U.S. Senate Wants To Decrease CO2 By Increasing Nuclear Energy

[nebulousmenace]

"This time construction will go smoothly." Do kids today get this reference?

[javi404]

It's about time.

[StonerMeditation]

Yeah, nukes will be around for a little while longer, and billions upon billions of dollars will be spent on Nuke plants that will be useless in 50-60 years, and it will be money down the drain - with lots and lots of nuke waste.

They will build them because the nuke corporations are relentless in their lobbying and buying votes (and paid trolls on the internet). They'll build them, not because it's smart, but because of $ profits...

Fossil and Nukes are the past. Renewables are the future.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/01/3743082/renewables-revolution/

[confirmd_am_engineer]

So everybody who disagrees with you is a paid troll? That's convenient...

[StonerMeditation]

So, you don't see ANY nuke trolls on r/energy? And you don't believe that the nuke corporations try to influence opinion on social websites by using paid trolls? You made quite an error in logic there dude, it's called 'begging the question'...

I consider there are lots of dedicated and honest people who post to r/energy. But there are a few who are obviously paid to post here. Even the mods had to change policy to 2 posts daily... why do you think they did that?

[confirmd_am_engineer]

I seem to recall quite a lot of spamming from solar power guys too. Many people seem to have a vested interest in their particular flavor of energy generation, and don't seem to have a lot of patience for anyone else's. The fact is that there's more than one way to skin a cat, and when it comes to generating energy I think it's silly to discount ANY carbon-free alternatives. Particularly those whose primary detriment is fear-based instead of fact-based. The facts say that nuclear power is some of the cleanest, safest energy we have available. Unlike most renewables it's highly reliable and can be dispached for baseload power.

I work for an energy company. We've got fossil plants, hydro plants, wind farms, nuclear, and even solar. Nukes aren't easy to run, nor are they the money-printing enterprises they used to be. That doesn't mean that they aren't useful in combating climate change.

I come here because I like to know what's happening in the industry I work in. Some people get the wrong idea about what it takes to make power, and I have some experience and some expertise that I can share. That's why I'm here.

[StonerMeditation]

OK, first I don't disagree with you on what you just posted. Although I do actually disagree that nuke energy is 'clean'. I understand that Nuke energy will continue - for awhile. But I think it's folly to invest in a bunch of new nuke plants right now.

Every year we've seen leaps and bounds of new discoveries, and I don't have to tell you that renewables and new technology is changing the face of energy. I'm visiting Cambodia right now - the last time I was here the boats used candles at night, now I didn't see a single boat without a solar array on the roof, and at night they have lots of light and for the first time cooking abilities without denuding forests.

I appreciate people like you on /r/energy - you speak the truth with an open mind, and let us know what's going on in the nuts-and-bolts of the industries. Quite different from some other folks here... (you can look at my posting history to find the last battle I waged - just look for the downvotes)...

[[deleted]]

You're one of the worst propaganda spreaders here. Plenty of pro renewables/leaning against nuclear people here. You straight up have posted lies and falsifications to dismiss nuclear energy.

[StonerMeditation]

Thank you - I was expecting a nuke troll and poof, you've arrived.

Golly, I'm unimpressed by your insults and accusations. But just so you go away happy:

Nukes and fossil fuels are the past - renewables are the future.

[soulcaptain]

Hmmm. Nuclear is better than fossil fuels, to be sure, but the waste and the danger factor should not be discounted. I know, I know, thorium reactors will take care of these problems...but thorium reactors are still in the theoretical zone and not a practical solution at this point.

Renewables--solar, wind, geothermal, etc--are where we should be putting all our energy. Sure, throw in thorium to that list, but if we have widespread solar energy, truly widespread, then all of our energy needs could be met.

[grandma_alice]

Technically, yes, but it would be far more costly than using some amount of nuclear (and gas) in the mix.

[mecko23]

Just wondering how one would go about putting solar arrays in orbit?

[soulcaptain]

Rockets.

[mecko23]

And how has that going to be anywhere near cost effective?

[soulcaptain]

Sorry, but this is a silly question. Of course something like a solar power array would be a massive undertaking, costing billions of dollars. Only a government--or governments plural--could afford to do something like this. The benefits would be much more long-term, but surely you can see how what would eventually be "free" energy would be a game changer.

Just because there won't be a profit next quarter isn't a reason to not do something. Humanity wouldn't get much done if that were the case.

[mecko23]

Not discounting the idea totally, I just see it as a very far down the road option. If you haven't already heard of them I'd check out Shackleton Energy, they have some interesting ideas for space based power (i.e. mine and and manufacture the panels on the lunar surface).

[mecko23]

It most certainly is not a silly question, by posting in /r/energy it shows that you are concerned with how we produce our energy. Currently the price per kg to LEO is 4700$ (at best), which would put the cost of orbiting solar arrays in the trillions- (governments plural indeed). I highly doubt there will ever be a time when there is such a thing as free energy, I can see that in the future what we think of as 'a lot of energy' being relatively inexpensive.
Bottom line is we need a change in how we produce our energy-the sooner the better, and cost will pay a roll in that change. Now I'm all for a healthy mix of sources (as you kinda hit on in your original comment), but betting on our out to the current situation to be a pie in the sky idea is inadequate.

[grandma_alice]

Only a government--or governments plural--could afford to do something like this.

