Coming power shortages

[billvon 2,100]

7 hours ago, airdvr said:

Nukes are nukes.  Doesn't matter what you're using them for.

I think it kind of does.  We had a nuclear reactor at my college.  It's still there.  But since it's not used for power production no one much cared about it being there.

Existing LWR's and BWR's can't make hydrogen through thermal dissociation of water.  HTGR's can - and bring a whole new set of problems.

SMR's are in development right now and are supposed to make nuclear power much easier/faster/cheaper.  But we don't have a single one working yet.

The AP-1000 Gen IV reactors going in at Vogtle were supposed to be first concrete to fuel load in 36 months.  They've been working on them for 20 years now and they're still not operating.

It matters.

Quote

Clean energy will need nuclear power.  There's no way around it.

Sure there is,  You could, for example, go to all renewables with natural gas as a backup - and then use biomethane to run those plants.

However, I agree that nuclear power is a reasonable option for base load power in a mostly-renewable grid.  But be ready for your power bills to double (at least) if we pursue nuclear for most of our power production (which France has done, for example.)  Unsubsidized nuclear power costs between $131 and $204 per megawatt-hour; onshore wind costs $26-$50 per megawatt-hour.  So I wouldn't go wild with nuclear power.  (Or more accurately, only go as wild as you can afford.)

[JerryBaumchen 978]

31 minutes ago, billvon said:

I think it kind of does.  We had a nuclear reactor at my college.  It's still there.  But since it's not used for power production no one much cared about it being there.

Existing LWR's and BWR's can't make hydrogen through thermal dissociation of water.  HTGR's can - and bring a whole new set of problems.

SMR's are in development right now and are supposed to make nuclear power much easier/faster/cheaper.  But we don't have a single one working yet.

The AP-1000 Gen IV reactors going in at Vogtle were supposed to be first concrete to fuel load in 36 months.  They've been working on them for 20 years now and they're still not operating.

It matters.

Sure there is,  You could, for example, go to all renewables with natural gas as a backup - and then use biomethane to run those plants.

However, I agree that nuclear power is a reasonable option for base load power in a mostly-renewable grid.  But be ready for your power bills to double (at least) if we pursue nuclear for most of our power production (which France has done, for example.)  Unsubsidized nuclear power costs between $131 and $204 per megawatt-hour; onshore wind costs $26-$50 per megawatt-hour.  So I wouldn't go wild with nuclear power.  (Or more accurately, only go as wild as you can afford.)

Hi Bill,

Re:  SMR's are in development right now and are supposed to make nuclear power much easier/faster/cheaper.

And, in the 50's we were told that nuclear power would be so cheap that we would no longer have electrical meters on our houses.

I'll believe it when I see it.

And, what about the nearly-forever costs of dealing with the waste?

Jerry Baumchen

[brenthutch 365]

39 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

And, in the 50's we were told that nuclear power would be so cheap that we would no longer have electrical meters on our houses.

I'll believe it when I see it.

In the 90’s we were told the same thing about wind and solar 

[headoverheels 281]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

In the 90’s we were told the same thing about wind and solar 

Who is "we" and who was saying it?  I have never heard of that.

[JerryBaumchen 978]

3 minutes ago, headoverheels said:

Who is "we" and who was saying it?  I have never heard of that.

Hi heels.

Re:  Who is "we" and who was saying it?  I have never heard of that.

I spent 30 yrs working in the Dep't of Energy *; high voltage electrical transmission system.  I've never heard such a thing either.

Jerry Baumchen

*  The first 8 yrs or so, it was the Dept of Interior; prior to the creation of the DOE.

 

[billvon 2,100]

20 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

Re:  SMR's are in development right now and are supposed to make nuclear power much easier/faster/cheaper.

And, in the 50's we were told that nuclear power would be so cheap that we would no longer have electrical meters on our houses.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Yep.  I am all for nuclear power, both research into new generation methods and buildout of conventional designs.  But given its cost and difficulty, it's not the panacea most people think it is.

[JerryBaumchen 978]

17 minutes ago, billvon said:

Yep.  I am all for nuclear power, both research into new generation methods and buildout of conventional designs.  But given its cost and difficulty, it's not the panacea most people think it is.

Hi Bill,

The human in me is against nuclear power due to the near costs & the very long-term waste storage costs.

The engineer in me says we should continue doing good research.

Jerry Baumchen

[BillyVance 33]

On 5/18/2022 at 8:33 AM, wmw999 said:

Thanks. There used to be two in my general area, but they've been decommissioned, I think for age. But we have a a lot of anti-nuclear-anything around here. 

