The Nuclear Power Thread

[gmax137]

"Didn't have detailed design documents ready when construction started" is one of the most popular ways to shoot yourself in the foot.

Maybe, but 'twas always so in the nuclear business. When you're building one-of-a-kind projects with a $6 billion price tag, you don't complete the design work on your own nickel. Cash-flow requires that the customer pay for some of the work as it is done. And really, do you need to know the detailed routing of every 1/2 inch conduit, or what vendor will supply the fans in the battery rooms, before you dig the hole or pour the basemat? Of course you don't.

On the other hand, everyone involved recognizes the costs associated with designing on the fly. That's one of the motivations for the standard designs now offered by the reactor vendors. It's just that the plants being built are the first instances of the standards, so we're seeing the 'detailed design' being done as they're building. If the utilities really do contract for further copies of the standard, we'll see how the approach works. And we'll see if the utilities can restrain themselves from insisting on deviations from the standard.

 

[mheslep]

"Didn't have detailed design documents ready when construction started" is one of the most popular ways to shoot yourself in the foot.

Maybe, but 'twas always so in the nuclear business. When you're building one-of-a-kind projects with a $6 billion price tag, you don't complete the design work on your own nickel. Cash-flow requires that the customer pay for some of the work as it is done. And really, do you need to know the detailed routing of every 1/2 inch conduit, or what vendor will supply the fans in the battery rooms, before you dig the hole or pour the basemat? Of course you don't.

On the other hand, everyone involved recognizes the costs associated with designing on the fly. That's one of the motivations for the standard designs now offered by the reactor vendors. It's just that the plants being built are the first instances of the standards, so we're seeing the 'detailed design' being done as they're building. If the utilities really do contract for further copies of the standard, we'll see how the approach works. And we'll see if the utilities can restrain themselves from insisting on deviations from the standard.

Seems like a very good argument for small modular reactors built in a factory, shipped to the site, if and when the US NRC gets around approving them in next couple of decades.

 

[mheslep]

I'm continually puzzled by the lack of any significant US nuclear construction, given the nuclear surge in China and the push for clean energy in the US. We've discussed costs, waste, anti-nuclear protests, etc, but that doesn't quite seem a sufficient impediment to me, so I look elsewhere for the holdup.

Observation of the current fleet of 104 US reactors shows it to be a colossal cash cow. All of the plant capital costs were paid off or written off long ago in bankruptcy courts, and those legal injunction expenses far behind them. These plants crank away year in, year out at ~90% capacity factor, with a minimal average operation and maintenance cost of 1.6 cents/kWh and a fuel cost of 0.6 cents/kWh*. There is a nice cozy relationship with the NRC, with permanent onsite inspectors at every plant in the country. Thus when selling power at 12 cents/kWh, a typical two reactor, 2GWe plant is easily casting off $1.5 billion in profit, free and clear every year. They worry about no miners strikes, rail strikes, or new clear air emissions problems, as does coal, for the life of the plants which are extending out to fifty and sixty years now.

It occurs to me that the operators of these plants would not want their large cash streams threatened in any way. I can only speculate on one scenario that would: a large resurgence of new nuclear construction, that's attended by a reanimation of the anti-nuclear movement and the inevitable NIMBYs; their cries would likely end up forcing new inspections of existing plants, new attention drawn to plants well past their design life, with attendant temporary shutdowns and the like. A fleet of new plants is also likely to have the inevitable small accident or two as they work out the kinks, all of which would be much more visible than previously. So, it is not hard to imagine the current fleet operators and attached nuclear industry have plenty of motivation to slowdown new plant approvals at the NRC, especially with people shuffling back and forth from the NRC to industry.

* http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/costs/

 

[gmax137]

I think the problem is the cost: if your 2 GWe station costs $12,000,000,000 that's a large fraction of the total market capitalization of even the biggest utility companies. And at that cost, the $1.5 billion per year profit you calculated would take 8 years to pay it off (without even considering interest cost). True, after that you can print money for the following 50 years; but meanwhile natural gas is at $4, so you can make tons of money without betting the company.