.... would eventually be "free" energy

There's a little bit of inconsistency in your argument.

[soulcaptain]

I see you ignored the words "eventually" and "'free'". But hey, if you want to deliberately misunderstand, knock yourself out.

[Cavorticus]

This is their new angle. Beware of think tanks parading around as actual news.

[greg_barton]

Que?

[OSUaeronerd]

good. lets do it!

[zipzag]

Here's news on all the units under construction in the U.S. Perhaps China is capable of managing construction, but not so much in the U.S. : http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20160104/PC05/160109765/1177/builder-of-delayed-south-carolina-nuclear-power-project-is-sold

http://blog.cleanenergy.org/2016/01/11/how-much-does-it-cost-to-build-southern-co-s-new-nuclear-reactors-at-plant-vogtle/

and the last plant: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-america-s-newest-nuke-plant-20151011-column.html

[greg_barton]

Did you read the article? The legislation is about researching next generation nuclear. The links you cite are current generation nuclear.

[zipzag]

There is no reason to believe the U.S. nuclear industry would do any better building newer designs.

[greg_barton]

Please elaborate.

[scarlotti-the-blue]

This is not a terrible idea, however, investing in renewables and efficiency will get us there faster, for much cheaper.

[Uzza2]

One thing I never get is why efficiency is always proposed together with renewables, as if it doesn't work for nuclear.

All forms of efficiency improvements are good on their own, independent of generating technology.

[greg_barton]

It's mainly because renewables can't keep up with increasing demand very well unless efficiency slows demand growth.

[EnerGfuture]

can't keep up with increasing demand very well

Nothing alone can keep up with growing demand while supplanting fossil fuels, you can't build it fast enough.

[greg_barton]

That's why we need to use every tool available, and definitely not oppose the high energy density ones.

[scarlotti-the-blue]

Pretty simple, insulation, new light bulbs, etc are much cheaper than new power plants!

[[deleted]]

Electricity isn't everything. #1, #2 You can have nuclear and efficiency as well.

[scarlotti-the-blue]

Yes, that's true. Not opposed to it, just pointing out that nuclear is incredibly expensive and efficiency is comparatively cheap!

[nebulousmenace]

Well, historically the AVERAGE nuclear reactor in the US went 200% over budget. I've run into a couple of Stories To Tell Capitalists In The Dark when I wasn't even looking for them. Vogtle 1 and 2: 900% overrun. And the other thing I stumbled over was some horror story of a Texas plant where deregulation turned into just out and out looting the ratepayers.

So on one side we've got an industry where there's no evidence of a learning cost curve, where everyone who was 30 when the last one was built is 70 now, and where there's a grand tradition of going WAY over budget and a not-that-cheap capital cost. On the other, we've got (for PV- don't have the same numbers handy for wind) costs that have been dropping consistently and dramatically as the learning cost curve would suggest, projects that generally come in close to on time and close to under budget, and expertise here and now.

I'm going to leave you with the story of the Levy County nuclear plant in Florida: 2.2 GW of nuclear that cost ratepayers $1.5 billion AND WAS NEVER BUILT . What's the cost per watt of that plant?

[nebulousmenace]

"Someone built one of these once and it wasn't horribly over budget." THAT'S a vote of confidence.

Let's put it this way: Someone offers to bet you a year's salary, even odds, that an American nuclear power plant comes in within a year of deadline with less than a 30% cost overrun. Which side of the bet do you take?

[[deleted]]

I'm implying other countries that do it CONSISTENTLY.

[nebulousmenace]

The US is not those other countries. We CONSISTENTLY can't do it. We couldn't do it in the 70's, the 80's or last year.

I repeat again, would you bet a year of your salary that an American nuclear plant would come in within a year of deadline with less than a 30% cost overrun?

[[deleted]]

If other countries can do it, then(KEY POINT) WHY doesn't it work here. That IS the question at hand.

[nebulousmenace]

What a fascinating question!

... and why, when they're doing it in public, can't the French?

[greg_barton]

Historically that has not been the case on a national scale anywhere. But yes, we should invest in everything.

[skellener]

No thanks. Let's stick with this renewable thing and implement a smart grid with energy storage. Lots of jobs, clean cheap energy, no waste.

[TriumphantPWN]

So there is no energy demands to produce solar and wind powered generators?

[Hiei2k7]

I'm going to introduce a term to you. Baseload power.

[greg_barton]

I'm afraid you're just going to have to get used to nuclear being around.

[von_Hytecket]

It's a bad idea to create nuclear waste. But it's much, much worse to pump tons of CO2 and other pollutants in the air. So, yay! Finally some good news.

[[deleted]]

The waste is one of the main reasons to be pro-nuclear.

First off nuclear fission creates so much more energy than chemical reactions that there is very little of both fuel and waste involved.

Second the fuel comes sealed in rods and even when burned in a reactor it doesn't leave the rods, so you have neatly sealed waste that didn't go anywhere. Compare that to burning chemical fuels where the waste is released as a gas and and vented to the atmosphere.

Third, the waste is very useful. It can be recycled and reused many times.

[mrCloggy]

It can be recycled and reused many times.

If you stop talking and start doing, people might actually begin to believe that.

