The Nuclear Power Thread

[QuantumPion]

thanks, that explains a lot.



so, does that mean maintenance and operation costs trump fuel costs?

yes, by a large margin (triple or quadruple).

 

[mheslep]

Nice post but I think it falls short in places:

Well, first, reactors don't 'always' use steam turbines - for example, the high temperature gas cooled pebble bed design uses the gas in essentially a brayton cycle device.

True, but all existing commercial reactors in the US at least use rankine steam for the primary cycle.

Second, steam turbine plants are not lacking in thermodynamic efficiency, the modern systems are pretty efficient. They are also used in coal fired units, where the fuel costs are high enough to drive efficiency gains.

Light water reactors use steam turbine plant for a number of reasons, but the main one (in my mind anyway) is because the electric power companies (who operate the reactors) are very familiar with the steam plant design since that's what they have in their coal fired units. There are differences, but they are minor. These steam plants are very robust and well understood, which means that they can operate continuously for long periods (months or years) - and this reliability is 'worth' as much or more than thermodynamic efficiency.

Obviously electric utilities are also very familiar and comfortable with natural gas fired Brayton cycle plants. There is an alternative reason than the comfort of the nuclear operators with Rankine steam, one I assert is far more likely to be dominate: government regulators (NRC in the US) are comfortable with the nuclear Rankine designs, and so only approve those designs.

The cost to the power company of an 'inefficient' cycle is that they need to buy more uranium (since less efficient means less electricity for the same amount of fuel). But the fuel cost of running a reactor is a minor contributor to the total cost, so increasing efficiency of the cycle helps, but not by as much as you might think. And that's why reliability is really more important to the power company than thermodynamic efficiency.

True, capacity factor ranks high, but it's misleading, I think, to say reliability trumps efficiency, end of story. Per a seminar run by the CEO of nuclear operator I once attended, the number one thing utilities want to do, or rather avoid, is they do not want to build more power plants, certainly not the expensive, capital intensive plants. They want to run the ones they have as near to maximum capacity as possible. Seen this way, reliability and efficiency are both important. If a utility were to choose a fleet of inefficient plants, they will simply have to build more of them to meet demand.

 

[mheslep]

yes, by a large margin (triple or quadruple).

Er, more specifically reactor down time trumps fuel costs by a large margin, since there's no $/kWh coming in when its down, and the utility may have to pay huge penalties for failure to provide promised supply in some states.

 

[Astronuc]

KAERI - Nuclear Power Reactor Technology
http://www.kntc.re.kr/openlec/nuc/NPRT/

Fuel Design and Fabrication
http://www.kntc.re.kr/openlec/nuc/NPRT/module2/module2_4/2_4.htm

Enjoy!

 

[gmax137]

Nice post but I think it falls short in places:
...
Obviously electric utilities are also very familiar and comfortable with natural gas fired Brayton cycle plants. There is an alternative reason than the comfort of the nuclear operators with Rankine steam, one I assert is far more likely to be dominate: government regulators (NRC in the US) are comfortable with the nuclear Rankine designs, and so only approve those designs.

Well, I'm not here to defend the NRC, but I do wonder, which designs have been proposed by any of the utility companies that were denied approval by the NRC? Actually, I'm not aware of any (and I would be interested to learn about any that were).

True, capacity factor ranks high, but it's misleading, I think, to say reliability trumps efficiency, end of story.

I said, efficiency isn't as important as you might think, not "reliability trumps efficiency, end of story."

 

[mheslep]

Well, I'm not here to defend the NRC, but I do wonder, which designs have been proposed by any of the utility companies that were denied approval by the NRC? Actually, I'm not aware of any (and I would be interested to learn about any that were)...

There are several new small (150MWe or less) reactor-in-a-box designs (Babcock and Wilcox, Hyperion, etc) that the NRC has stated would not receive prompt attention. The NRC evaluation fee is several hundred million dollars over many years after all of which the NRC may say no. This disfavors all but the largest big industry designs. So we would not expect to see a long list of NRC rejections.