Wendy P. 

Closest one to me is Browns Ferry Nuclear power plant in Decatur, a 2 hour drive away. There is another one, unfinished for decades, near Scottsboro. They are extremely expensive to build for sure. But maintained and operated properly, it's a great source of clean energy. Even then, Browns Ferry dodged a potential catastrophe on April 27, 2011 when an EF5 tornado passed by within a mile of the plant. It did cut through the major power pylons that deliver power to Huntsville, so the entire city was in the dark for a week. 

[billeisele 119]

The VC Summer plant is near me and has been operating for about 38 years with no significant problems. There have been a few typical issues on the non-nuclear side. One major item was the premature failure of the steam generator. A Westinghouse design flaw. In the original design it was intended to be a lifelong item, one that would never fail. The design had it contained in an area where it could not be replaced. Lucikly an old coal fired plant guy kept insisting that the building be widened saying that nothing ever lasts forever. When this one failed they knocked out the end wall, slipped it out with inches to spare and installed the new one.

Nuclear waste storage has become a non-issue. For many years utility companies paid huge money to the feds to develop a US permanent repository at Yucca mountain. It was never built and the utilities sued to get money back. They solved it with a dry cask system for storage on site. Simple, relatively inexpensive, and it works, and NRC approved.

Then along comes the failure of the Westinghouse AP 1000 project is SC. Tons of details but the fundamental issue was Westinghouse failed to do their part. Plenty of other problems but that was the core issue that caused the project to fail. GA Power continued on with their project at Vogtle. The budget has almost doubled. Started in 2012 with a 2016/2017 completion date. The first unit has completed hot testing, nuclear fuel is onsite and it may start generating in 6-8 months. The second unit is expected about 1 year after that. The, current, major issue is paperwork. They are 3-6 months behind in creating thousands of pages of documentation. This is where one Westinghouse failure gets spotlighted. They were never able to create blueprints fast enough to keep the VC project going and there were errors in the prints. The guys in the field can't build what won't physically fit. When pipes from one module don't match up to pipes in the adjacent module, that's a problem. The field guys would send in the changes and it would take weeks/months to get the revised drawing completed and approved by NRC.

Yes it's expensive. I think that a ton of resources should be pointed at SMR's. Either they will work, be safe and more economical or they won't, let's get that answer. If they work that can solve or reduce many of the transmission/substation problems.

We'll see what happens in the long run with the economics and all other factors on generation options, the power grid and everything else around this issue. It would be nice if politics would stay out of the way and not be a complicating factor. 

[billvon 2,100]

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

The VC Summer plant is near me and has been operating for about 38 years with no significant problems. There have been a few typical issues on the non-nuclear side. One major item was the premature failure of the steam generator. A Westinghouse design flaw.

Yep.  We had a similar problem with San Onofre; the primary heat exchanger failed and started leaking.  It was deemed too expensive to fix (which I disagreed with, but they didn't ask me) and the plant was decommissioned.

Quote

but the fundamental issue was Westinghouse failed to do their part.

An even more fundamental issue was that Westinghouse went bankrupt and could no longer support the project, due in large part to paperwork problems with the design.  Their role was handed over to first Southern Nuclear then Bechtel.  That will cause serious problems for anyone else trying to build an AP-1000.

Quote

I think that a ton of resources should be pointed at SMR's.

Yeah, I am all for supporting such research.  Unfortunately we are a long way from demonstrating effective power production at the scale/reliabiliy of existing BWR's and PWR's - and that money has to come from somewhere.  Which means higher power prices AND unreliable power for decades, at least if nuclear is the focus of expansion of generation in the near future.

[JerryBaumchen 978]

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

The VC Summer plant is near me and has been operating for about 38 years with no significant problems. There have been a few typical issues on the non-nuclear side. One major item was the premature failure of the steam generator. A Westinghouse design flaw. In the original design it was intended to be a lifelong item, one that would never fail. The design had it contained in an area where it could not be replaced. Lucikly an old coal fired plant guy kept insisting that the building be widened saying that nothing ever lasts forever. When this one failed they knocked out the end wall, slipped it out with inches to spare and installed the new one.

Nuclear waste storage has become a non-issue. For many years utility companies paid huge money to the feds to develop a US permanent repository at Yucca mountain. It was never built and the utilities sued to get money back. They solved it with a dry cask system for storage on site. Simple, relatively inexpensive, and it works, and NRC approved.