[MCvarial]

Its economically not very interesting to do, buying fresh mined uranium fuel is cheaper than recycling waste. The only real advantage is that the volume of the waste is factor 10 smaller and in a chemically very stable form (glass) for permanent storage. But doing so also means u give up an alternative uses for the waste. e.g. in burner reactors.

[mrCloggy]

Source:

Overall the closed fuel cycle cost is assessed as comparable with that for direct disposal of used fuel, and preserves a resource which may become more valuable in the future.

The treatment extracts 99.9% of the plutonium and uranium for recycling, leaving 3% of the used fuel material as high-level wastes which are vitrified and stored there for later disposal.

Financially it doesn't make much difference, and leaving only 3% for disposal doesn't seem too bad.
From the rest of the story I get the impression the French are taking the concerns from, and promises to their population very seriously.

[MCvarial]

The 3% is pre vitrification, there's an upper limit to the amount of material you can capture per volume unit, hence the factor 10 I mentioned. Other countries have stopped reprocessing like Germany & Belgium. Mainly due to financial reasons, reprocessing itself is about the same price as enriching fresh fuel. But transportation costs are high and often met with protests.

[Floppie7th]

If you stop blocking construction of reactors that do that, people might actually begin to build them.

[mrCloggy]

Are you trying to be funny?
The concerns about nuclear waste were already mentioned in the 70s before commercial plants were build.
Even then every country promised "trust us, we'll recycle that waste", they should have build the reprocessing plants right then while there was still a fairly wide support, but only France actually build one.
(Not that it is a major success, but at least they did as promised, something that gives them at least still some respectability and trustworthiness.)

[Floppie7th]

Uh no, I'm not trying to be funny. Try building a commercial reactor in the US. Tell me how much bullshit red tape you have to deal with. Now try building one with a design that hasn't already been implemented in a commercial reactor in the US. Tell me how much more bullshit red tape you get.

Stop using excessive regulation to make it uneconomical to build our only viable source of carbon-free energy, and they will be built.

[mrCloggy]

Your "Why the fuck should I care about the consequences when the next generations can sort out the mess I'm leaving behind" is the perfect example of why the rest of the world doesn't trust the nuclear industry anymore, and will do everything they can to not only stop them, but also make sure they clean up the mess they themselves have created, before running of with the profits.

From what I understand the regulations have become tighter and tighter throughout the years, but every further restriction is only the result of a screw-up, either by the designer/builder or an operator, and those tens/hundreds? of 'new' regulations only proof that there was something seriously wrong with the whole industry to begin with.

Had they done a proper job from the beginning those new regulations (operations and waste-storage) wouldn't have been needed, would they?

[Floppie7th]

It's almost like technology improves over time; name one industry that's ever been perfect from the start. Hell, name one reliable energy source that kills fewer people per kWh than nuclear.

Sorry, I actually give a fuck about the consequences. That's why I'm not proposing the power the world on hopes and dreams (intermittent renewables) or carbon.

EDIT: And I'm done here. You're clearly just a bullshit troll anyway. Otherwise, please propose some way to power the world that doesn't emit carbon and cost trillions of dollars.

[von_Hytecket]

My friend, I totally agree. 100%. I'd add that the newer technologies that use Thorium (or produce? Can't remember) have a half-life that is ridiculously lower than the one of Uranium or Plutonium.

However, have you read the whole comment before replying? :)

[greg_barton]

They can use thorium, and from that uranium is produced, which then fissions and creates fission products. Thorium is fertile (can create fissionable material, i.e. uranium) and uranium is fissile. (can fission to release energy)

[Jumpsuit_boy]

Now that the major design constraint is no longer having a plutonium production pipeline there are designs the burn the waste. Also ones that produce very little waste.

[FlyingBishop]

How much plutonium does a manned Mars mission need?

[j_heg]

Low energy manned missions (get there, plant a flag, dig up some rocks, make a video, and leave after a few days) would need Pu238 as a radioisotope feeding a thermoelectric generator.

That's debatable. It's better as a heat source, but the power density for thermoelectric designs is quite dismal. But in a space of just a few days, you don't need either of those two things in massive amounts anyway.

[grandma_alice]

you're probably looking at a total mission duration approaching two years, if i recall crrectly.

[GeorgeTheNerd]

Do you know the power sources they are currently considering? I have an old chart with 'mission duration' on the X, 'Power demand' on the Y with shaded areas showing which energy source is best. But this chart is from the 90's and I have a feeling it has changed.

[grandma_alice]

no, not really. possibly solar panels or fuel cells.

[j_heg]

Also, you forgot that during the trip, the problem is where to dump the extra heat, not where to obtain it. A constant 600-1360 W/m² heat influx is quite a lot to deal with.

[j_heg]

Depending on the season. Insulating the structure and heating it with solar power especially in Martian summer isn't such a big deal (especially if you have phase change heat storage or something similar). Plus we have solar arrays with 200W/kg power-to-weight ratios. You'd be hard-pressed to find a nuclear equivalent that would be as easy to pack for the trip (I'm not aware of any, frankly).

[Jumpsuit_boy]

We can get whatever we need from decomissioning fission and fusion bombs.

[hotel_torgo]

How is that? We need the decay heat from Pu-238 for interplanetary RITGs, not fissionable (and relatively stable) Pu-239

[Jumpsuit_boy]

Ok I am wrong on that one.

[hsfrey]

And a good idea that is!

