EcoModder.com

EcoModder.com (https://ecomodder.com/forum/)
-   Fossil Fuel Free (https://ecomodder.com/forum/fossil-fuel-free.html)
-   -   Nuclear Power Output Steadily Climbing Worldwide (https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/nuclear-power-output-steadily-climbing-worldwide-36723.html)

gone-ot 08-17-2018 02:17 PM

Nuclear Power Output Steadily Climbing Worldwide
 
ē source: https://insights.globalspec.com/arti...ding-worldwide

Ecky 08-17-2018 03:42 PM

I'd read recently that nuclear power is increasingly more expensive than its alternatives. I appreciate that it's clean, mind you, and *can* be very safe.

While nuclear energy may be on the rise, the chart shows we are marginally lower than we were 18 years ago. I guess the big dip was related to Fukushima?

oil pan 4 08-17-2018 04:49 PM

Saying that solar is cheaper than nuclear is just creative lieing.
Solar costs about $1 per watt to install. Nuclear also costs about the same. Looking at capacity only is stupid since solar only produces near rated power for 4 or 5 hours a day, but if you double the budget, put the panels on trackers you might get 6 or 7 hours of good production.
The true cost is per watt hour, not installed capacity.
On a per kwh basis solar costs as little as double that of nuclear, but is typically 3 to 5 times the cost of nuclear.

redpoint5 08-17-2018 09:07 PM

The more important question isn't if nuclear is growing in absolute terms, but instead relative to overall demand. In other words, is nuclear comprising a larger percentage of overall power production?

To add to Oil Pan's point of cost of producing kWh, the other factor just as important is producing that energy when it's needed. Production must match demand at all times.

roosterk0031 08-17-2018 09:15 PM

Shutting down the only nuclear plant early in Iowa because wind is cheaper. 2 or so years ago Mid-American announced the largest wind farm in Iowa at that point 3.2 billion, the CEO was on the radio the next day and said it was almost all tax dollars.

oil pan 4 08-17-2018 09:45 PM

Commercial nuclear power reactors use low enriched uranium, they like to be ran at 90% to 100% of rated power.
If operators try to throttle the nuclear reaction down the reactor can spontaneously shut down and not want to restart for hours.
So when a nuclear reactor is running you have to run it at full power non stop.
There are options that allow for throttled nuclear power but they either are not developed or really expenses, such as molten thorium salt or using reactor fuel with higher enriched uranium content. But "premium" nuclear fuel is really expensive.

rmay635703 08-17-2018 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oil pan 4 (Post 576291)
Commercial nuclear power reactors use low enriched

There are options that allow for throttled nuclear power but they either are not developed or really expenses, such as molten thorium salt or using reactor fuel with higher enriched uranium content. But "premium" nuclear fuel is really expensive.

MSR is 99 times more efficient than traditional fission, I would think that throwing a bit of fuel away to maintain baseline is cheaper than power cycling
Further fuel cost is usually a very small cost at a nuclear plant.

Something truly deplorable is that US power plants throw away 60% of their energy into rivers, water bodies or the air when hot water can be cheaply transported hundreds of miles to houses that need it. Over 90% of power plants are within 25 miles of population centers

The hot water generated by one small MW plant is enough to heat 300 homes or enough to provide potable hot water to 3000 homes and waste heat can be used to generate AC

Too bad the US lacks the will to do what Europe has done for years exporting hot water.

oil pan 4 08-17-2018 11:42 PM

Traditional fission only uses 5 to 10% of the fissile fuel.
Since the waste builds up in the fuel pile.
With thorium salt it's possible to remove the waste isotopes, mainly iodine 131, that's the one that builds up and shuts down current commercial power reactors.

California98Civic 08-17-2018 11:56 PM

Any real cost analysis will take into account the costs of mining, transport, and waste/pollution mitigation. I hardly think nuclear is so cheap, when we consider the utter lack of solutions for storage of spent fuel. It will be deadly to humans millions of years from now wherever we put it. That should be solved better before new development of nuclear power takes place.

oil pan 4 08-18-2018 12:06 AM

It's not deadly for millions of years.
When recycled the actual waste isotopes are very dangerous for the first 40 years.
After as little as 100 years stable element isotopes like iridium, platinum, rhodium could be extracted from the waste and used commercially.

Plutonium has a half life of something like 88,000 it could be dangerous for millions of years but plutonium is fuel, not waste.

sendler 08-18-2018 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oil pan 4 (Post 576280)
Saying that solar is cheaper than nuclear is just creative lieing.
Solar costs about $1 per watt to install. Nuclear also costs about the same.

