Is Nuclear Power Ever Coming Back?

[Marlin]

Is Nuclear Power Ever Coming Back?


http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/is-nuclear-power-ever-coming-back/373315/

[cheme09]

California’s San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is a case in point. Two years ago, the 2.2-megawatt plant ceased operations after identifying defects in its steam generators that posed serious risks

No wonder they got shut down. I wonder how much money SCE was pouring into that place with all that overhead and just selling 2.2 MW of power!  

[GLW]

Is Nuclear Power Ever Coming Back?


http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/is-nuclear-power-ever-coming-back/373315/

article is silent on security forces,...

a small, compact, "safer by simplicity" reactor will have the same security force requirements as a big unit will,...

security costs are mandated,...

they have grown immensely since 9-11-2011,...

they are not lessening,...

I'm not sure how anyone makes a plausible case for lessening security requirements,...

the biggest elephant in the room is not natural gas, it is al-qaeda, et al,...

[hamsamich]

"In traditional nuclear reactors, just 4-5 percent of the energy is extracted from the solid fuel rods used to power them. “That is why nuclear waste is so dangerous; it has a lot of energy left in it,” says Dewan."

Really?  I thought the main problem was all the long lived FPs?

I liked the rest of it.  The part about how fossil fuel plants get a free ride in the waste dept. was good.

[HydroDave63]

article is silent on security forces,...

a small, compact, "safer by simplicity" reactor will have the same security force requirements as a big unit will,...

security costs are mandated,...

they have grown immensely since 9-11-2011,...

they are not lessening,...

I'm not sure how anyone makes a plausible case for lessening security requirements,...

the biggest elephant in the room is not natural gas, it is al-qaeda, et al,...

I concur on the security aspect. The only way this thing pencils out is if you have a hardened site with a bunch of them. The other helpful part of a site with 6, 8, heck a dozen smaller reactors is that having a single unit trip isn't hard on carrying reserves. Part of the 'experiment' at Chernobyl was to see how much power generation could be pulled from the shutdown reactor, rather than carry sufficient reg for grid stability.

[GLW]

I concur on the security aspect. The only way this thing pencils out is if you have a hardened site with a bunch of them. The other helpful part of a site with 6, 8, heck a dozen smaller reactors is that having a single unit trip isn't hard on carrying reserves. Part of the 'experiment' at Chernobyl was to see how much power generation could be pulled from the shutdown reactor, rather than carry sufficient reg for grid stability.

So, build a bunch of huge multi unit sites on the Michigan UP and distribute the power with those new fangled room temperature super conductor transmission lines making the news lately?!?!?!

That might work,...

It's gonna need one elluva WalMart up there to keep everybody in winter clothes,...

[ArLaMs]

When we look at full lifecycle cost - there really is no free lunch anywhere

The recent emphasis to increase fossil production costs via regulation might favorably drive NPP economics in the future.  This is from emergent emission requirements for coal units in particular (carbon taxes).

The waste stream costs of fossil production are now coming into public focus.  The TVA coal pond event last year is now combined with coal pond events in NC.  Although these are only for a couple of utilities, the broad impact of prior SOP may be future drivers to the NPP viability and benefit analysis. 


Duke Energy foresees coal ash pond costs of up to $10 billion

http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/energy/2014/04/duke-energy-foresees-coal-ash-pond-costs-of-up-to.html?page=all

NC issues notices to Duke Energy about leaks at coal ash ponds

http://www.wncn.com/story/25881281/nc-issues-notices-to-duke-energy-about-leaks-at-coal-ash-ponds

[GLW]

When we look at full lifecycle cost - there really is no free lunch anywhere.................

The waste stream costs of fossil production are now coming into public focus.  The TVA coal pond event last year is now combined with coal pond events in NC.  Although these are only for a couple of utilities, the broad impact of prior SOP may be future drivers to the NPP viability and benefit analysis. 

no free lunch, some lunches do cost far less,....

fossil waste streams have the advantage of grandfathering and passing on costs due to emerging regulation,....

nukes must be braced for a federal government poised to drop the hammer for high level waste security and storage costs solely onto private stakeholders in 2016,....

where are you surmising that cost to be absorbed while retaining commercial nukes margins in the competitive side of the ledger?

[cheme09]

"In traditional nuclear reactors, just 4-5 percent of the energy is extracted from the solid fuel rods used to power them. “That is why nuclear waste is so dangerous; it has a lot of energy left in it,” says Dewan."

Really?  I thought the main problem was all the long lived FPs?

I liked the rest of it.  The part about how fossil fuel plants get a free ride in the waste dept. was good.

Many long lived fission products are actinides and can be burned in a fast reactor. While not a technically a fission product, Pu-239 has a half-life of 24110 years and is a significant contributor to activity of LWR spent fuel. If you were to close the fuel cycle and reprocess/burn spent fuel from a LWR in a fast reactor until it really is spent, then the real waste returns to natural background radiation levels in a few hundred years. Otherwise, that stuff sitting in casks and pools at each US nuclear plant wont return to natural background levels for a few hundred thousand years.

[hamsamich]

That makes sense, but the way they put it seemed to suggest that the unburned fuel (u and pu) was the majority of the problem.  But the real dangerous part of fuel being put into casks today doesn't stem from unburned fuel I don't think (except for the pu, but is it the majority?).  Maybe way into the future it is the PU.  I really don't know so much about what happens to fuel after hundreds of years.  We had alot of nasty old cesium and strontium at F tank farm but I've never dealt with old fuel.

[GLW]

.......I really don't know so much about what happens to fuel after hundreds of years.  We had alot of nasty old cesium and strontium at F tank farm but I've never dealt with old fuel.

well, you're in good company, other than projections, nobody really knows so much about what happens to fuel after hundreds of years,...

dry storage casks are initially certified for 20 years,...

without a central repository, the push is on for 50 year certification,...

a lot of people are not wholly comfortable with a 50 year certification,...

not all casks are welded,...

some are nuts and bolts,...

50 years, out in the elements, nuts and bolts,...

yeah, I have confidence in the engineers and the craft,...

I also understand the trepidation of certifying welds, or, nuts and bolts, in close proximity to fuel, and the elements swirling all around, elements such as,.......flood plains,...for fifty years,...

Silver Bridge 1928 - 1967,...