPV) Code. Nuclear regulation is similar in some ways to Aerospace regulation where catastrophic failure is not acceptable, although that could mean very low probability like <1E-6, or <1E-5.

I nevertheless agree with sensible regulation.

 

[Astronuc]

24 October 2013 - https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurefueling-the-westinghouse-smr

Westinghouse has taken a key step forward in the development of its 225 MW Small Modular Reactor (SMR), completing the design, fabrication and start of testing on the first fuel assemblies.

Don't know where this is going.

NuScale's system seems furthest along, but I have yet to see the start of a NPP anywhere.

 

[PeterDonis]

With failed fuel, when it comes time to refuel, the staff have to deal with the noble gases Xe, Kr and solubles Br, I, Cs, . . ., and fuel particles. Even with the fuel intact, staff must be shielded by water in the fuel transfer systems and wet pool storage.

If fuel processing could be automated (as for instance in a pebble bed reactor), this risk would be mitigated as well. However, it doesn't appear that the current small modular reactor designs are doing this.

 

[Astronuc]

If fuel processing could be automated (as for instance in a pebble bed reactor), this risk would be mitigated as well. However, it doesn't appear that the current small modular reactor designs are doing this.

There is at least one pebble bed reactor concept and there are others that use graphite moderate fuel, e.g., Kairos, with molten salt cooling. Yet the spent fuel needs to be stored safely, with shielding somewhere. The amount of shielding (and cooling) will depend on the burnup (GWd/kgHM) of the fuel.

https://kairospower.com/technology/

 

[PeterDonis]

the spent fuel needs to be stored safely, with shielding somewhere

Yes, I understand that. I was simply saying that the risk of radiation exposure to plant staff would be greatly reduced if the process of removing and storing the spent fuel could be automated so that it didn't require human intervention.

 

[Astronuc]

Yes, I understand that. I was simply saying that the risk of radiation exposure to plant staff would be greatly reduced if the process of removing and storing the spent fuel could be automated so that it didn't require human intervention.

There have been developments in remote handling systems, especially regarding manufacture of MOX (U,Pu)O₂ fuel and waste from reprocessing. Such systems could conceivably be adapted to NPP reactor and spent fuel handling systems.

But sometimes, things can go wrong. A 3T fuel handling system was accidentally dropped into the MONJU reactor on August 26, 2010. https://cnic.jp/english/?p=2129

That mishap and other problems resulted in cancellation of the program.

 

[russ_watters]

[reverse order]
New renewables are now competitive with the operating costs of existing nuclear plants

LCOE has significant limitations when it comes to modeling intermittent renewables. It's a simple calculation of the total lifetime cost of the plant divided by the energy produced. The problem with that is to make predictions with it, you have to assume you can sell the electricity, at/above that fixed average cost. But intermittent renewables don't make electricity when the grid wants it, they make electricity when they want to (the environment allows). That means that the value of the electricity they make is highly variable. At their worst, they make electricity that nobody wants at any price.
https://www.energyforgrowth.org/memo/lcoe-and-its-limitations/

The worst case for this would be @anorlunda 's "overbuild" scenarios, where most of the electricity generated can't be sold.

The problem is opposite for natural gas peaking plants, which make electricity only when it is at its most expensive.

This isn't a major problem yet for solar in the US because we're only at something like 3% solar (energy, not power), but we're only a few years away from it becoming a major problem. We have already seen a few examples of it. This was 3 years ago: https://www.theagilityeffect.com/en...ergy-enables-california-post-negative-prices/

Another limitation in predicting scaling solar based on LCOE is that right now we're building solar plants primarily where they have the most sunlight available. A solar plant in Pennsylvania isn't going to produce anywhere near as much electricity as it does in Southern California, but will cost just as much. Conventional plants are identical regardless of where you put them.

Problem is building new nuclear plants are impossible without substantial regulatory reform and even then, cost is uncompetitive with renewables or nat gas. You can finance contracted renewables at a mid-single digit cost of equity capital with easy debt financing while nuclear remains uninvestable.

What would constitute "substantial regulatory reform"? The NRC has worked with industry and the public to improve regulation and reducing burden. Some may take a position it's been too much and others will argue not enough. Besides the NRC, there is EPA, FERC, OSHA, SEC, . . . .

Consider the technical side of regulation, how well did it work with FAA and Boeing with respect to assuring the quality of MCAS? What would it look like for a utility to install a faulty control system in a reactor, which then initiates a substantial reactivity insertion event, let's say 5$ of excess reactivity instead of $0.05?