Solar grid scale farms in the USA completed in 2015 are still running at $3.30/ watt to build. Nameplate capacity. Actual capacity factor is 25%. Worldwide it is 20%.
.
We are totally blowing it by not developing GenIV nuclear with an all in international commitment.

oil pan 4 08-18-2018 09:15 AM

Well I did say most of them fall into the 3 to 5 dollar per watt range.
The only place where they do it for near $1 per watt is where most of what the solar power company needs is already in place. Acres of bare roof top, facilities with multi mega watt power service already connected.
Connecting aground up built wind or solar farm to the grid can soak up between 1/3 and 2/3 of the budget.

Too many people completely ignorant and terrorified
of nuclear power in charge and voting to advance gen 4.

I think if we had gen 4 reactors up and running we would be running away from gen 3 as if they all were blowing up like fukushima.

rmay635703 08-18-2018 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by California98Civic (Post 576300)
Any real cost analysis will take into account the costs of mining, transport, and waste/pollution mitigation. I hardly think nuclear is so cheap, when we consider the utter lack of solutions for storage of spent fuel. .

MSR Thorium make 99% less spent fuel than traditional fission
Further MAR reactors can use spent fuel rods from other reactors as apart of its fuel.

And the waste from MSR is suitable for passive nuclear power systems until it degrades.

Too bad the stuff we did in the 50ís is too complex for us today.

sendler 08-18-2018 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmay635703 (Post 576326)
MSR Thorium make 99% less spent fuel than traditional fission
Further MAR reactors can use spent fuel rods from other reactors as apart of its fuel.

Is also able to run on depleted uranium stocks that we have already sitting around.

California98Civic 08-18-2018 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmay635703 (Post 576326)
MSR Thorium make 99% less spent fuel than traditional fission
Further MAR reactors can use spent fuel rods from other reactors as apart of its fuel.

And the waste from MSR is suitable for passive nuclear power systems until it degrades.

Too bad the stuff we did in the 50ís is too complex for us today.

That's fine, if we can be certain they will use such fuel. But the total costs still need to be part of any comparison. And I mean an actuarial risk assessment of possible meltdown or other failures. We should be skeptical of any industry claim of safety without cross examination. I live beside a reactor built on the same design as the Fukushima plant. It is on the beach. A few mikes from some of the most destructive potional off shore faults in the USA. Like Fukushima, it has a completely inadequate sea wall. Yet, like Fukushima, GE insisted it was completely safe. And the power company insisted it was completely safe even after leaks were detected. I want iron clad proof that such facilities, whatever the industry claims, and in some case whatever regularots claim, is safe and that we know exactly what we will do with all of the almost eternally deadly waste. Until then, I am absolutely opposed to further nuclear plant development. I realize some of you are excited about the tech, but I don't trust the companies or the regulators. And everything I own and everything I love is in their path. I don't trust they give enough of a damn about me, mine, and my people.

rmay635703 08-18-2018 05:12 PM

Depleted Uranium many times has a lot of Thorium in the mix, MSR works best with a lot of Thorium .

MSR Thorium reactors canít melt down,
The reaction is dependent on being inside the containment vessel to continue,
If the salt breaks through containment it looses critical mass to continue reaction.

MSR Truly is better in every way, too bad the military minds in the 50ís felt the only purpose of a nuclear plant was to make fuel for warheads which MSR cannot do.

I recommend reading the book
SUPERFUEL
On this subject if you want a balanced view of the history on why we use inferior reactors today.

oil pan 4 08-18-2018 05:58 PM

Molten salt thorium reactors can't melt down.
When they get too hot the molten salt loses density, less density and you lose criticality and the fission reaction slows and stops.
The DoE figured out at least this much by the 1960s.

Pressurized water reactor waste isn't dangerous for "eternity" when it's recycled. Once the unwanted waste is separated from the fuel the waste is highly dangerous for about 40 years.
Raw nuclear waste is so dangerous because it's still contains around 90% useable uranium and plutonium fuel.
So when the fuel is recycled the waste is reduced by around 90% and whats left over doesn't stay dangerous for thousands of years.
Once the fuel and waste are separated there is a lot less of it and the waste is a lot safer to handle, store and get rid of.

California98Civic 08-19-2018 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oil pan 4 (Post 576361)
Molten salt thorium reactors can't melt down.
When they get too hot the molten salt loses density, less density and you lose criticality and the fission reaction slows and stops.
The DoE figured out at least this much by the 1960s.

Pressurized water reactor waste isn't dangerous for "eternity" when it's recycled. Once the unwanted waste is separated from the fuel the waste is highly dangerous for about 40 years.
Raw nuclear waste is so dangerous because it's still contains around 90% useable uranium and plutonium fuel.
So when the fuel is recycled the waste is reduced by around 90% and whats left over doesn't stay dangerous for thousands of years.
Once the fuel and waste are separated there is a lot less of it and the waste is a lot safer to handle, store and get rid of.