 

[gmax137]

I'd still like to see a list of Construction Permits and (now) Combined Operating Licenses that were denied or disapproved by the NRC and AEC. Anyone know how to find such a list?

I think that's really a separate issue from the review fees, and other ways the agency may not favor small plants.

 

[Astronuc]

There are several new small (150MWe or less) reactor-in-a-box designs (Babcock and Wilcox, Hyperion, etc) that the NRC has stated would not receive prompt attention. The NRC evaluation fee is several hundred million dollars over many years after all of which the NRC may say no. This disfavors all but the largest big industry designs. So we would not expect to see a long list of NRC rejections.

SMRs are getting attention from the NRC. New reactors based on non-standard or new technology are on the back burner.

The NRC will only seriously consider a reactor that has support from at least one utility.

If one looks at the post (#168 of this thread) on "Regulatory History Package on Design Certification", one will see the emphasis on standardization.

New concepts need to be proven at a higher level before the NRC would consider them.

Both thermal efficiency and capacity factor are important, and perhaps CF more so.

 

[Astronuc]

Meanwhile, here is Southern Company's brochure on Vogtle 3 and 4.

http://www.southerncompany.com/nuclearenergy/pdf/Vogtle_3_4.pdf

 

[mheslep]

Meanwhile, here is Southern Company's brochure on Vogtle 3 and 4.

http://www.southerncompany.com/nuclearenergy/pdf/Vogtle_3_4.pdf

Vogtle is an expansion of an existing site, minimizing infrastructure and changes to an existing community. So I'm surprised at some of the facts in the brochure:

New units are under construction at Plant Vogtle. Construction began in April 2009 and will continue through 2017

2017? Eight years of construction for a pre-existing site?

In August 2009, Southern Nuclear received an Early Site Permit (ESP) for the units. The ESP is one step in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) licensing process for new units. Completion of the ESP process resolves many site safety and environmental issues and determines the site is suitable to build a nuclear energy plant. Southern Nuclear’s ESP was issued with a Limited Work Authorization that allows limited safety construction to begin prior to receiving a license to construct and operate the plant.

How is it possible to begin a construction project this way, or to secure reasonable financing when they still don't have a license to construct, meaning it might be denied?

 

[mheslep]

As an aside, I note from the brochure the Vogtle project uses 3147 acres. If that same acreage was used as for a solar farm (thermal or PV) the site would produce at a daily average rate of perhaps 400MWe (2.4 GWe peak*), starting after a construction time of ~12 months and obviously without requiring the complicated blessing of the NRC. A solar farm would not help Georgia much with base load, none the less the solar farm would have produced 3.2 billion kWh a year (or $320 million a year @10cents/kWh) for seven years before completion of these new nuclear plants.

*12e6 M^2 x 200We-peak/M^2, 4 peak equivalent hours per day.

 

[Astronuc]

The NPPs like the AP1000, EPR and USAPWR are supposed to be constructed in 5 years or 60 months. I don't know if that's from first pour, or when they start excavation for the basemat.

According to SC folks I know, the part of the site where V3 and 4 are going was still largely undeveloped.

The utilities are counting on Uncle Sam to guarantee their investments, more or less.

 

[mheslep]

The NPPs like the AP1000, EPR and USAPWR are supposed to be constructed in 5 years or 60 months. I don't know if that's from first pour, or when they start excavation for the basemat.

I have seen that same build time estimate. Apparently the reality is different. Georgia is spending money on construction now, but will not sell any electricity from reactors 3,4 before 2017.

According to SC folks I know, the part of the site where V3 and 4 are going was still largely undeveloped.

No doubt. By existing site I mean that, for example, road access and electrical transmission are already in place, evacuation plans still apply, and so on.

 

[Astronuc]

I'd see that prediction too. Apparently the reality is different. Georgia is spending money on construction now, but will sell electricity from 3,4 before 2017.

No doubt. By existing site I mean that, for example, road access and electrical transmission are already in place, evacuation plans still apply, and so on.

I don't know all the details, but they do benefit from the fact that it's adjacent or included in keys areas of the current site.

