Nuclear power: is it the future?

djpbarry · 06-12-2013 2:48pm

georgesstreet wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

Sure you do, but you’d rather just avoid the question again.

It's an unusual tactic to accuse your interlocutor of lying.

Thank you for illustrating my point beautifully.

Capt'n Midnight · 06-12-2013 8:34pm

georgesstreet wrote: »

I don't imagine 50 years ago you would have been expecting anything so earth shattering as, for example, the internet, to have been invented. It may well be that other inventions will make nuclear obsolete, or make it better.

Inventions and progress are not, fortunately, limited by our individual subjective expectations.

What new technology has come out of nuclear in the last 50 years ?

There are no commercial pebble bed reactors. ( AVR 1960, THTR-300 )
There are no commercial molten salt reactors. ( 1964 )
There are no commercial thorium / U233 reactors. ( Shipping Point )
There are no commercial small sealed unit reactors. ( many/most US naval reactors )

All of these technologies haven been tried.

Americans Astronauts still hitch a lift to space on a modified 1957 ICBM. Todays 737's still use the same fuselage section as the 1957 Boeing 707, many of the improvements in efficinecy are due to new lighter materials being available and better computer design. The point here is that there are other areas where billions are being spent chasing small improvments on 1950's technology and no one is promising anything other than small increments in performance. And like liquid fuelled rockets and jet aircraft, nuclear reactors are mature products, as in yes there is room for improvement but it's really a case of diminishing returns.

Boeing promised that it's sonic cruiser airliner would save 15% journey time. But they didn't advertise loudly that half of that would come from buying better landing slots rather than from the technical improvements.

In the 1950's PV was a curiosity until someone realised you could use it to power a satellite for far longer than batteries. Germany is installing 7GW of PV a year. In the first half of this year the UK installed 802MW of PV. Prices for PV panels are expected to fall to $0.36 per watt in the next four years. Nuclear is $8.125 per watt. ($26Bn/3.2GW)

We know solar will get cheaper because of all the developments waiting to be commercialised. Similarly with LED lighting.

19% of global electricity is used for lighting. Moving from incandescent bulbs to CFL / Led / Halide will most of that. More than the 11% nuclear provides. Super insulating houses, and hot water tanks and fridges and overs would possibly save as much again.

Nuclear just isn't needed because we could easily reduce the demand over the next decade instead of spending the time and money trying to supply that demand.

Here's a new one, Osmotic power. 5 years ago it was a curiosity.
http://www.statkraft.com/energy-sources/osmotic-power/qa/

When freshwater and seawater meet on either side of a membrane, the natural phenomenon of osmosis will cause the freshwater to be drawn towards the seawater side. The membrane only allows freshwater to flow trough and stop the saltwater. Thus creating a pressure on the seawater side that can be used to drive a turbine. The pressure is 12 BAR, equivalent to a 120-metre waterfall.
...
The prototype will be in operation for 2-3 years, the next phase is a 1-2 MW pilot facility, before we build a full-scale facility, if viable. The ambition is to build a full-scale osmotic power plant in 2015.
...
, osmotic power has a global potential of 1600-1700 TWh annually, or equivalent to 50 per cent of current power production in the EU. The potential is approx. 180 TWh in Europe and 12 TWh in Norway.

Nuclear provided 2346TWh world wide in 2012. I don't have the costs but if they can build a full scale plant in just two years then there is the possibility that 2/3rd's of existing nuclear plants could be replaced by a new dispatchable renewable source instead of refurbishing the reactors and steam pipes.

Tidal and wave power are still too expensive but they are obvious sources of power to tap into and the question remains would they be more economic than nuclear by the time a nuclear plant was built and paid for itself ?
http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/Ocean_Energy/Ocean_Energy_Information_Research/Irelands_Wave_and_Tidal_Energy_Resources/

Mahatma Geansai · 06-12-2013 9:59pm

While I find nuclear inherently interesting, fission is only a short-term solution to a long term problem. Fusion is the grail, but we are unlikely to see commercial fusion become available for generations in a best case scenario. If we can't rely on nuclear being the future, where do we turn?