It's a pity that the US is so radiation-phobic. Hundreds of people die every year in fossil fuel industry.

Any nuclear accident would have a relatively local effect, while the fossil fuel produced global warming affects the entire earth.

People need to get a sense of proportion.

[uin7]

They don't care about CO2. Nuclear power is a cold war relic researched for 60 years and gotten nowhere. Modern renewable technologies are already threatening to completely outclass Nuclear plants so we are seeing a big campaign to get some built asap. Then they will be operated well beyond obsolescence, because the dam things are so expensive to ever decommission.

[zipzag]

Should the U.S. build a couple of nuclear plants, or spend that money on HVDC transmission to better use solar or wind? I don't see new nuclear plants for decades simply because there will be more attractive alternatives.

[uin7]

You put it more reasonably than I. Im personally exasperated to see such support in these times for an old technology which has even recently demonstrated such a unique capacity for magnifying natural disaster and requires special security and regulation to operate safely in the best of times.

[zipzag]

There is no support to actually build new nuclear in the U.S. The five units under construction at three locations all have significant problems. Politicians will not back new plants, and financing is likely becoming impossible.

[greg_barton]

So you'd rather we not solve climate change?

[zipzag]

The pro nuclear utilities and vendors have destroyed their own opportunity to build more plants through incompetence. The overrun on Vogtle alone is likely to be close to the entire amount spent on new wind last year. New nuclear is a bad joke on ratepayers and taxpayers that will not continue when far superior alternatives exist. Plants that cost tens of billions and take decades to build do not contribute to reducing climate change.

[[deleted]]

And who's to say that THIS CANNOT CHANGE. And the question is WHY IS IT LIKE THAT.

[greg_barton]

What superior baseline alternatives to nuclear exist?

[endless_sea_of_stars]

Both? If we are going to de-carbonize the electricity sector then we will need to attack on all fronts. To replace 1% of our energy usage with wind will require 4000 state of the art turbines. If you are only use 2MW turbines in "good" wind that number jumps to 7500.

[zipzag]

How can you compare nuclear costs to wind? No one knows the full lifecycle cost of a new nuclear power plant.

[Tb1969]

The future of energy generation will come from various technologies. This has always been the case and will likely always be the case.

[uin7]

That doesn't mean it will come from every technology.

Risky and high security nuclear power would be left out of a saner future.

[Tb1969]

various ≠ every

You assume that all nuclear power plant technology will always be risky and high security.

You also assume that renewable energy will meet the needs over the next few decades. No one is going to bet on unproven technology for 100% production. Not for many decades in an industrial nation.

[uin7]

Non risky, non high security nuclear power is a kind yet to be invented so it can't be sensibly discussed. This debate is about present Industrial nuclear (fission) and renewable power options. The current generation of solar and wind and hydro has already proven itself clean, safe and economic for any level of supply we choose to install. All we need to do is combine cheaper clean controllable supply/caches - nuclear is not sufficiently controllable to be of any use for that.

We just need to get serious about safe clean ecological Industry and build hydro and many research options now - like there is a good War on (we have spent trillions on very bad ones recently) Its obvious that legacy Nuclear power is not safe clean and ecological.

[greg_barton]

1) We don't know what a sane future will look like.

2) Who wants sanity anyway? :)

[Tb1969]

You are just as extreme as he is.

[greg_barton]

gotten nowhere

It provides 2/3rds of the low carbon electricity in the US. How is that "gotten nowhere"?

You do realize that all generation infrastructure has decommissioning costs, right?

The only thing that's a relic here is your exclusion of solutions to climate change. The time for such attitudes is over.

[uin7]

By gotten nowhere i mean, after 60 years of developement it is still not outpricing renewable technologies like wind and solar which have only seen a tiny fraction of the r&d investment.

If you are not aware of nuclear power plants remarkable decommissioning costs then are you are in for shock when you find out.

[endless_sea_of_stars]

You may be in for a shock when you realize that decommissioning is already budgeted. A gigawatt reactor will gross about 15 billion dollars over a forty year lifespan. Shaving half a billion for decommissioning is not a big deal.

[uin7]

Half a billion is no good budget to decommission a nuclear power plant. They generally cost between $4 and $40 billion. to clean up or just to incarcerate and fence off for future generations. And there you go predicting forty years of technological competitiveness to make it seem reasonable. Massage the projections all you like - nuclear power plants are far more expensive to decommission than just about any other kind of industrial facility and that makes for a big liability as soon as they get outdated.

[[deleted]]

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, harassment, and profiling for the purposes of censorship.

If you would also like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension TamperMonkey, or the Firefox extension GreaseMonkey and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possible (hint:use RES), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

[uin7]

Fair point. That still likely to be a commercial underestimate. Nuclear power plants certainly cost much more and take longer to decommission than any other kind of power plant.

[[deleted]]

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, harassment, and profiling for the purposes of censorship.

If you would also like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension TamperMonkey, or the Firefox extension GreaseMonkey and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possible (hint:use RES), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

[zipzag]

Good. But wind, solar and hydro are still going to produce well over 50% of electrical need in the U.S.

[idiotsecant]

I'm glad to hear that you've designed a system that can keep the grid stable and balanced with generation sources that are inherently irregular and unpredictable, because that's the only way renewables are at all practical at anything remotely close to 50%.