Then, consider the effect of deregulation: the first nukes were ordered by utility companies whose business model was based on a longer term view ('once paid off, the unit is a cash cow'). Now the model is selling power this quarter. I think the execs back in the 60's still had the excitement of the 'electrification' that took place in the 30's and 40's: they saw the power companies as an agent of change (for the better). Now, these same companies are run by MBAs who have never worn a hard hat.

 

[mheslep]

I think the problem is the cost: if your 2 GWe station costs $12,000,000,000 that's a large fraction of the total market capitalization of even the biggest utility companies. And at that cost, the $1.5 billion per year profit you calculated would take 8 years to pay it off (without even considering interest cost).

Well much longer than that. That $12-14B is drawing interest during the 6-10 yrs it takes to bring the plant online (in the US). But I was suggesting above that the cost might be a symptom, not a fundamental cause, as the Chinese would apparently build the same 2GWe plant, same US AP1000 design, for $3B. Why? Cheaper labor costs, yes, but that doesn't explain the balance.

 

[gmax137]

... the Chinese would apparently build the same 2GWe plant, same US AP1000 design, for $3B.

Really $3B? Is that documented somewhere? Sorry if you already posted it above; this is a really long thread...

 

[mheslep]

Really $3B? Is that documented somewhere? Sorry if you already posted it above; this is a really long thread...

Tianwan Nuclear Station in Lianyungang city. I should note I only have these Chinese media claims:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-05/13/content_4542917.htm

2.12GW (ignore the MW typo) for $3.3B

 

[Astronuc]

Milestones for AP1000s
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Milestones_for_AP1000s_2212101.html
22 December 2010

Construction of AP1000 units in China has seen three milestones this month: on-site, at a new module factory and in fuel fabrication.

 

[AndyDaws]

good afternoon all - interesting reading, but rather US centric, perhaps?

Things are looking rather different here in the UK. We're a comprehensively deregulated market, and yet seem to be attracting private interest into investment in new-build nuclear.

To do it, it's taken a level of government intervention into the working of the market (in essence, what will be a carbon tax on fossil-fuel generation).

Preliminary siteworks have started on what will be the first of four Areva 1600MW EPRs (two each on two sites - Hinkley Point and Sizewell), under development by EdF. It's also looking probable that we'll see a similar capacity developed by a consortium of RWE and Eon, most likely using the AP1000. A third consortium, involving Iberdrola of Spain and GdF-Suez (plus a UK firm, SSE) has acquired a site at Sellafield that looks to have capacity for perhaps 3200MW.

In a sense, we seem to be turning into the test-bed for the European revival. We've got almost all of the major European generation operators engaged in one or other of our new-build consortia (there are rumours of Vattenfall joining either with EdF or the Iberdrola consortium). That implies investment in relearning nuclear construction and operation skills.

One major driver is that we've got european level commitments to reductions in CO2 ouput, but don't have quite such life extension opportunities as operators of LWR technologies. With one excpetion, our remaining reactor fleet are variants of the 1970s AGR design. There are inherent limits on life extension due to such issues as distortion in the graphite core, or corrosion in the pre-stressing cables of the prestressed concrete pressure vessels.

 

[mheslep]

good afternoon all - interesting reading, but rather US centric, perhaps?

Well the US does generate nearly a third of the world's nuclear energy (~800 TWh out of ~2500 TWh)

Things are looking rather different here in the UK. We're a comprehensively deregulated market, and yet seem to be attracting private interest into investment in new-build nuclear.

To do it, it's taken a level of government intervention into the working of the market (in essence, what will be a carbon tax on fossil-fuel generation).

Preliminary siteworks have started on what will be the first of four Areva 1600MW EPRs (two each on two sites - Hinkley Point and Sizewell), under development by EdF. It's also looking probable that we'll see a similar capacity developed by a consortium of RWE and Eon, most likely using the AP1000. A third consortium, involving Iberdrola of Spain and GdF-Suez (plus a UK firm, SSE) has acquired a site at Sellafield that looks to have capacity for perhaps 3200MW.

In a sense, we seem to be turning into the test-bed for the European revival. We've got almost all of the major European generation operators engaged in one or other of our new-build consortia (there are rumours of Vattenfall joining either with EdF or the Iberdrola consortium). That implies investment in relearning nuclear construction and operation skills.