Exploitation of our natural Wind/Ocean/Hydro resources will become a large part of any energy mix going forward, and their stochastic nature will drive research into energy storage techniques. The near guaranteed solar resource in equatorial regions will have to be used, but do we proceed to tap this resource with high-efficiency solar PV cells containing rare elements, or do we choose a more simple approach by using solar thermal energy to run steam turbines to provide electricity.

Liquid hydrogen produced through electrolysis with electricity provided by cheap renewable sources would be able to assume oil's position in the current economy. It could be used in combustion engines in the transport sector and for meeting peak electricity demands without massive alteration of existing infrastructure. Am I missing something?

Capt'n Midnight · 06-12-2013 11:12pm

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

While I find nuclear inherently interesting, fission is only a short-term solution to a long term problem. Fusion is the grail, but we are unlikely to see commercial fusion become available for generations in a best case scenario. If we can't rely on nuclear being the future, where do we turn?

we only 'rely' on nuclear for 11% of electricity. It doesn't provide process heat or space / water heating or chemical energy or energy for transport.

Nuclear provided 2,346TWh world wide in 2012.
Global energy use is in the order of 132,000 TWh

Nuclear provides ~1.8% of our energy.
We have ~70 years reserves of easy uranium at current usage.
The global uranium reserves would power the planet for about 15 months.

Remember that when people talk about producing hydrogen by thermal splitting of water in reactors. Or even massive expansion of nuclear.

Peak uranium is also about the energy required to extract the stuff relative to the amount it could produce.

Exploitation of our natural Wind/Ocean/Hydro resources will become a large part of any energy mix going forward, and their stochastic nature will drive research into energy storage techniques. The near guaranteed solar resource in equatorial regions will have to be used, but do we proceed to tap this resource with high-efficiency solar PV cells containing rare elements, or do we choose a more simple approach by using solar thermal energy to run steam turbines to provide electricity.

Forget the equator. Solar is cheap. We have up to 18 hours of sunlight during the summer. Oddly enough we don't get a lot of wave power here in summer.

Liquid hydrogen produced through electrolysis with electricity provided by cheap renewable sources would be able to assume oil's position in the current economy. It could be used in combustion engines in the transport sector and for meeting peak electricity demands without massive alteration of existing infrastructure. Am I missing something?

yes.

hydrogen is just an energy store. you could use liquid nitrogen, silicon, boron or aluminium too. And they are easier to handle , and need far less storage volume what with hydrogen being the lightest gas 0.1g/L ( a car's petrol tank pressurised to car tyre pressures wouldn't even hold one ounce ) and lightest liquid 1/10th that of water.

hydrogen is a very inefficient way to store energy. You'd loose 10% of the energy just liquifying it. It's the second leakiest gas - expect up to 1% losses a day for small light tanks in vehicles.

by far the easiest thing to do with it is to pump it into the natural gas grid. Up to 5% into the present system with no changes, the Germans and Dutch are looking into the possibility of 15% - 20% mixes.

Another option is to reform it into something like methanol. Indy Car ( Indianapolis 500 etc.) have been using it instead of petrol since 1965 for safety reasons. methanol can be used in fuel cells too

georgesstreet · 07-12-2013 1:38pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Nuclear just isn't needed because we could easily reduce the demand over the next decade instead of spending the time and money trying to supply that demand.

It seems a mystery why the UK, and so many countries, seem to disagree with your conclusion. Whether we like it or not nuclear seems to be here for the present, and for the forseeable future.

georgesstreet · 07-12-2013 1:43pm

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

The near guaranteed solar resource in equatorial regions will have to be used,

This resource has been used for a long time in Africa, South America, Asia and elsewhere, and is a brilliant use of the technology, a cheap mass produced solution to heat water for individual houses.

Macha · 07-12-2013 2:33pm

georgesstreet wrote: »

It seems a mystery why the UK, and so many countries, seem to disagree with your conclusion. Whether we like it or not nuclear seems to be here for the present, and for the forseeable future.

The people making the decision about nuclear is the government and a particular part of that government - the Tories, although the Lib Dems have recently changed their policy (conveniently timed...). Tories, as a rule, don't like renewables.