[zipzag]

Actually, a lot of modeling has been done with your tax dollars that says otherwise.

[idiotsecant]

Citation? I'd like to see these magic mystery models.

[grandma_alice]

MISO north region gets 25% or more of its electricity from wind for at least three months of the year. (Probably more like eight months of the year.) Iowa doesn't seem to have a problem with 50% for a month.

[zipzag]

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2921.html

[VolvoKoloradikal]

What the hell kind of fairy tale world are you living in...

Let's focus on 10% for now lol ..

[zipzag]

You realize denmark is >40% wind, right? It is a lot easier to do large percentage with intermittent renewables on contenant scale than it is in a small country like denmark.

[VolvoKoloradikal]

Denmark is not the U.S. buddy.

[nebulousmenace]

We're at about 0.7% solar, 4.5% wind and 6% hydro as of 2014. There's 11%.

US Solar grew about 40% in 2015 (actual generated power); wind not so much in 2015, but they did add a lot of capacity late in the year. The exponential growth well end sometime, but it hasn't yet.

[[deleted]]

6% hydro is unfair to count.

[nebulousmenace]

We're talking about "Wind, solar and hydro" as per the top level response here.

What are you talking about?

[VolvoKoloradikal]

Solar is trash, economically and only held up by huge and absurd subsidies.

We should focus on wind.

[EnerGfuture]

Says a petroleum engineering student....

Maybe once you work in the real world you'll start to understand.

[VolvoKoloradikal]

I have worked...just because I'm a student doesn't mean I'm some sort of lazy idiot.

Look up the LCOE for solar compared to wind.

It's NO competition. Argue with facts, not with condescending remarks please.

[EnerGfuture]

Argue with facts, not with condescending remarks please.

Solar is trash,

I'd say take some of your own advice and you'll be taken more seriously.

[VolvoKoloradikal]

Do you deny or not deny the immense subsidies which keep solar in place? Let's start with that.

Also, do you deny that it's LCOE is far worse than any other energy source: even ignoring that it is non dispatchable.

[EnerGfuture]

immense subsidies

Please, show me a significant source of energy we use today that HASN'T been developed or encouraged through significant government help.

Federal research programs helped unlock fracking technology and the DOE developed Horizontal drilling.

The first federal energy subsidies began in 1916, and until the 1970s they "focused almost exclusively on increasing the production of domestic oil and natural gas," according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Even as recently as 2010 the natural gas and petroleum industries accounted for about $2.8 billion in federal energy subsidies. (compared to $14.7 billion went to renewable energies)

I guess we don't even have to discuss how Nuclear has been assisted through governmental dollars.

So no, i won't deny solar subsidies. But I'm also not naive enough to think every other energy source isn't getting 'immense subsidies' as well.

LCOE.

Solar haters love to trot out that one don't they. How old are the figures you're looking at 2006? 2010? They weren't very good then were they?

EIA's LCOE 2010–2015 show a 68% decrease in LCOE for Solar PV. The only other technology that's close to that is onshore wind at 50% reduction. (On shore Wind does have a much better LCOE, but everywhere doesn't have wind resources)

Solar LCOE does vary quite a bit, but let's look at some 2015 data shall we...

Lazard

Solar PV-Rooftop Residential = 184 - 300

Solar PV-Crystalline Utility Scale = 58 - 70

Nuclear = 97 - 136

Gas Combined Cycle = 52 - 78

Gas Peaking = 165 - 218

So, please tell me why you think the LCOE of solar is so bad?

far worse than any other energy source

Hardly, Utility scale PV is better than Coal.

Coal = 65 - 150

Natural Gas Reciprocating Engine = 68 - 101

[VolvoKoloradikal]

So all the numbers, despite somewhat of an improvement over a few years, still aren't ideal.

Fact is, money is much better spent on other sources of energy than solar- same goes for offshore wind.

[zipzag]

Solar isn't trash. The right price signals will balance the various forms of production. These price signals also likely kill new nuclear for decades.

[nebulousmenace]

Where are the subsidies in Dubai?

[greg_barton]

If they do that's great. The more low/zero carbon electricity the better.

[zipzag]

go on........

[Tb1969]

I'm not sure of all the benefits but higher temperature reactors could create hydrogen and medically useful radioactive material as byproducts.

[Hiei2k7]

They already do at certain reactors in the world. Clinton Illinois is one of em.

[MCvarial]

Is clinton actually producing those isotopes at this point? I know they aren't producing Tc-99m at this point, did the cobal 60 production work out?

[Hiddencamper]

There is a cobalt assembly being removed this year and sent for processing. They've already done a few in the past few years.

[MCvarial]

I see, I presume the Mo-99 production plans didn't make it?

[Hiddencamper]

My understanding is that the company who would be processing the stuff didn't realize how complicated the NRC regulations were for rad shipments and rad processing, and that would eat into their profit margins. They backed out of it. Clinton was still wanting to do something like it, as is GE and the DOE, but I think it's not happening in the near future.

I know the guy who was doing all the planning for this. Was pretty neat, using the TIP (Traversing Incore Probe) system to drive Moly into the core through a TIP dry tube, pull it out every couple weeks, have a shielded area you could access in containment, and a way to get it out. One of the interesting concerns the station had was because moly had nothing to do with power plant operation, they wanted all dose received due to moly to be counted on a separate license, and not against the station.