It's not the technical side I'm concerned about, it's the very decisions of where and *if* to to build them. A lot of that is local politics (though there are probably some NRC hoops to jump through as well). But consider that if you can't even build a big wind plant in some places (offshore, on federal land!) because of NIMBYISM, how much harder it is to site a nuclear plant:
https://www.ack.net/news/20171202/timeline-of-cape-wind-project

Cape Wind was first conceived in 2000. It took 10 years (!) to get government approval to build it (federal, state, and local). And if the story had ended there and it had been built, that still would have been absurd. But after 6 more years of legal challenges, and then losses of funding, and power purchasing agreements, and expiring permits, the project was abandoned in 2017.

Contrast that with the Messimer Plan in France, which was not subject to public or parliamentary oversight; They broke ground on the first nuclear plants the same year, and built 56 in 15 years. In the US we spent more time than that defeating a wind farm!

The Yucca mountain nuclear waste repository faces the same issues. The site was selected in 1987(!), and remains in legal limbo today. It's just a friggin tunnel into a mountain!

 

[BWV]

LCOE has significant limitations when it comes to modeling intermittent renewables. It's a simple calculation of the total lifetime cost of the plant divided by the energy produced. The problem with that is to make predictions with it, you have to assume you can sell the electricity, at/above that fixed average cost. But intermittent renewables don't make electricity when the grid wants it, they make electricity when they want to (the environment allows). That means that the value of the electricity they make is highly variable. At their worst, they make electricity that nobody wants at any price.

The worst case for this would be @anorlunda 's "overbuild" scenarios, where most of the electricity generated can't be sold.

Storage will become an issue once solar and wind begin to take more share, but they are >20% of Texas’s isolated grid compared to the ~10% national average without significant issues. Solar and wind are built with 10-25 year power purchase agreements where some party, either a utility or a corporate sponsor agrees to purchase the offtake at a fixed price. This is how large companies like Google are able to state they are 100% renewable - the company is the single largest purchaser of solar and wind power in Earth. Additionally, it is the primary reason why the cost of capital is so low for these projects as the owners of the asset have no exposure to electricity price risk.

A hypothetical 100% solar and wind grid would not only have battery storage, it could use surplus solar power for desalination or creating H2

 

[anorlunda]

Good thread. I like it when the topic is energy/power analysis rather than a lot of principles.

This isn't a major problem yet for solar in the US because we're only at something like 3% solar (energy, not power), but we're only a few years away from it becoming a major problem. We have already seen a few examples of it. This was 3 years ago: https://www.theagilityeffect.com/en...ergy-enables-california-post-negative-prices/

Major problem for who? Almost all scenarios have winners and losers. In the SoCal case, my guess is the winners are retail power customers who do not own rooftop solar. They see lower costs during some hours of the afternoon.

The grid operator may see a problem as the sun gets low in the sky at the same time everyone arrives home from work. Solar generation falls so rapidly, that it is difficult to ramp-up other sources fast enough. But even that provides an opportunity for someone else to make money helping with the ramp-up. Large scale storage of energy for 30-60 minutes, is a specialized category. Let the clever entrepreneurs have a go at it.

 

[Astronuc]

It's not the technical side I'm concerned about, it's the very decisions of where and *if* to to build them.

True. I took the context of "regulatory reform" to refer to regulation of the nuclear industry or nuclear energy, which is primarily the responsibility of the US NRC, which oversees the safety and licensing of nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel production facilities (among others). With respect to regulation of the electric utility industry, that involves more agencies, e.g., EPA, FERC and NERC. And there are other regulatory agencies, e.g., DOJ, SEC, OSHA, . . . . And that is just the federal level. Each state has some Public Utility Commission, and there are local jurisdictions at the county and town/city/village level.

Ref: https://redclay.com/2017/08/08/regulation-electricity-industry-regulation-utility-industry/
https://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/Pages/FederalRegulation.aspx

 

[Imager]

@Astronuc and @russ_watters I just wanted thank you for providing such great information in this thread. That article on the Cape Win project was just scary.

 

[russ_watters]

Major problem for who? Almost all scenarios have winners and losers. In the SoCal case, my guess is the winners are retail power customers who do not own rooftop solar. They see lower costs during some hours of the afternoon.

That's not a win for the customers. Ultimately, they are paying for the cost to build the plant either way, so if the price goes negative for a time or worse a plant gets shut down and doesn't produce electricity because nobody can use it, that just means at other times the cost - and the net/overall cost has to be higher.

The primary winner would be the solar panel/plant manufacturer, who gets to build extra solar plants that produce less electricity for the same cost.

An energy storage customer could win too, but that's a hard fought win and risky bet.

The biggest losers though would be those who built solar plants expecting to be able to sell the power and then finding out later that they can't.