Most of the new NPPs being planned by existing nuclear utilities have been sited at existing sites, many of which had been originally designed for 2, 3 or 4 units (STNP, Comanche Peak, Grand Gulf, River Bend, North Anna, . . . .). Others, e.g. Amarillo, are looking at entirely new sites.

 

[mheslep]

Fuqing reactor construction on China's SE coast, one the of the "22 nuclear reactors under construction" in China. "[H]omegrown design based on France's existing light-water reactors."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/25112/?a=f

 

[QuantumPion]

Fuqing reactor construction on China's SE coast, one the of the "22 nuclear reactors under construction" in China. "[H]omegrown design based on France's existing light-water reactors."

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/25112/?a=f

Hm, good name for a plant.

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=27662&jmid=18699&j=247171936&utm_source=JangoMail&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=WNN+Daily%3A+Another+drop+in+nuclear+generation+%28247171936%29&utm_content=dion%40anatech%2Ecom
05 May 2010

A new company should be formed later this year to support Japanese exports of nuclear power technology and knowledge. The Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (Meti) has agreed to set up the firm with involvement from utilities the Tokyo, Chubu and Kansai electric power companies as well as with reactor vendors Toshiba, Hitachi and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. The Innovation Network of Japan - a joint venture of government and industry - may also join. The move is seen as a reaction to South Korea's success in exporting to the United Arab Emirates and directed towards winning new nuclear contracts with the emerging nuclear countries of south-east Asia.

Source: World Nuclear News

 

[gmax137]

"The move is seen as a reaction to South Korea's success in exporting to the United Arab Emirates and directed towards winning new nuclear contracts with the emerging nuclear countries of south-east Asia."

Maybe Toshiba (/ Westinghouse / ABB / CE) should have tried marketing their System 80+ design themselves.

I wonder if they have any scope of supply in the Korean version to be supplied to UAE.

 

[Astronuc]

Here's a surprise -

Dominion selects APWR for North Anna
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Dominion_selects_APWR_for_North_Anna-1005104.html

Dominion had previously expressed interest in the ESBWR. Generally it's not a good idea to mix technologies (e.g., PWR and BWR) at one site.

The lead utility on Mitsubishi's US-APWR is Luminant (TXU) with two units planned for Comanche Peak near Ft. Worth, Tx (actually Glen Rose in Somervell County, Tx).

 

[QuantumPion]

Here's a surprise -

Dominion selects APWR for North Anna
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Dominion_selects_APWR_for_North_Anna-1005104.html

Dominion had previously expressed interest in the ESBWR. Generally it's not a good idea to mix technologies (e.g., PWR and BWR) at one site.

The lead utility on Mitsubishi's US-APWR is Luminant (TXU) with two units planned for Comanche Peak near Ft. Worth, Tx (actually Glen Rose in Somervell County, Tx).

Heh, I called it!

We haven't decided to build it yet though, only selected the type if we do.

 

[Astronuc]

Rolls-Royce has announced the opening of two new university centres dedicated to nuclear technology at Imperial College in London and the University of Manchester.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Nuclear_excellence_centres_for_UK_universities-1105108.html

Colin Smith, Rolls-Royce's director of engineering and technology, attended opening ceremonies at both institutions, which he described as proven centres of excellence for nuclear science. "Rolls-Royce is well placed to deliver world-class engineering and manufacturing capability to support the delivery of global nuclear power programs and we are delighted that these new UTC collaborations will help us remain at the cutting edge of technology," he said.

U of M has the Dalton Nuclear Institute.
http://www.dalton.manchester.ac.uk/

 

[mheslep]

Rolls-Royce has announced the opening of two new university centres dedicated to nuclear technology at Imperial College in London and the University of Manchester.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Nuclear_excellence_centres_for_UK_universities-1105108.html



U of M has the Dalton Nuclear Institute.
http://www.dalton.manchester.ac.uk/

Curious, given the UK has no new nuclear plans that I've seen.

 

[Astronuc]

Curious, given the UK has no new nuclear plans that I've seen.

EDF completes UK nuclear line-up
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7532542.stm

The next generation of nuclear generators will most likely be built on existing sites owned by British Energy.