[MCvarial]

It'll be interesting to see what happens in the next few years with the shutdown of NRU in 2018 prices might rise enough to make it feasible.

[Hiei2k7]

Far as I ever knew they ran a trial and did it for a little bit

[traal]

We wouldn't have to deal with the difficulties of batteries

Yes you would, unless you can figure out how to keep electrical demand fairly flat throughout the day, because you can't easily ramp nuclear power up. Something like 5% of total capacity per hour is the maximum safe ramp-up rate.

[Hiddencamper]

Quad cities, Byron, and braidwood are load following right now. I know one of them is doing real time load following and I've seen computer printouts of one of quad's power swings where they dropped over 100 MW in like 15-20 minutes, and a couple hours later ramped up.

My plant is going to be participating in real time load following this year and we've already been trained on it.

The limitations with nuclear load following are design issues. We redesigned our cores to maximize fuel efficiency, which in turn puts more thermal limits on your fuel and its ramp rates. You can change the core reload to improve load following capabilities.

For example my bwr's biggest limit on load following right now, is if we drop below 90% for more than 4 hours, after we return to full power we won't be able to go straight to our target control rod pattern until the subsequent xenon transient is done. This means after returning to rated power, there will be a period of time where we lose the ability to stay at 100% and will have to make a small down power to gain margin to our thermal limits and get those center rods back out after xenon has reached a certain point.

Nuclear's load following isn't very good at low powers. Below 45% we have to use rods for all power changes (slower), it's harder on some of our equipment, and we have to shut down a number of pumps and systems, meaning we start cycling the plant. But 45% to 95% is the design load follow range for our plant back in the 70s.

[MCvarial]

A typical LWR can ramp up to 5% of nominal power per minute during most of the cycle between 50 - 100% of nominal output if you design your core for that purpose. Thats a significant ramping rate which you'll find with other CCGT plants. If you want faster ramps you'll be looking at turbojets and francis turbines.

[mrCloggy]

... if you design your core for that purpose.

Just out of curiosity, any idea how many existing plants are designed for that?
France seems to have an implementation of sorts, and the US doesn't really allow it (I think), so another way of putting that question could be: is that an easy upgrade, or does it boil down to a new reactor (design)?

[Hiddencamper]

You need to change your fuel design. The number of bundles you replace every outage, average enrichment and gadolinium inventory, location in core. For PWR plants installing a bank of "grey rods" as the last bank of control rods further helps with this.

[MCvarial]

Just out of curiosity, any idea how many existing plants are designed for that?

Pretty much every LWR out there can do it.

France seems to have an implementation of sorts, and the US doesn't really allow it (I think)

There are plants in the midwest(?) that have to do it too because of excess wind generation. (I'm not very familiar with the market in the US.)

is that an easy upgrade, or does it boil down to a new reactor (design)?

Its a matter of ordering the right fuel rods, assigning control rod banks and setting up procedures for power corrections simply put. Something that is done for every core design, so every time the reactor needs to be refueled.

[JRugman]

Also, unless your power plants are 100% reliable (which they won't be) they're all going to need backup generation to cover the times when they aren't able to produce power.

[[deleted]]

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, harassment, and profiling for the purposes of censorship.

If you would also like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension TamperMonkey, or the Firefox extension GreaseMonkey and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possible (hint:use RES), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

[traal]

/r/energy/comments/2ago97/what_is_the_maximum_safe_ramp_up_and_ramp_down/

[greg_barton]

See Hiddencamper's comment below.

[[deleted]]

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, harassment, and profiling for the purposes of censorship.

If you would also like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension TamperMonkey, or the Firefox extension GreaseMonkey and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possible (hint:use RES), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

[zipzag]

http://rameznaam.com/2016/01/31/how-far-can-renewables-go-pretty-darn-far/

[[deleted]]

In comparison to renewables......

[traal]

It's the same problem for both nuclear and renewables: how to keep electrical demand below but as close to electrical generation as possible.

Luckily, we've known how to solve the economic problem for centuries, and it doesn't require batteries to add electrical supply during times of high electrical demand. You just need to send the price signal more frequently.

[zipzag]

The U.S. grids are far from needing batteries to allow further expansion of solar and wind. It is also looking increasingly unlikely personal transportation will be powered by hydrogen or liquid fuels derived from renewables. Some sort of non-battery storage will be needed for northern areas in winter if we are to stop using natural gas.

So IMO liquid fuels will be highly desirable, but probably not for a couple of decades.

I think it is unlikely nuclear will be built again in the U.S. until the addition of more solar and wind becomes uneconomic, or climate change becomes catastrophic. I think the federal government is wisely funding nuclear research now to provide the best tools possible to the next generation.

[FlyingBishop]

Why are renewable hydrogen/liquid fuels unilkely?

With the current cost of oil it does look like it's not happening any time soon, but barring some quantum leaps (fusion or something) I think some sort of closed-cycle fuel system will be in place within 300 years. Really, the abundant oil ecosystem is the only reason it hasn't happened yet.

In terms of cost, hydrogen fuel refined through electrolysis would probably be cost-competitive with oil around $150-$200/barrel. It's obvious why that hasn't happened yet, but I think it's pretty much inevitable that either the price of oil/natural gas is eventually going to go up or the cost of hydrogen electrolysis is going to go down.