One major driver is that we've got european level commitments to reductions in CO2 ouput, but don't have quite such life extension opportunities as operators of LWR technologies. With one excpetion, our remaining reactor fleet are variants of the 1970s AGR design. There are inherent limits on life extension due to such issues as distortion in the graphite core, or corrosion in the pre-stressing cables of the prestressed concrete pressure vessels.

Good news. Any interest in small modular nuclear in the UK?

 

[GerardCKN]

Hello to all- i had just gotten into nuclear energy and just started reading this post.

I had been reading this article that I had found regarding nuclear energy from the articles i just read , in it states that the only natural nuclide suitable for direct usage in a fission reactors is 235U but it is just going to last for another 90++ years . But i also reading another article pubished in the year 2010 that in USA president Obama is planning to build another nuclear plants . Since 235 U is just going to last from another 90++ years would it be exhausting the supply of 235U left? Hope u guys can help me on this :)

 

[Hologram0110]

@GerardCKN

There is lots of U235 left, just like there is lots of oil left. The question is how much is left at economical prices? When discussing reserves one must always consider at what price.
Yes building more plans means that the world will consume uranium faster.

There are also some other sources of nuclear fuel we can build plants to use. These include reprocessing decommissioned nuclear weapons, reprocessing spent fuel, thorium fueled reactors, fast-neutron reactors. There are also some more radical suggestions like sea water extraction that might become realistic options depending on the cost of energy. All this together means that we are not in danger of running out of nuclear fuel any time soon.

 

[joelupchurch]

The first thing to understand is that U-235 is only a small percentage of our potential nuclear fuel. Using breeder reactors would allow us to use all our Uranium and Thorium for fuel. Some estimates show that we have enough U-238 already refined and stockpiled to provide our fuel needs for hundreds of years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor"

The reason that we haven't switched to breeder reactors is that U-235 is still fairly plentiful and cheap and there isn't much of a push to use other more expensive technologies. The situation is analogous to our use of petroleum for fuel when we have much less then than a 90 year supply of petroleum, but it is currently fairly cost effective.

 

[chengqi]

I am a sophomore at a chinese university, majoring in nuclear engineering.you may have konw that china is buliding nuclear power plant at a surprising speed.Though that may be a good news for me,i don't think heighly of this idea.Take china for exemple.First,despite the advanced technology of AP1000（of course imported from US)we can't guarantee that every employee concentrate on his work at working time.If any mistake is made, it would become a catastrophe like Chernobly.And developing at such speed,there will be a lot of managing problems or loopholes.How to deal with the spent fuel is another problem.Fuel closed cycle may help a lot but we can't remove all the pollution.I think these radiative substances are deadly to the people around.
my english is poor,i hope you can understand.thank you.

 

[JaredJames]

If any mistake is made, it would become a catastrophe like Chernobly.

You may want to read up on how these plants work.

Chernobyl was only able to occur for a number of reasons - mechanical as well as staff. The same problem couldn't occur in modern plants. Of course this assumes they are using the design and not modifying it in any way.

And developing at such speed,there will be a lot of managing problems or loopholes.How to deal with the spent fuel is another problem.Fuel closed cycle may help a lot but we can't remove all the pollution.I think these radiative substances are deadly to the people around.

Handled correctly the waste is harmless.

It can be taken to an area where it poses no threat and buried as deeply as possible.

 

[Jon Richfield]

Speaking as a life-long nuke rooter, I am really annoyed with the Japanese with their nuke plants (and a lot of other people's plants as well, but I don't know which. All? Possibly...)

The first difficulty is that whatever you do to make a plant safe, someone will raise another logically irrefutable possibility (What if there is a still bigger quake? What if a still bigger asteroid strikes? What if a still bigger Arshl gets to be president? That sort of thing has been called the "hysterical subjunctive" and if you know of a better term for it, do please tell!)