Then along comes the failure of the Westinghouse AP 1000 project is SC. Tons of details but the fundamental issue was Westinghouse failed to do their part. Plenty of other problems but that was the core issue that caused the project to fail. GA Power continued on with their project at Vogtle. The budget has almost doubled. Started in 2012 with a 2016/2017 completion date. The first unit has completed hot testing, nuclear fuel is onsite and it may start generating in 6-8 months. The second unit is expected about 1 year after that. The, current, major issue is paperwork. They are 3-6 months behind in creating thousands of pages of documentation. This is where one Westinghouse failure gets spotlighted. They were never able to create blueprints fast enough to keep the VC project going and there were errors in the prints. The guys in the field can't build what won't physically fit. When pipes from one module don't match up to pipes in the adjacent module, that's a problem. The field guys would send in the changes and it would take weeks/months to get the revised drawing completed and approved by NRC.

Yes it's expensive. I think that a ton of resources should be pointed at SMR's. Either they will work, be safe and more economical or they won't, let's get that answer. If they work that can solve or reduce many of the transmission/substation problems.

We'll see what happens in the long run with the economics and all other factors on generation options, the power grid and everything else around this issue. It would be nice if politics would stay out of the way and not be a complicating factor. 

Hi Bill,

Re:  Nuclear waste storage has become a non-issue. For many years utility companies paid huge money to the feds to develop a US permanent repository at Yucca mountain. It was never built and the utilities sued to get money back. They solved it with a dry cask system for storage on site. Simple, relatively inexpensive, and it works, and NRC approved.

Same old horse-puckey that we were sold regarding storage at Hanford.  Isn't working now, and probably never will.  Just kick the can down the road, next guy's problem.

Re:  The field guys would send in the changes and it would take weeks/months to get the revised drawing completed and approved by NRC.

In 30-yrs working as an engineer, I have never seen a set of 'as-builts' that were accurate.

Jerry Baumchen

[kallend 1,499]

4 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

Re:  Nuclear waste storage has become a non-issue. For many years utility companies paid huge money to the feds to develop a US permanent repository at Yucca mountain. It was never built and the utilities sued to get money back. They solved it with a dry cask system for storage on site. Simple, relatively inexpensive, and it works, and NRC approved.

Same old horse-puckey that we were sold regarding storage at Hanford.  Isn't working now, and probably never will.  Just kick the can down the road, next guy's problem.

Re:  The field guys would send in the changes and it would take weeks/months to get the revised drawing completed and approved by NRC.

In 30-yrs working as an engineer, I have never seen a set of 'as-builts' that were accurate.

Jerry Baumchen

The 1981 KC Hyatt Regency walkway collapse that killed 114 people is a case study in design miscommunication between the design engineers and the fabricators.

[billeisele 119]

20 hours ago, billvon said:

Yep.  We had a similar problem with San Onofre; the primary heat exchanger failed and started leaking.  It was deemed too expensive to fix (which I disagreed with, but they didn't ask me) and the plant was decommissioned.

Bill - if that one old Ex VP coal plant guy had not insisted on the change to the size of the building it may have been too expensive. The nuke VP was sure that the design would work and there was no need to make any changes.  He was 30 years younger with much less experience. The NRC requires the utility to have a nuke certified person at the Ex level. The pictures of the old steam generator being removed were epic, the coal guy stood there quiet and humble with a big smile on his face. 

It's a 900 MW plant, still rockin' along.

[JerryBaumchen 978]

On 5/19/2022 at 11:11 AM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

The human in me is against nuclear power due to the near costs & the very long-term waste storage costs.

The engineer in me says we should continue doing good research.

Jerry Baumchen

Hi folks,

Nuclear, the 'clean' energy:  Inslee: Feds need to increase nuclear waste cleanup funds - OPB

Jerry Baumchen

[brenthutch 365]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2021/04/20/why-renewables-cause-blackouts-and-increase-vulnerability-to-extreme-weather/?sh=1490e9ef4e75

[JoeWeber 2,068]

25 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2021/04/20/why-renewables-cause-blackouts-and-increase-vulnerability-to-extreme-weather/?sh=1490e9ef4e75

As you have mentioned previously, we have 100 years of "cheap" fossil fuels in the ground and AGW is an anti-food, anti-salubrious, anti-poor person farce. Let's give you all of that and promise to quit pointing out that you don't have a job. So, then what? It's 2122 and we are out of oil and shit out of luck. Is your plan to find another 100 years of salubrium?

[ryoder 1,194]

On 5/18/2022 at 2:38 PM, billvon said:

The AP-1000 Gen IV reactors going in at Vogtle were supposed to be first concrete to fuel load in 36 months.  They've been working on them for 20 years now and they're still not operating.