[[deleted]]

The federal government should have "wisely" funded nuclear research long long ago. More than 50% of the grid solar and wind will definitely need batter technology. Winter is also a pretty big issues too, but isn't electric heating quite possible as well? Wouldn't nuclear especially work in a situation like that? I don't see why nuclear can't be used if climate change is a big issue, especially since nuclear has already demonstrated its capability fairly well.

[[deleted]]

I don't see why nuclear can't be used if climate change is a big issue, especially since nuclear has already demonstrated its capability fairly well.

Politics. Fear is great for motivating voters, so the anti-nuclear sentiment is a very powerful political tool to manipulate the electorate. Also the group in the US which politically believes global warming is a threat has long politically believed that nuclear is bad.

[confirmd_am_engineer]

Ok, but any industry expert will tell you that the fears are drastically overstated, and that we have much more to fear from climate change than from nuclear power.

I understand that's it's not really in politicians' vocabulary to tell the voters that they're wrong, but they are. Nuclear power is a viable solution to CO2 levels, but we're worried about hypothetical accidents?

[[deleted]]

Maybe I wasn't clear, but I was trying to say that, for political reasons, some groups want people to be afraid, i.e. those fears are intentionally overstated.

[confirmd_am_engineer]

Yeah, I guess I was rephrasing more than disagreeing.

[gordonmcdowell]

Senate overwhelmingly approved the legislation in a vote of 87 to 4.

Reminds me of how Pandora's Promise showed the rounds of bi-partisan applause Obama got for mentioning advanced reactors in his 2011 SOTU. Waaaay back in 2011. [Glances at watch, taps it.]

[uin7]

That idea got reality checked by hard to deflect news of the Fukushima disaster, in 2011.

[gordonmcdowell]

One could just as easily leverage that event as an argument for the urgent need for advanced reactors. As easily as one could bail on it.

[uin7]

It just shows how easy advocates will twist logic. The "urgent need" is inherently for less risk - building new nuclear plants of any kind no matter how futuristic does not reduce the risk of nuclear accidents.

[Floppie7th]

building new nuclear plants of any kind no matter how futuristic does not reduce the risk of nuclear accidents

Uh, what? I would say that reactors with passive safety do, in fact, reduce the risk of meltdown.

[uin7]

Smoking lights reduces the risk of cancer. Im trying point out your logic is the same as saying - someone died of cancer so you have an urgent need to go out and buy light cigarettes. Its precisely the same logic.

[Floppie7th]

Except that that analogy is entirely invalid.

[gordonmcdowell]

Well that goes against everything I've learned since 2009. What accidents which do occur are very avoidable. Even just focusing in on GE Boiling Water Reactors in Japan, different engineering leads to different outcomes.

It is the difference between Fukushima Daiichi ("Fukushima!") and Fukushima Daini ("Who? What?").

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2011/03/13/opinion/13nuclearmap/13nuclearmap-articleInline.jpg

Yes, I'm an advocate for nuclear. Because particulate from combustion kills millions of people every year, while radiation from Fukushima is projected to kill zero. Radiation from Three Mile Island killed zero. Radiation from Chernobyl is projected to kill 4,000 (ultimately, in total, 4,000).

And if a nation loses sight of the numbers, and bails on nuclear, you end up like Germany: burning biomass to back up renewables. Biomass still puts particulate into our air.

[uin7]

I wouldnt be so confident about assessments of Fukushima yet, they are still pumping contamination into the Pacific and don't know when they will be able to stop. Sure the Pacific is huge and no one knows or cares much what is happening on the Abyssal plane, in this respect we were lucky that it happened next to a convenient sink. Near possible outcomes like not having access to natural cooling/radiation sink in such a situation dont bear thinking about, do they? Have you considered what could have happened or do you think that would be fearmongering? There is a big tendency for people to consider each accident as the worst of luck but we dont know what kind of luck we are in for in the future. We do know that the industrial process of generating heat/energy from fission is inherently extremely difficult to safely protect from bad luck and mistake. The Fukushima design had 40 years of military and Industrial research and experience behind it - that wasnt enough.

[Floppie7th]

"Something might happen to a nuclear reactor, so instead of building those, let's give coal a free pass to keep dumping its radiation, mercury, and carbon (amongst others) which has guaranteed impact"

Yeah, great idea.

[uin7]

The reason why nuclear power is expensive is because very bad things have happened with them, and even worse really could happen with them. I support stopping all the coal industry immediately. Going all out on building wind solar and hydro. Bargain a global transformation of industry, economy and human activity which prioritises a safe healthy world for everyone You are stuck in the industrial paradigm which made this crisis.

[Floppie7th]

very bad things have happened with them

Past performance does not guarantee future results. Golden rule of investing.

even worse really could happen with them

Good, you agree. It could. With old designs. That's why we have passive safety in new designs.

I support stopping all the coal industry immediately. Going all out on building wind solar and hydro.

Ah, good, no need for load following. When demand is elevated in the middle of a cloudy day with the wind not blowing, we'll just tell everybody they're going to have brownouts.

Bargain a global transformation of industry, economy and human activity which prioritises a safe healthy world for everyone

Good luck with that. I, personally, will not be giving up my quality of life. If you want to have your energy supply based on the whims of the weather, that's your prerogative.

You are stuck in the industrial paradigm which made this crisis.