Now, the problem is that unless the subject matter of the HS happens to be raised by someone who has no idea what he is talking about (justabout possible, I suppose...) it is logically possible in some form. But every time we have yet another incident (small, big or ginormous) we have yet another mountain to climb. We can do just so much to avoid such mountains, and just so much to avert asteroids and tsunamis, even if we spend the national GDP on protecting each individual fuel pellet. But the one thing I reckon we should have the ability to do, and insist on doing if we insist on building nuke plants, is make the passive fail-soft features work without active intervention (or it is hardly passive or fail-soft, is it?)

And is that what they did this time? Sure doesn't look like it to me! I am no nuke engineer, but it seems to me that if you have to assume that there always will be enough water from outside sources, and enough power and infrastructure to pump it, to prevent meltdown, then something, somewhere fails to be fail-soft, let alone fail-safe. And here I am not picking on the Japanese; I reckon that every plant everywhere should be SCRAMmable, and should SCRAM itself if the controls disagree with the boss.

If you think THAT is prohibitively expensive, wait till you see what come of the whole deal in Japan! Suppose that the passive water supply (or other coolant; I am not picky) had handled the melt-down problem; this would have been a poster-child for nukes (as TMI should have been, really) but instead we have a lot of govt stuffed shirts telling us that there is nuclear fallout all over, but it is all OK, trust us!

(What? Not exactly what they said? Wanna bet? Go down the street and ask the first ten laymen you find -- Any bets about the answers you get?)

What would sufficient water beneath or around or above the reactors have cost? Another million each? Ten million? A billion?

What will the difference in direct costs per reactor be in these examples?

What will the indirect costs be?

Just asking.

Maybe I'd better stop asking before my annoyance need some SCRAMming of its own...

 

[ramachandra_g]

I am a newbie. So bear with me if what I suggest is already discussed and ditched.

I was thinking about mirror and laser to achive the fusion.

Suppose say we have a globe which is a mirror inside.
You sent a laser pulse through a tiny hole.
Let this laser reflect inside of this mirror globe till it gets out of some other hole.
And say the geometry of this globe is such that the laser would repeatedly go over a tiny point in space inside this globe.
Assume million reflections inside the globe and the central place where the laser goes through would be concentrating theoratically million lasers.

This local hot point would be able to fuse the gases inside the globe.

Two things to ponder.
What would be the geometry of the globe that would focuse the laser reflection on a tiny point inside the globe? Would that be elliptical globe?

 

[JaredJames]

I am a newbie. So bear with me if what I suggest is already discussed and ditched.

I was thinking about mirror and laser to achive the fusion.

Suppose say we have a globe which is a mirror inside.
You sent a laser pulse through a tiny hole.
Let this laser reflect inside of this mirror globe till it gets out of some other hole.
And say the geometry of this globe is such that the laser would repeatedly go over a tiny point in space inside this globe.
Assume million reflections inside the globe and the central place where the laser goes through would be concentrating theoratically million lasers.

This local hot point would be able to fuse the gases inside the globe.

Two things to ponder.
What would be the geometry of the globe that would focuse the laser reflection on a tiny point inside the globe? Would that be elliptical globe?

They already use this technique, except they split the laser pre-entry to the "globe" and focus it on a material in the centre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_confinement_fusion

 

[ramachandra_g]

Inertial confinement fusion described there does not use the mirrors for reflecting the lasers. They use a small number of mirrors to illuminate evenly over the whole surface of the pellet. And they don't have million reflections either.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

You may want to read up on how these plants work.

Chernobyl was only able to occur for a number of reasons - mechanical as well as staff. The same problem couldn't occur in modern plants. Of course this assumes they are using the design and not modifying it in any way.


Handled correctly the waste is harmless.

It can be taken to an area where it poses no threat and buried as deeply as possible.

At any most best design of the nuclear plants, advanced technology of handling of wastes and world-best industrial culture there is nevertheless a nonzero probability of similar incidents.
It is banal.
But despite it at this moment and in the future there is not any real alternative to nuclear power.
And no any renewable sources will become significant in world energy balance in the future. It is an objective reality. And any speculations, any "green initiatives" can only be considered as politicians' methods to coquet before voters.

