The economics of a Nuclear Reactor

[sc_rufctr]

This is an older video but it does a good job of explaining the economics of a Nuclear Reactor compared to natural Gas power station.
Also... Nuclear is very clean compared to coal, gas or oil.
What I'd like to see is a similar video comparing Nuclear to wind, solar and battery storage.

There are a lot more risks with Nuclear but can we mitigate those risks with the new generation reactors?

[afterburn 549]

This guy mentions P&L but I dont think he knows about projection.
Where is the accountability for clean up when they melt dwn?
When there is an accident!

Who insures a N.Plant? - I will bet no one!
Not even Loyds for any price.
Who gets saddled for the cost?
There have been a few melt dwns and a few that have had to be just shut dwn .
A whole lot of accidents!
This guy is quite the salesmen.
This guy did not mention any of this.


https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank

[IROC]

Nuclear is really the way to go. Extremely safe (it's safety record proves that).

Most (all?) of the challenges facing the nuclear industry are political - not technical.

I think we need to focus on advanced reactors (thorium, molten salt, etc.) and also get the politicians to grow up and make some decisions about waste disposal.

Part of my job involves shipping highly-activated radioactive material for disposal so I know all the players in that industry and have a little bit of insight into the rules and regulations. This is not a problem.

Like with many things, the people that wring their hands over this subject are the ones who know the least about it.

[afterburn 549]

I know nothing except this-
They dont know what to do with the waste and that is a BFD!
The accidents bleed rapidly all over at least a 50-mile radius.
It seems to me like too big a toy for the small-brained humans at this point.
The damages from washout burden the whole planet not just a small piece of real estate.

[Sooner or later]

NuScale?

NuScale’s technology is the world’s first and only SMR to undergo design certification review by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC recently completed phases 2 and 3 of its review and is scheduled to complete the entire review of NuScale’s design in September 2020. NuScale’s first customer, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, is planning a 12-module SMR plant in Idaho slated for operation by the mid-2020s based on this certified design.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by IROC

Nuclear is really the way to go. Extremely safe (it's safety record proves that).

Most (all?) of the challenges facing the nuclear industry are political - not technical.

I think we need to focus on advanced reactors (thorium, molten salt, etc.) and also get the politicians to grow up and make some decisions about waste disposal.

Part of my job involves shipping highly-activated radioactive material for disposal so I know all the players in that industry and have a little bit of insight into the rules and regulations. This is not a problem.

Like with many things, the people that wring their hands over this subject are the ones who know the least about it.

This is correct. So much misinformation. People concerned about long life radionuclides. The longer the half life, the LESS radioactive and hazardous it is. We are made of Carbon-12&Carbon-14; C-14 is radioactive.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by afterburn 549

I know nothing except this-
They dont know what to do with the waste and that is a BFD!
The accidents bleed rapidly all over at least a 50-mile radius.
It seems to me like too big a toy for the small-brained humans at this point.
The damages from washout burden the whole planet not just a small piece of real estate.

We do know, but the Political types can't agree on anything. The main thing we need to do is reprocess the waste to get the U235 and Pu239 out so we can re-use it.

Also remember, gasoline was dumped in rivers and flared. There was no use for the highly volatile liquid. This went on for nearly 50 years, until the later 1800's.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by afterburn 549

I know nothing except this-
They dont know what to do with the waste and that is a BFD!

Yes we do know and it's not a big deal.

The accidents bleed rapidly all over at least a 50-mile radius.

Are you basing your statements on Chernobyl? Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

It seems to me like too big a toy for the small-brained humans at this point.
The damages from washout burden the whole planet not just a small piece of real estate.

You appear to not know much about this subject. I'll leave it at that.

[sc_rufctr]

Originally Posted by afterburn 549

I know nothing except this-
They dont know what to do with the waste and that is a BFD!
The accidents bleed rapidly all over at least a 50-mile radius.
It seems to me like too big a toy for the small-brained humans at this point.
The damages from washout burden the whole planet not just a small piece of real estate.

FWIW The newer deigns are much safer than Chernobyl or Fukushima.

[kach22i]

I did NOT watch the +20 minute long video, however France is currently experiencing plant close down costs that must be taken into consideration.

France has had the cheapest electricity in Europe because they went nuclear power decades ago, but now those aging plants need to be shut down and the cost is in the billions and billions.

See post #4
https://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-politics-religion/1013217-100-renewables-10-years.html#post10253004

[javadog]

Nuclear or natural gas. Pick one, or pick both. Don’t care.

Don’t listen to a politician, don’t listen to an environmentalist, anybody that votes against them should get their electricity turned off.

[techman1]

When we talk about the safety of nuclear plants, and the percentage of accidents / mishaps, do we also include nuclear naval vessels? With those included, the percentage of problems decrease / increase? I believe decrease.

Not as into that field as some here, but I believe some type of reactor based power generation will be needed with our increased need for electricity, due to automakers pushing for increased ev's.

[red-beard]

You want to juice the economy? How about a $10T spend over 10 years building 500 MW gen IV reactors. You will replace almost all fossil power gen with clean nuclear, with a final price of around $0.04 per kWh.

A standard nuclear design used everywhere, like France.

We can convert methane to methanol for use as a motor fuel, far cheaper than Ethanol. Gasoline and higher hydrocarbons will be phased out of use as a fuel, and used as chemical feed stock for plastics, pharmaceutical, etc.. Coal use will plummet to just industrial uses (steel). CO2 emissions cut in half to start.