Dungeness in Kent, Sizewell in Suffolk, Bradwell in Essex and Hinkley Point in Somerset are among the most likely sites for new-build, according to industry insiders.

Possibly 4 EPRs.

 

[mheslep]

EDF completes UK nuclear line-up
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7532542.stm
Possibly 4 EPRs.

after the government gave the go-ahead for the rebirth of the nuclear industry early this year.

Really? I'd missed that. I had thought one of the reasons behind the UK's expensive offshore wind push was because more nuclear was not on the table.

 

[mheslep]

Same article - disconcerting waste handling behavior in France

[...]A couple of recent incidents in France have made such concerns pertinent.

In July, 100 workers at EDF's Tricastin power plant in Bollene, southern France, were contaminated as waste particles escaped from a pipe during maintenance work.

Medical checks found the workers were all fine as the contamination was mild, but it nevertheless pointed to a lack of control.

And only a few weeks earlier, an adjacent Areva subsidiary failed to notify the locals until late in the afternoon the day after some 75kg of liquid containing unenriched uranium leaked into the ground water.

The leak was taken seriously. Locals were told to stop drinking tap water; swimming pools were covered up; farmers and gardeners stopped watering their crops.

 

[Astronuc]

Really? I'd missed that. I had thought one of the reasons behind the UK's expensive offshore wind push was because more nuclear was not on the table.

Well - there are various plans. What path those plans will actually take is anyone's guess. At the moment, the UK needs to establish a new and hopefully functional government.

 

[Astronuc]

Construction work delayed at Levy as costs rise
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Construction_work_delayed_at_Levy_as_costs_rise-0705105.htm
07 May 2010

Progress Energy has announced that it has postponed major construction activities at the proposed Levy nuclear power plant in Florida until it has received a license for the plant. At the same time, the estimated cost for the project has increased by up to $5 billion.

The company said that it has delayed work on the Levy project for several reasons, including: the need to reduce capital spending to avoid short term rate increases; a recent downgrading to Progress Energy Florida's credit ratings; a delay in the licensing timeline; the current economic climate; and continued uncertainty about federal and state energy policies, including carbon regulation.

Progress says that, according to the current schedule, it expects the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to issue the combined construction and operating license (COL) for Levy in late 2012. The company said that at that time it will "update its assessment of the project and schedule to ensure that it continues to be in the best interests of customers and shareholders."
. . . .

Escalating costs will likely delay/slow the renaissance.

 

[mheslep]

Construction work delayed at Levy as costs rise
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Construction_work_delayed_at_Levy_as_costs_rise-0705105.htm
07 May 2010
Escalating costs will likely delay/slow the renaissance.

Meanwhile, Progress said that its current estimate for the cost of the proposed Levy plant is between $17.2 billion and $22.5 billion.

$22.5 billion for one 2.2 GWe plant + transmission? Begin operation in 2019? What the hell? Forget new big-plant nuclear, at least how it's done now in the US, with that price level and schedule.

 

[minerva]

Same article - disconcerting waste handling behavior in France

It's much of the usual beat up crap I think.

As usual, let's answer the questions you never see in the press.

Was there any off-site impact?
Was there any impact on anybody's health, either plant workers or off-site persons?
What quantitative radiation doses did plant employees receive?

so, does that mean maintenance and operation costs trump fuel costs?

Absolutely. Nuclear fuel is very, very inexpensive per unit of energy content.

 

[Astronuc]

PSEG submits ESP application
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-PSEG_submits_ESP_application-2605104.html

Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG) has submitted an early site permit (ESP) application to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a proposed new nuclear power plant in New Jersey.

The preferred location for a potential new plant would be adjacent to PSEG's Salem and Hope Creek plants. The two plants are located on a 740 acre (300 hectare) site in Salem County, New Jersey.
. . . .
PSEG already has three operating reactors (PWRs) at the same New Jersey site - the two pressurised water reactor (PWR) Salem units, plus the single Hope Creek boiling water reactor (BWR) - and has applied for license extensions for all three. PSEG owns 100% of Hope Creek and 57% of Salem. It also holds a 50% interest in the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania.