 

[JaredJames]

Inertial confinement fusion described there does not use the mirrors for reflecting the lasers. They use a small number of mirrors to illuminate evenly over the whole surface of the pellet. And they don't have million reflections either.

The technique is the same as you described.

At any most best design of the nuclear plants, advanced technology of handling of wastes and world-best industrial culture there is nevertheless a nonzero probability of similar incidents.

Certainly, but we can do a lot to ensure the safety and security of the waste. I happen to like the burying of it in subduction zones.

But despite it at this moment and in the future there is not any real alternative to nuclear power.

Very true.

And no any renewable sources will become significant in world energy balance in the future. It is an objective reality. And any gambles, any "green initiatives" only a politicians' methods trying to become pleasant for voters.

I do agree with this.

My main problem is that they aren't efficient enough. Don't get me wrong, they're brilliant ideas but they just can't take over demand from current production.

Personally, I'd prefer money to go to fusion development.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

Personally, I'd prefer money to go to fusion development.

Unfortunately it is not easy to develop the fusion power.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

"When it all said an done splitting atoms to boil water is overkill on a scale like slicing tomatos with a chainsaw."
In nature you can see the much bigger scale "overkill" if recall that stars use particles fusion energy for illumination mainly of emptiness.
Actually the building of nuclear plants is caused with commercial expediency. And the low price on 1 kWt*h of produced power by those plants testifies this. Naturally, more rigid environment requirements will raise operational costs and can "kill" existing nuclear plants indeed.

If the effort to resurect the nuclear industry was put into photovoltaic technology we'd take a big step toward ending our dependence on coal and oil.

I doubt. How big area of land should occupy those photovoltaic settings if producing the same power? How much food will not be produced? How much people will become hungry after this?
What do you know about biofuel production? The idea was very nice - to decrease the dependency on crude. In result today we have significant rise of prices on food as well. I do not beleave that wind, solar, etc. power able to change heat, HPP and nuclear in the future.

Nuclear power is dying out in the U.S. Let it go.

I think that existing now nuclear plants in USA work and also will work till the end of their resurs. And this is only technical matter.

Building of new plants in USA? I do not know.
But USA today is the world most biggest consumer of crude oil. Also I know that internal transporting in USA mainly goes by tracks. So, a lot of crude is required.
When the price on barrel rises and will reach some limit what you will do? I think you will develop railway network infrastructure for decreasing the dependency on oil. So, much more electric power demand.
Will you use solar or other "green" power for this? I doubt.

 

[Astronuc]

Nuclear plants around the world. This has a lot of useful information.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/CNPP2010_CD/pages/AnnexII/tables/table2.htm

Also - country profiles
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/CNPP2010_CD/pages/countryprofiles.htm

 

[Joseph Chikva]

Nuclear plants around the world. This has a lot of useful information.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/CNPP2010_CD/pages/AnnexII/tables/table2.htm

Also - country profiles
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/CNPP2010_CD/pages/countryprofiles.htm

Worldwide Power Demand to Reach 30,300 TWh by 2035
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2010/press_release.pdf
Only 14% of renewables
"The share of modern renewable energy sources, including sustainable hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, modern biomass and marine energy, in global primary energy use triples between 2008 and 2035 and their combined share in total primary energy demand increases from 7% to 14%"
And the second quote
"Renewables and nuclear double their current combined share to 38% in 2035"

 

[Dmytry]

At any most best design of the nuclear plants, advanced technology of handling of wastes and world-best industrial culture there is nevertheless a nonzero probability of similar incidents.
It is banal.
But despite it at this moment and in the future there is not any real alternative to nuclear power.
And no any renewable sources will become significant in world energy balance in the future. It is an objective reality. And any speculations, any "green initiatives" can only be considered as politicians' methods to coquet before voters.

the worst thing about Fukushima is that (no idea why) Japanese were seen by many as the world best or second best industrial culture when it comes to safety. That's despite stuff like that:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070323a3.html
http://www.aip.org/pt/dec99/toka2.htm
Everyone looks at Fukushima, and nobody believes it is one in 10 000 years quake, or even one in 1000. Now when someone says - the reactor is very safe, the accident probability is one in 50 000 years event - nobody's going to be impressed, after the pro nuclear crowd been advocating TEPCO with arguments like 'it was one in 1000 years quake' and "you can't predict such disasters", echoing precisely some of the Greenpeace anti-nuclear arguments from before Fukushima.
The pro-nuclear crowd been really stupid. It is as if when Chernobyl happened they said "you can't prevent such accidents". Putting a nail into the coffin.