Wind and solar cannot provide the worldwide power we need. Fusion still doesn't work. Once we get fusion sorted out, we need to focus on the final energy technology: matter anialation.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by red-beard

You want to juice the economy? How about a $10T spend over 10 years building 500 MW gen IV reactors. ............

I agree, but banks will not loan money for nuke plants, so it will have to be government supplemented.

If the government were to invest just as much into alternative energy, not only would private banking be involved it would generate even more jobs - and no taxpayer funded clean up at the end like in France.

[zakthor]

Pro nuke people: Rather than cast doubt on the skeptical posters, can you address the issue being brought up about risk? Sure the probability of a failure is low, but consequences are so high as to be unacceptible? What sort of bond could be posted against possible future damage?

I live in washington and hanford is a giant expensive mess. I'll start believing once it is cleaned up.

I'm sure all the human engineers at fukashima and cherynobyl were confident in their plants safety, doesnt count for much in the real world.

This is the classic long tail where the improbable dominates.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by zakthor

Pro nuke people: Rather than cast doubt on the skeptical posters, can you address the issue being brought up about risk? Sure the probability of a failure is low, but consequences are so high as to be unacceptible? What sort of bond could be posted against possible future damage?

To me (having worked at a nuclear plant and now working at a place that is heavily involved in the nuclear world), there is a huge misconception about the "consequences" of nuclear accidents. Three Mile Island was a pretty bad accident. How many people died as a result? How many people got sick? How much land around the plant is now uninhabitable? Fukushima was a really bad accident. Same questions. In the case of Fukushima, some workers got some significant dose (but far below levels considered lethal). The place is a mess, for sure, but the world did not come to and end. The earthquake killed 10k people. The nuclear accident didn't even make anyone sick (this seems to be up for debate, but I am skeptical), let alone kill them.

I live in washington and hanford is a giant expensive mess. I'll start believing once it is cleaned up.

Hanford is a whole different thing than commercial nuclear. I know. I work at ORNL. Weapons production is completely different than a nuclear plant. Hanford is a mess, I agree. That doesn't really have anything to do with commercial nuclear power, though.

I'm sure all the human engineers at fukashima and cherynobyl were confident in their plants safety, doesnt count for much in the real world.

The plant I worked at was the same design as Fukushima. I know a lot about it. It is a safe design. BWR-4s are all over the place. Fukushima was a perfect storm of things going wrong. And a cautionary tale, for sure. Chernobyl was literally an accident waiting to happen. No one in the west would even consider a reactor design like that.

Moving forward, though, you can't make decisions on the future of power production in the world using Chernobyl or Fukushima as reasons not to consider nuclear power. How many people die every year as a result of coal plants? A lot. We had a coal ash spill here a few years ago. Over 40 people have died just trying to clean that up! 40! How many people have died cleaning up Fukushima? Zero.

[javadog]

Fukushima wasn’t a bad plant, it was just in a bad location. They cut down the hill that it was built on, to lower construction costs and future operating costs. The electric company wanted to plan for tsunami’s of a higher level than what was finally incorporated into the design.

I suspect this will be a learning experience. Keep in mind construction on this plant started in the 1960s.

[Eric Hahl]

Some good info on the Netflix show "Inside Bill's Brain". It takes a look at what make Bill Gates tick and what he is doing now. Nuclear power is one of the subjects. It is a very interesting series.

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by kach22i

I agree, but banks will not loan money for nuke plants, so it will have to be government supplemented.

If the government were to invest just as much into alternative energy, not only would private banking be involved it would generate even more jobs - and no taxpayer funded clean up at the end like in France.

Wind and solar takes a lot of land. Land we could be using to grow food here in the midwest. Or, for the green people we could grow crops for adding alcohol to our fuel.

Chernobyl was a poor design with an even poorer thought out experiment run at the time of the "accident".

The only reason banks won't lend money is political. If they can get away with it, banks will lend money for the stupidest reasons. To quote one from the real estate bubble a decade ago when asked why they give real estate loans for subprime applicants: "If we don't lend the money, the bank down the street will".

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by flipper35

Wind and solar takes a lot of land. Land we could be using to grow food here in the midwest. Or, for the green people we could grow crops for adding alcohol to our fuel...........

There are so many technologies ready to burst out and change this math that it will make your head spin. All they need is more time, or feed it some money and watch it take off like a wild fire. The government is in the position to tiller such advancements, if only there was the will.

Example......................

Transparent solar technology represents 'wave of the future'
https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/transparent-solar-technology-represents-wave-of-the-future/

See-through solar materials that can be applied to windows represent a massive source of untapped energy and could harvest as much power as bigger, bulkier rooftop solar units, scientists report today in Nature Energy.

Led by engineering researchers at Michigan State University, the authors argue that widespread use of such highly transparent solar applications, together with the rooftop units, could nearly meet U.S. electricity demand and drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels.

“Highly transparent solar cells represent the wave of the future for new solar applications,” said Richard Lunt, the Johansen Crosby Endowed Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science at MSU. “We analyzed their potential and show that by harvesting only invisible light, these devices can provide a similar electricity-generation potential as rooftop solar while providing additional functionality to enhance the efficiency of buildings, automobiles and mobile electronics.”

Lunt and colleagues at MSU pioneered the development of a transparent luminescent solar concentrator that when placed on a window creates solar energy without disrupting the view. The thin, plastic-like material can be used on buildings, car windows, cell phones or other devices with a clear surface....................

“That is what we are working towards,” he said. “Traditional solar applications have been actively researched for over five decades, yet we have only been working on these highly transparent solar cells for about five years. Ultimately, this technology offers a promising route to inexpensive, widespread solar adoption on small and large surfaces that were previously inaccessible.”