I just wanna see that demonstrated in detail at legnth before public hearings with input from independent professionals. If they have a safe technology they should make the case. But even if they do, these power companies and the corporations that built the reactors have a public responsibility to clean up their mess: there are spent fuel rods all over the country (the world!) sitting at reactor sites. We the tax payers and rate payers should not be billed for it's cleanup. These companies should pay, and they should get no new plants, no matter what the tech, until they do. If corporations are going to have first amendment rights now, then they have greater responsibilities too. I cannot turn my house into a deadly dump and then abandon it for the government to clean up without consequences. Corporations not be able to either. All this is part of the "cost" of future nuke development in my mind.

It is important to note too that there are significant problems with solar and wind power generation too, just of different types, and not nearly as severe as Cold War nukes. When you put thousands of acres of shade creating panels out in a desert, you can dramatically change the soil and habitat of the desert (for example)

We have to use less energy and do more with it. Isn't that sorta an ecomodder mantra?

oil pan 4 08-19-2018 06:12 PM

No one will fund molten salt reactors.
The DoE is still set on using reactors that breed nuclear fuel for weapons. The entire nuclear industry is designed around this.
Molten salt doesn't have to use fuel rods.

I live in the desert and most animals crave shade during the day. If a lizard, snake or bunny has the choice they will seek shade by the hottest point of the day.
I think most solar panels should be owned by people.
If people put solar on their roof tops there is no desert land scape to alter, no tranamission lines to build, no transmission losses.

redpoint5 08-19-2018 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by California98Civic (Post 576335)
I want iron clad proof that such facilities, whatever the industry claims, and in some case whatever regularots claim, is safe and that we know exactly what we will do with all of the almost eternally deadly waste. Until then, I am absolutely opposed to further nuclear plant development.

There is no such certainty for any technology to be 100% safe. The reason companies don't have to prove things to us customers, but instead must prove their designs with a regulatory agency is because there will always be people among us that are opposed to something, regardless of how safe or beneficial it is to people. You might be opposed to nuclear, but you basically have no say in the matter, though you're free to move wherever you want.

As you mentioned, every technology poses their own risks. It turns out nuclear has been among the least deadly methods of producing power. The Fukushima meltdown killed 0 people directly, and so far an estimated 0 people due to elevated radiation exposure. 70% of residents are cleared to move back into the city.

This isn't an excuse to allow for poor design in the future, but we need to be realistic about risk when making decisions. Despite these poorly engineered reactors that were based on 1950's technology, we've had relatively minor loss of life and environmental damage. Certainly orders of magnitude less loss of life and environmental damage than fossil fuels and coal.

I agree that any proposal for new nuclear plants should undergo rigorous scrutiny. The problem is that conversation doesn't even happen because anti-nuke sentiment is so strong with people that they don't want to even hear it. That's fine though. CA can continue to have among the most expensive electricity in the nation. Who cares that high utility rates have an outsized negative impact on low income families in the state with the largest population?

oil pan 4 08-19-2018 08:58 PM

Old reactor designs are built around "nothing bad will ever happen" new designs are built around lessons learned with the ones that did fail.
They include more passive safety devices and designs, less pumps, fewer valves, fewer moving parts in general, more instrumentation to warn of trouble.
The most interesting design is the reactor flood reservoir.
The idea is they build the reactor kind of under ground and build a sealed lake on top of it. If it goes bad the reactor containment dome is flooded, thus no melt down, no steam or hydrogen explosions.
All that could be avoided with molten salt reactors.

If California wants to pay 50 cents a kwh for solar power and wind power that's been transmitted half way across the country I say let them.
They are going to make west texas and eastern NM wind tycoons the next mega billionaires buying all that wind power.

cRiPpLe_rOoStEr 08-20-2018 12:48 AM

When the first Brazilian nuke powerplant was installed in Angra dos Reis, the Brazilian Navy started to plan safety measures and even set a nuclear emergency department on its main hospital in Rio de Janeiro. Despite the only serious nuclear emergency to have ever happened in Brazil being the Cesium-137 leakage in Goi‚nia in '87, there is still some fierce opposition to nukes in the country (plus hydro power is widespread throughout the country). But anyway, nukes would be the last option if I were the one choosing some power supply.

oil pan 4 08-20-2018 02:35 AM

We are past the point of building more dams in the US.
I like hydro power, aside from the huge death toll it has incurred over the last half century, cheap power is nice.

NeilBlanchard 08-20-2018 01:01 PM

What happened to "too cheap to meter"?

redpoint5 08-20-2018 01:04 PM

We haven't figured out how to do what the Sun does without thinking.

gone-ot 08-20-2018 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redpoint5 (Post 576536)
We haven't figured out how to do what the Sun does without thinking.