My perspective: Fukushima accident happened in a country with very bad nuclear safety record of the past 15 years, at a plant operated by a company that was previously found guilty of major coverups, at a plant built using a really old, really stupid reactor design where even the control rods are inserted upwards and are prone to falling out during maintenance, worse than this, on the version of this reactor that was never even upgraded since TMI. The plant that was built with no considerations for the tsunamis (unlike Onagawa plant which survived stronger tsunami and provided shelter to the people who lost their homes! A real example of nuclear industry being good!). In a country which haven't even got anything similar to Kerntechnische Hilfsdienst, or any nuclear military. Where the plants are operated by regional utility companies, not by something like Areva (which designs, builds, and operates reactors and reprocessing plants, and got an accident response team)
Fukushima level disaster can not happen anywhere else. Not even in Russia that still operates RBMKs. Well, maybe in Russia, but if it happened in Russia nobody else would be scraping reactor plans.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

the worst thing about Fukushima is that (no idea why) Japanese were seen by many as the world best or second best industrial culture when it comes to safety. That's despite stuff like that:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070323a3.html
http://www.aip.org/pt/dec99/toka2.htm
Everyone looks at Fukushima, and nobody believes it is one in 10 000 years quake, or even one in 1000. Now when someone says - the reactor is very safe, the accident probability is one in 50 000 years event - nobody's going to be impressed, after the pro nuclear crowd been advocating TEPCO with arguments like 'it was one in 1000 years quake' and "you can't predict such disasters", echoing precisely some of the Greenpeace anti-nuclear arguments from before Fukushima.
The pro-nuclear crowd been really stupid. It is as if when Chernobyl happened they said "you can't prevent such accidents". Putting a nail into the coffin.

My perspective: Fukushima accident happened in a country with very bad nuclear safety record of the past 15 years, at a plant operated by a company that was previously found guilty of major coverups, at a plant built using a really old, really stupid reactor design where even the control rods are inserted upwards and are prone to falling out during maintenance, worse than this, on the version of this reactor that was never even upgraded since TMI. The plant that was built with no considerations for the tsunamis (unlike Onagawa plant which survived stronger tsunami and provided shelter to the people who lost their homes! A real example of nuclear industry being good!). In a country which haven't even got anything similar to Kerntechnische Hilfsdienst, or any nuclear military. Where the plants are operated by regional utility companies, not by something like Areva (which designs, builds, and operates reactors and reprocessing plants, and got an accident response team)
Fukushima level disaster can not happen anywhere else. Not even in Russia that still operates RBMKs. Well, maybe in Russia, but if it happened in Russia nobody else would be scraping reactor plans.

You are talking about mistakes in Fikushima design and also mistakes during of its exploiting. I do not know, may be.
But I only said that even in case of the best design and best industrial safety there is nonzero probability of accidents.
But we need energy and nuke plants have not any alternative. Especially in Japan.

 

[Dmytry]

You are talking about mistakes in Fikushima design and also mistakes during of its exploiting. I do not know, may be.
But I only said that even in case of the best design and best industrial safety there is nonzero probability of accidents.
But we need energy and nuke plants have not any alternative. Especially in Japan.

come on, they make what, 25..30% of energy with nuclear? They can switch it off. At least the worst of the reactors.
France can't switch off nuclear.

 

[Joseph Chikva]

come on, they make what, 25..30% of energy with nuclear? They can switch it off. At least the worst of the reactors.
France can't switch off nuclear.

25-30%? Ok. Is this not significant? Recall that we talk about the second-third world economics and their 25% may be much more than 100% of others.
Percentage of those "worst" reactors?

 

[JaredJames]

come on, they make what, 25..30% of energy with nuclear? They can switch it off. At least the worst of the reactors.

