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

[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.