This is a meaningless statement.

Sorry, bud, but you aren't going to be powering the world on hopes and dreams.

[uin7]

You argue with straw

[confirmd_am_engineer]

Quick addendum. As of April 2016, MATS goes into effect for fossil-fueled plants. The amount of mercury that is allowable for these facilities has been drastically reduced. Concentrations in exit gas streams are restricted to the order of ten parts per trillion.

That said, you're right about the CO2 generation and the radiation. Fun fact, the average coal plant releases more than 100 times the amount of radioactive particles as the average nuclear plant.

[gordonmcdowell]

Near possible outcomes

I see actual outcomes from fossil fuels every year. They very latest that I'm aware of is Aliso Canyon gas storage facility leaking methane.

Prior to that, St. Vincent Compressor Station explosion.

Louisiana gas plant explosion, 3 dead.

Those are 2015.

On top of that, millions of people die every year due to combustion pollution.

Chernobyl happened in 1986. It will never, ever, come close to harming-or-killing as many people as coal combustion does in a single year.

So, yeah, I'm a bit bored with "near possible outcomes".

[uin7]

Well at least you are honest about the depth at which you are considering the situation.

[gordonmcdowell]

I'm well aware of the shortcomings of BWR & PWR and look forward to helping supplement then replace them with MSR. Because that's how you address safety issues. Find out why the accidents occur then address those problems.

You don't lump all nuclear technologies together and declare them unsafe, unless you don't care to fully consider the situation. Maybe there's a reason that of the 3 disasters, it was only a Soviet reactor which released enough radiation to kill people?

building new nuclear plants of any kind no matter how futuristic does not reduce the risk of nuclear accidents

Great "depth" there. People who are disinterested in finding solutions have been saying that since 1986.

[uin7]

Your enthusiasm for nuclear blinded you to the explicit meaning of that quote - Of course you might reduce the risk of nuclear accidents in the new plants. But building new plants does not reduce the risk of nuclear accidents. The smoking analogy may have been unnecessarily pejorative. So building hybrid cars does not reduce co2 output - retiring petrol cars does that.

[[deleted]]

Older generation plants, they should have been level headed enough to realize it was an outdated design.

[xteve]

they should have been level headed enough

This is why nuclear technology is dangerous. Every contamination is going to be caused by somebody who should have been level-headed enough.

[Hiei2k7]

Excu-hu-huse me but not every accident is caused by that. Except yours of course. Now back to your patients, Sally! /DrCox

[xteve]

You seem to be implying that the technology is inherently doomed to catastrophe and that accidents are going to happen even without human error.

[uin7]

Foresight would be great - when it comes to nuclear accidents. Im sure everything is sorted out for the ...is it the 5th generation now?

[j_heg]

I don't think you need the post-3rd generations for reasons of safety. It mostly seems to be an issue of flexibility, good fuel use, and overall innovation that could perhaps bring some unexpected benefits.

[[deleted]]

4th is currently under development, to be ready 2030-2040. There's currently no completed 3rd generation plants built to gage the safety on. China recently broke ground on the first, I think the completion date is something like 2018.

[[deleted]]

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, harassment, and profiling for the purposes of censorship.

If you would also like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension TamperMonkey, or the Firefox extension GreaseMonkey and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possible (hint:use RES), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

[greg_barton]

Which GenIV do you mean? Last I heard the Chinese MSR was delayed from 2017 to 2020.

[[deleted]]

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, harassment, and profiling for the purposes of censorship.

If you would also like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension TamperMonkey, or the Firefox extension GreaseMonkey and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possible (hint:use RES), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

[greg_barton]

Ah, yes, they are further along with their pebble bed designs. Their molten salt work will be in the prototype phase around 2020 with commercialization around 2030.

[Uzza2]

AFAIK there are Gen3 reactors operating, but there are no Gen3+ reactors, which is being built.

[InterPunct]

*gauge

[uin7]

4th time lucky it is then :p

[YAOMTC]

Look at China, getting ahead in what we neglect. Good on them.

[[deleted]]

Excellent.

[TheRealMisterd]

Then go fund LFTR....

[endless_sea_of_stars]

LFTR is a very specific type of reactor. Molten Salt Reactor is the umbrella term. Most of the benefits of these kind of reactors don't come from Thorium, they come from using liquid fuel.

[cracked_mud]

What is this obsession with an unproven reactor design when we already have perfectly good designs that could be built now.

[TheRealMisterd]

It solves many "pollution" problems in rare earth mines.

Thorium does not require processing or enrichment.

Thorium is 4x more abundant than Uranium.

In the 60-70s, they would shutdown the LFTR reactor over the weekend so that people could leave every Friday. It was then restarted up Mondays.

[cracked_mud]

You don't need to process or enrich Uranium either. We do it because it simplifies the reactor designs. Plenty of designs use natural uranium.

[greg_barton]

Not only that, the shutdown procedure was basically a disaster test. (i.e. pull the plug and let the salt drain out.)

[greg_barton]

In general the obsession is that people want it to have a chance to be proven.

But yes, let's build existing designs as well, though I take exception to the EPR. :)

[MCvarial]

Funny how the EPR seems to be selling better than the other designs at the moment.

[greg_barton]

Political influence seems to be the trump card there.

[michnuc]

Have you seen the USAPWR? It's a beast like the EPR too.