That is not an insignificant amount. That's nearly a third of their energy needs.

 

[Dmytry]

I'm not saying they can switch it off without cutting consumption. I'm saying, when the non-nuclear powerplants and powerlines are repaired back to capacity, they can switch off nuclear power, and cut down some on the usage. There has to be overcapacity for AC in the summer, and other stuff.

For example of country that cannot switch nuclear off, you have to use France. More nuclear power total than Japan, and 75..80% of power total. 30% power cuts, that's higher prices & decreased consumption (and its not 30% as most of the time there's overcapacity). 80% power cut, that's sitting in the dark.

edit: And no. I'm not advocating switching off nuclear power. I just disagree with this optimistic thinking by the nuclear industry that it can't be switched off there, when it can.
They should, in my opinion, switch off worst 10% of reactors or so. Old non upgraded crap.
They probably have substantial % of reactors in north Japan in shutdown right now anyway due to quakes and aftershocks.

It totally blows my mind that control rods can fall out during maintenance and cause a criticality, and that every reactor of that type is not shut down until there's upgrade that absolutely, positively makes this impossible. With this approach - I am strongly against nuclear power. I'm pro nuclear in principle, when if something unplanned happens, it is fixed immediately. If control rods can fall out during maintenance and cause criticality, and that is not fixed, for me that is a total assurance that if it is discovered stronger quakes than originally anticipated are possible, or taller tsunamis, nothing is going to be fixed either.

 

[JaredJames]

I'm not saying they can switch it off without cutting consumption. I'm saying, when the non-nuclear powerplants and powerlines are repaired back to capacity, they can switch off nuclear power, and cut down some on the usage. There has to be overcapacity for AC in the summer, and other stuff.

There's a bit too much assumption here.

I have no idea about the Japanese grid, but if it's run like Britain / America you can't just "switch off" a bunch of plants at any time and expect the grid to maintain a usable supply.

 

[Dmytry]

There's a bit too much assumption here.

I have no idea about the Japanese grid, but if it's run like Britain / America you can't just "switch off" a bunch of plants at any time and expect the grid to maintain a usable supply.

you raise prices high enough for consumption to go down, then you may need to add power lines, then you shut off bunch of plants. A bunch of plants, incidentally, ARE shut down due to quakes, so don't tell its impossible. There's nothing impossible about it. Inconvenient, yes, but if wind starts blowing inland from Fukushima, that's going to seriously piss people off.

You guys are probably working in nuclear industry. or are supportive of, and you're being real optimistic about your industry's future. I'm being realistic.

 

[JaredJames]

you raise prices high enough for consumption to go down, then you may need to add power lines, then you shut off bunch of plants.

You lower consumption and add power lines? That makes no sense at all.

A bunch of plants, incidentally, ARE shut down due to quakes, so don't tell its impossible.

Ah, so they're down and a full supply is being maintained? Nope.

You can't shut down 25% of power production and expect to a) maintain a full supply as usual and b) have the redundancy you currently have.

You guys are probably working in nuclear industry. or are supportive of, and you're being real optimistic about your industry's future. I'm being realistic.

I'm seeing no realism. I see fear from the news and public, but that isn't going to bring nuclear down. Whether people like it or not, we need nuclear and it's incredibly safe compared to other forms.

See here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2882522&postcount=8

 

[Dmytry]

You lower consumption and add power lines? That makes no sense at all.

Yes, you need extra power lines to the places that were powered by plants that were previously shut down. To the local places where the mix is much more than 30% nuclear.

Ah, so they're down and a full supply is being maintained? Nope.

Supply and demand man, supply and demand. You have a cut in supply, you have same demand, you raise the price, that leads to decrease in consumption, to match the supply. Raise the price 2x and a lot of stupid uses of electricity (like heating) will rather quickly disappear, while the more energy efficient things will get huge edge over less energy efficient things.

I'm seeing no realism. I see fear from the news and public, but that isn't going to bring nuclear down. Whether people like it or not, we need nuclear and it's incredibly safe compared to other forms.

See here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2882522&postcount=8

Germany's phasing out nuclear. Not overnight, but over the time. A shame really, they're probably the best on safety.