So far, the NRC has issued four ESPs: for Exelon's Clinton site in Illinois; Entergy's Grand Gulf site in Mississippi; Dominion's North Anna site in Virginia; and Southern's Vogtle site in Georgia. It is also currently reviewing an ESP application from Exelon for its proposed plant in Victoria County, Texas.

Original plans at the site called for 2 Hope Creek units, but only one was completed. Hope Creek 2 was not even started.

 

[Astronuc]

Nuclear R&D funding announced
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Nuclear_research_funding_announced-2605105.html

There have been recent announcements in both the USA and UK of investments into university-led research projects designed to improve the prospects of a next generation of nuclear power plants.

In the USA, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced on 20 May the latest round of funding allocations for research and development projects under the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Energy University Program (NEUP).

In total $38 million has been awarded to 42 projects covering four main research areas, including fuel cycle research and development, 13 projects, $11.82 million; Generation IV reactor research and development, 20 projects, $19.86 million; light water reactor sustainability, 2 projects, $764,000; mission-relevant investigator-initiated research, 7 projects, $5.56 million. . . . .

Meanwhile in the UK -

the Open University is leading a consortium of six universities - including Imperial College, the University of Bristol, Loughborough, Manchester and Oxford - in a project designed to increase levels of understanding on the performance of materials suitable for fourth generation reactors.

A particular focus will be the performance of materials suitable for high temperature reactors and long lifetimes, both factors which affect the economic viability of future nuclear power plants.

 

[Astronuc]

Alstom expands turbine production
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Alstom_expands_turbine_production-2506104.html
25 June 2010

France's Alstom has opened a new $300 million turbine manufacturing facility in Tennessee to supply turbines for use in North American power plants. The company is also reported to be close to a joint venture agreement with Indian partners.

The new US facility, in Chattanooga, will supply steam turbines, gas turbines, large turbo generators and related equipment for fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. In addition, it will contribute to retrofit jobs to improve performance of existing turbines.
. . .

 

[Astronuc]

DoE told to finish the job at Yucca Mountain

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR_DoE_told_to_finish_the_job_at_Yucca_Mountain_3006101.html
30 June 2010

The Yucca Mountain project looks close to resurrection after the Department of Energy (DoE) was told that it must follow through on the waste disposal plan as specified by Congress.
. . . .
Now, the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) has told the DoE it had no right to substitute its own ideas in place of those legislated by Congress. The DoE and the NRC are bound by law to complete their work at Yucca Mountain unless Congress acts to supercede the previous legislation. The DoE move to withdraw the application was rejected by the ASLB. "Unless Congress directs otherwise, the DoE may not single-handedly derail the legislated decisionmaking process by withdrawing the application. The DoE's motion must therefore be denied."

The move would be welcomed by those that petitioned against the DoE's move to withdraw: the states of Washington and South Carolina, Aiken County, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the Nuclear Energy Institute and six counties in Nevada.

The ALSB noted that the 1982 act had deliberately put ultimate siting authority with Congress and not with the President or the DoE. Furthermore: "When Congress selected the Yucca Mountain site over Nevada's objection in 2002, it reinforced the expectation in the 1982 act that the project would be removed from the political process and that the NRC would complete an evaluation of [its] technical merits."
. . .

It will be interesting to see where that goes.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR_DoE_told_to_finish_the_job_at_Yucca_Mountain_3006101.html
30 June 2010

It will be interesting to see where that goes.

That's huge! I imagine Senator Reid has had a few phone calls into the NRC chair, Jaczko. Jaczko must really feel he's obligated by the existing law.

 

[Astronuc]

I thought it interesting that 6 counties in Nevada petitioned against the DOE withdrawal. I'm sure they want the work and income. DOE has spent $billions in NV.

The move would be welcomed by those that petitioned against the DoE's move to withdraw: the states of Washington and South Carolina, Aiken County, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the Nuclear Energy Institute and six counties in Nevada.

So whose interest is Reid supposedly protecting?

There is still the matter of reprocessing spent fuel to recover unused U and Pu, or staying direct diposal. The utilities just want to get the stuff off-site.