What exactly is in it for the Tories? I don't know. We all know politicians like mega-projects they can point to as successes, rather than something less sexy like energy savings schemes. They've also played heavily on 'the lights will go out' fears in the UK to show that this project is needed (how a plant that will open in 2023 at the earliest helps this is beyond me..).

It has been described as economic lunacy by mainstream energy analysts and we know they've been playing tricks to make it look cheaper (hide the loan, hide the decommissioning costs, put in loopholes for price increases). One blatant move they made was to give solar a far higher CfD price than the solar industry wants - why? They can say that nuclear is cheaper based on these subisdy levels.

The politics of the UK nuclear projects aren't something I fully understand but it's also part of the French government's efforts to shore up heavily indebted EDF by €39bn (mostly owned by the French state) and Areva (ditto).

Despite the UK media, it's important to note that the vast majority of British are in favour of renewables (76% in a recent government survey). Their papers are also bordering on climate-skeptic.

hungry hippo 4 · 07-12-2013 2:39pm

I think nuclear has proven far too uncontrollable! When it goes wrong it is catastrophic.

Capt'n Midnight · 07-12-2013 4:05pm

georgesstreet wrote: »

It seems a mystery why the UK, and so many countries, seem to disagree with your conclusion. Whether we like it or not nuclear seems to be here for the present, and for the forseeable future.

It's a mystery why the UK are investing in something that provides base load power at half the wholesale rate.

A reminder, if needed, that the wholesale price includes premium rates for peaking plants

Our wholesale price is here http://www.sem-o.com/Pages/default.aspx

Blue line is the wholesale price.
Base price is a little over €30/MWh - nuclear has to run 24/7 so they have to suck up and take it. Fossil fuel can take it or leave it.
For most of the day the price is €50/MWh - this is the bread and butter for dispatchable plants. Nuclear is NOT dispatchable because it's already running for 80-90% of the time (assuming it isn't off line for 3 days because of a scram)

Yes the peak price of €275 is above the UK nuclear of £92.5. But nuclear can't get this because it's already running at peak output. For fossil fuel and Turlough hill / Hydro this is the jam doughnut, this is where the profits come from.

2nd Dec - Wind 250MW

A week later it's changed - this is what's predicted for tomorrow.

8th Dec Predicted wind 1,250MW

The peak is no longer €275 it's just €120 so the margins would be a lot lower for the peaking plants. In summer when demand is lower wind just steps in and removes the peak.

Now with reference to the above explain how we could justify paying €110 / MWh 24/7 365 when it may net even match the peak price at peak daily demand in the middle of winter.

Hinkley C is based on the assumption that gas prices will go up by 127% ie. 2.27 times today's price in order to justify twice the wholesale rate. In the US prices fell to a quarter of what they were.

Here fossil fuel will only supply 60% of our power by 2020 because renewables. So overall fossil price would have to go up to 3.6 times today's price to double our electricity price, and Hinkley C still won't be on line until a few years later.

http://www.eirgrid.com/media/AnnualRenewablePressRelease.pdf

Thursday 28 November, 2013 - Ireland is making good progress towards meeting its
target of 40% renewable electricity generation by 2020, according to a new report
published by EirGrid Group today.
The EirGrid Group Annual Renewable Report 2013 shows that 17% of the island’s
electricity demand was met from renewables in 2012 – this comprised 18% in Ireland
and 13% in Northern Ireland.
...
No other synchronous electricity system of scale manages the same levels of
instantaneous wind penetration levels (50%) seen at times today in Ireland and
Northern Ireland, and no other synchronous power system is aiming to safely and
securely manage real-time wind generation penetration levels of 75% by 2020.

The Portuguese may argue about the latter point

but if wind can provide up to 75% of our power there guaranteed demand for base load falls to just 25% and with it much of the justification for price support for 24/7 nuclear.

General info on Germany's move from Nuclear to renewables
NB. it explains that new coal plants were provided to replace older less efficient ones and that they'll save 25% of coal usage (and CO2) by doing this. And besides they stopped new coal projects before the 2008 recession, anything since is just what was in the pipeline then. And they've gotten rid of nuclear. And overall emissions have gone down. And the wholesale price has fallen.
http://blog.rmi.org/separating_fact_from_fiction_in_accounts_of_germanys_renewables_revolution

Have a look at our coal usage here. It's gone down. I'd say in part that it's an indicator that we need lass base load because of renewables.