Oh, we can do what the Sun does so easily, it's just that OUR 'moments-in-the-Sun' (Hiroshima, Nagasaki) only EXISTED for fractions of a second...and...ended in "mushroom clouds." Making it happen is easy (relatively), it's the controlling it that's troublesome.

redpoint5 08-21-2018 12:25 AM

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fission bombs. I'm saying the sun provides useful fusion energy in just about the ideal amount for humans to benefit, and does so without thinking. We've yet to create beneficial fusion energy.

seifrob 08-21-2018 01:40 AM

If I recall correctly, nuclear fusion gives so much byproduct heat that we would boil the Earth. With global warming that bad now, I am only glad we do not produce "cheap power for everyone".
There is nothing like "zero impact power". Even hydro can be bad (say "Three Gorges Dam").

I see it from the perspective of a densely populated country in central Europe, and see that nuclear is the least impacting form for mass production of electricity. wind is fine, solar is fine, hydro is fine, but you cannot make your country rely on that. Plus, more solar farms, less fields is the equation here.

As californiacivic said, the key is to consume less, to produce more effectively.

Ecky 08-21-2018 06:43 AM

As usual, I find myself agreeing strongly with redpoint5. I can sympathize with californiacivic, but ultimately nuclear provides cheap, clean energy which has statistically been among the least harmful ways to generate electricity.

Having worked for fossil fuel plants, it was enlightening to learn that they regularly test the soil and water around the plant to ensure everything has "safe" levels of mercury, cadmium and lead, which are released from their stacks. I'd far rather live near a nuclear reactor than a coal or oil plant, or even gas turbine. Of course, I'd rather live near none of these and rely more on hydro and rooftop solar/wind...

sendler 08-21-2018 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ecky (Post 576605)
Of course, I'd rather live near none of these and rely more on hydro and rooftop solar/wind...

But the density is not anywhere near the same scale especially when you throw in solar and windfarm capacity factors of 25%. Or less for rooftop. Germany's vast solar buildout averages 11%. How cost effective is that? Not including the cost of ever adding storage at TeraWatt hour scales.

Ecky 08-21-2018 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sendler (Post 576607)
But the density is not anywhere near the same scale especially when you throw in solar and windfarm capacity factors of 25%. Or less for rooftop. Germany's vast solar buildout averages 11%. How cost effective is that? Not including the cost of ever adding storage at TeraWatt hour scales.

Of course. Rooftop solar is never going to power LA or NYC. Rural areas with abundant sunlight can get away with getting most of their energy needs from these sources, but it isn't a solution for dense cities.

sendler 08-21-2018 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ecky (Post 576608)
Of course. Rooftop solar is never going to power LA or NYC. Rural areas with abundant sunlight can get away with getting most of their energy needs from these sources, but it isn't a solution for dense cities.

And this would be only local use for lighting, ect. And intermittent. Which is only a very small part of total energy consumption of society when you consider all of the embodied energy in the food production and infrastructure, ect. all around us.

cRiPpLe_rOoStEr 08-22-2018 03:55 AM

Sure, rooftop solar and those roof-mounted wind turbines won't solve the problem in a densely-populated area, but their potential to decrease the dependence on other sources should not be disconsidered at all.

oil pan 4 08-22-2018 05:50 AM

I want beta voltaics.
Just think a battery that lasts 60 to 100 years.
Apparently they don't just sell these to anyone, must be worried some one is going to build their own powered iron man armor.

teoman 08-23-2018 04:41 AM

From wikipedia : In 2018 a Russian design based on 2-micron thick nickel-63 slabs sandwiched between 10 micron diamond layers was introduced. It produced power output of about 1 microWatt (μW) at a power density of 10 μW/cm3. Its energy density was 3.3 kilowatt-hours/kg. The half-life of nickel-63 is 100 years.

So for 1 kg you get 3300 wh of total energy. But you can only extract that during 100 years. Or do they have some kind of throttlig mechanism to increase power output.

From my understanding if a battery is a jug with a tap on it this thing is a barrel with a tiny hole in it.

oil pan 4 08-23-2018 05:03 AM

These use natural decay.
Over 100 years the power output declines to half of what it was originally.
You can decrease output if you don't need it, but the excess power is wasted. If you use less power the battery doesn't degrade any slower or last longer.

teoman 08-23-2018 06:21 AM

The power density is pretty low. So you would need several tonnes of this.

But then you are good to go untill the end of your life :)

cRiPpLe_rOoStEr 08-23-2018 12:57 PM

Not sure if I would consider it a battery, since it doesn't seem to be able to hold externally-generated energy


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com