Third nuclear reactor reaches 100% power output at Georgia’s Plant Vogtle

Didn't think I'd ever see news like this again in the US.

[billvon 2,100]

52 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Third nuclear reactor reaches 100% power output at Georgia’s Plant Vogtle

That's good news.  

Total time from start of planning to full power was 20 years, 1 month.  They will have to get that down to far less than that for nuclear to be a significant factor in the next two decades.

Total time for a 500 megawatt solar installation is around 6 years, and total time for large battery storage of similar scale systems is 3-4 years.

[billeisele 119]

With Vogtle starting up we have a much better idea of the actual cost. The initial budget more than doubled. The last number I recall seeing was in the $30+B range. Same was true for the SCE&G project that failed. SC was about $12.5 billion, GA was about $1.5B higher, initially. That was due to the beginning site conditions. SCE&G had a pre-planned site and location for a substation, GA did not. They had to make one.

No doubt that the collapse of Westinghouse and the bad performance of the main contractors had a huge impact on both projects.

I hope there will be documentary on the GA project.

Another interesting fact is that (I believe) Southern Company is now the sole US owner of blueprints for an operational plant. When Westinghouse nuke folded, Southern was forced to take over that task. 

[JerryBaumchen 978]

13 hours ago, billeisele said:

With Vogtle starting up we have a much better idea of the actual cost. The initial budget more than doubled. The last number I recall seeing was in the $30+B range. Same was true for the SCE&G project that failed. SC was about $12.5 billion, GA was about $1.5B higher, initially. That was due to the beginning site conditions. SCE&G had a pre-planned site and location for a substation, GA did not. They had to make one.

No doubt that the collapse of Westinghouse and the bad performance of the main contractors had a huge impact on both projects.

I hope there will be documentary on the GA project.

Another interesting fact is that (I believe) Southern Company is now the sole US owner of blueprints for an operational plant. When Westinghouse nuke folded, Southern was forced to take over that task. 

Hi Bill,

Re:  With Vogtle starting up we have a much better idea of the actual cost.

The start-up costs are nowhere near the total costs of a nuke plant.

Dealing with the waste nearly forever makes nukes not worth the money to build/operate them.

Jerry Baumchen

Energy Northwest - Wikipedia

[billvon 2,100]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

The start-up costs are nowhere near the total costs of a nuke plant.

Dealing with the waste nearly forever makes nukes not worth the money to build/operate them.

They are indeed the most expensive plants out there to operate.  However, I think they have a role in generation of base load power (i.e. 20-25% of our peak power.)  In addition, one of the problems with nuclear (difficulty load following) is eliminated by the large amounts of battery storage going in.  Now the plants can be run at 100% almost all the time, with the energy being stored for later peaks.

[ryoder 1,194]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Dealing with the waste nearly forever makes nukes not worth the money to build/operate them.

Ever heard of recycling nuclear waste?

 

[JerryBaumchen 978]

40 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Ever heard of recycling nuclear waste?

 

Hi Robert,

And, how much of the waste that we have today, is being used again?

Today, throughout the world, we are creating more nuclear waste than is being used for anything else.

We cannot continue to do this.

Jerry Baumchen

Edited May 30 by JerryBaumchen

[billvon 2,100]

25 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

And, how much of the waste that we have today, is being used again?

France is currently running on 10% MOX (mixed-oxide fuel - basically recycled nuclear waste) and is going to 30% within 10 years.  All US reactors could use 50% MOX right now.  Some US reactors and all Canadian reactors can use 100% MOX.

[billvon 2,100]

I just noticed this from Renvu:

=====================

Tier 1 Solar Modules Price Update

 

 

 

 

Hi william, We updated our Commercial Price List with multiple Tier 1 options. Pricing is being pushed below $0.40/W, especially for larger projects. You can check out the live spreadsheet here. We also added a clearance tab for SolarEdge, Enphase, Q Cells, and more. Here are a few modules from our price list that might catch your interest: GreenWatts 550W Made in America (a part of Tier 1 HT-SAAE brand) Module - as low as $0.375/W Emmvee 440W BOB Residential Module - as low as $0.398/W ZnShine 550W Module - as low as $0.398/W Mission Solar 395W Module - as low as $0.549/W Hyundai 395W Module - as low as $0.375/W

=====================

That means you can get all the panels for a 10 megawatt system for under $4 million new.  A USED 10 megawatt gas turbine/generator goes for $3 million these days.