Spain and UK are naughty.
http://www.renewablesinternational.net/europes-coal-renaissance-the-end-is-nigh/150/537/60687/

the current slight increase is largely driven by three temporary effects: 1) UK plants racing to make money before the minimum carbon tax takes effect; 2) Spanish coal subsidies, which are to be phased out at the end of 2014; and 3) the gap temporarily left behind by German nuclear plants
future policy changes at the EU level and at the level of member states (coal taxes in Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UK, for instance) will remove a lot more coal capacity than is added

djpbarry · 07-12-2013 4:34pm

georgesstreet wrote: »

It seems a mystery why the UK, and so many countries, seem to disagree with your conclusion.

The UK spends about £37 billion every year on defence - is the fact that most other countries in the world don't spend anything close to that on their defense budgets also a mystery?

georgesstreet · 10-12-2013 3:25pm

Macha wrote: »

The politics of the UK nuclear projects aren't something I fully understand but it's also part of the French government's efforts to shore up heavily indebted EDF by €39bn (mostly owned by the French state) and Areva (ditto).

Despite the UK media, it's important to note that the vast majority of British are in favour of renewables (76% in a recent government survey). Their papers are also bordering on climate-skeptic.

Many countries rely on nuclear in their energy mix, and not just the UK. We may not like that, but it's a fact.

100% of the British are in favour of a policy which keeps the lights on and Industry having enough power to keep their wages paid. (It seems particularly stupid that they could not rig the questions in your survey to get more than 76% saying they are "in favour of renewables" - who could be actually "against" renewables? )

Macha · 10-12-2013 4:11pm

georgesstreet wrote: »

Many countries rely on nuclear in their energy mix, and not just the UK. We may not like that, but it's a fact.

I think a better way to phrase it is 'Many countries choose to rely on nuclear in their energy mix'. But actually, the share of nuclear is dropping globally - it now provides less than 15% of global electricity production, or 4.5% of global primary energy production:

http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Executive-summary-conclusions.html

georgesstreet wrote: »

100% of the British are in favour of a policy which keeps the lights on and Industry having enough power to keep their wages paid. (It seems particularly stupid that they could not rig the questions in your survey to get more than 76% saying they are "in favour of renewables" - who could be actually "against" renewables? )

70% is the European average so I'm not sure why you see the 76% result as a negative. If they'd 'rigged' the question, I'm sure they would be attacked for that as well.

I suppose they could also have asked the question 'would you be in favour of subsidising an outdated technology at double the current wholesale market price, index-linked for 35 years, plus giving that technology a government-backed loan and covering decommissioning costs while alternative technologies costs continue to drop every year, and are on track to be far, far cheaper than this technology by the time the subsidies kick in?' but they didn't.

georgesstreet · 10-12-2013 5:14pm

Macha wrote: »

I think a better way to phrase it is 'Many countries choose to rely on nuclear in their energy mix'. But actually, the share of nuclear is dropping globally - it now provides less than 15% of global electricity production, or 4.5% of global primary energy production:

15% of all energy production seems quite a lot to me, and shows how important nuclear "still" is in terms of global power generation.

Macha wrote: »

70% is the European average so I'm not sure why you see the 76% result as a negative. If they'd 'rigged' the question, I'm sure they would be attacked for that as well.

I suppose I am less impressed than you appear to be about relying on surveys, and know well how a question is phrased, or the context around which it is asked, is often biased towards the person paying for the survey. Here is a humourous example which makes the point.

What is extraordinary is that it appears almost 25% of people are actually "against" renewables, which seems unlikely.

What we know is 100% of the population is for keeping the lights on.

Macha · 10-12-2013 5:32pm

georgesstreet wrote: »

15% of all energy production seems quite a lot to me, and shows how important nuclear "still" is in terms of global power generation.

It shouldn't seem a lot to you, because it's not. Renewables already account for 19% of final energy consumption and they haven't quite had the head start that nukes, coal and gas have had.

georgesstreet wrote: »

I suppose I am less impressed than you appear to be about relying on surveys, and know well how a question is phrased, or the context around which it is asked, is often biased towards the person paying for the survey. Here is a humourous example which makes the point.

What is extraordinary is that it appears almost 25% of people are actually "against" renewables, which seems unlikely.

Are surveys worth it or not? You dismiss the survey because you don't like the conclusion I draw from it yet are happy to draw your own conclusions from it?

georgesstreet wrote: »

What we know is 100% of the population is for keeping the lights on.

What that has to do with nuclear, I'm really not sure. How exactly a power plant that will come online in 2023 at the very earliest will keep the lights on during this decade is beyond me.

georgesstreet · 10-12-2013 5:43pm

Macha wrote: »

It shouldn't seem a lot to you, because it's not. Renewables already account for 19% of final energy consumption and they haven't quite had the head start that nukes, coal and gas have had.

I don't see it as some sort of competition. I think 15% is a lot. You don't. That's fair enough as they are only opinions, and whether either us thinks 15% is a lot, or not, seems of little importance. I think 19% is a lot also. You may or may not think so.

Macha wrote: »

Are surveys worth it or not? You dismiss the survey because you don't like the conclusion I draw from it yet are happy to draw your own conclusions from it?
/QUOTE]

Again, I have no idea if all surveys are worth it or if all surveys are not worth it, and in any case what I think is really irrelevant. I merely wanted to point out a flaw in surveying, and also point out that surveys are not as reliable as you imply you think they are.

Macha wrote: »

What that has to do with nuclear, I'm really not sure. How exactly a power plant that will come online in 2023 at the very earliest will keep the lights on during this decade is beyond me.

Thankfully, the nuclear industry carries on, and is not dependant on whether or not it is beyond any one of us.

No power plant, whether it be a windmill or nuclear plant being completed in 2023 can provide power 10 years before it is commissioned. I think the idea is that between now and when any power plant is commissioned, we have other plants which have already been commissioned providing power.

The point about the future is we have to make decisions now to ensure we have enough power for the expected demand in years to come. Hence governments have to plan far in advance.

djpbarry · 10-12-2013 8:13pm

georgesstreet wrote: »

I don't see it as some sort of competition. I think 15% is a lot. You don't. That's fair enough as they are only opinions, and whether either us thinks 15% is a lot, or not, seems of little importance. I think 19% is a lot also. You may or may not think so.

Again, I have no idea if all surveys are worth it or if all surveys are not worth it, and in any case what I think is really irrelevant.

[MOD] Vague musings on what you or others think or may not think are not conducive to an informative thread.

This is a discussion forum. If you’re not prepared to discuss your opinions, then please don’t post.[/MOD]

Capt'n Midnight · 10-12-2013 10:27pm

georgesstreet wrote: »

15% of all energy production seems quite a lot to me, and shows how important nuclear "still" is in terms of global power generation.

Nuclear only provides ~1.8% of our global energy.

Nuclear doesn't even cover the difference between the demand for electricity for lighting between incandescent bulbs and CFL/LED ones.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

we only 'rely' on nuclear for 11% of electricity. It doesn't provide process heat or space / water heating or chemical energy or energy for transport.

Nuclear provided 2,346TWh world wide in 2012.
Global energy use is in the order of 132,000 TWh

Nuclear provides ~1.8% of our energy.
We have ~70 years reserves of easy uranium at current usage.
The global uranium reserves would power the planet for about 15 months.

Remember that when people talk about producing hydrogen by thermal splitting of water in reactors. Or even massive expansion of nuclear.

georgesstreet · 12-12-2013 8:43am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Nuclear only provides ~1.8% of our global energy.

Nuclear doesn't even cover the difference between the demand for electricity for lighting between incandescent bulbs and CFL/LED ones.

So if you think it's such a tiny proportion, why is it such an apparent concern for you?

Macha says 15% and you say 1.8%, although perhaps the word "global" is where the difference occurs. I don't know.

Wiki says " Nuclear (fission) power stations, excluding the contribution from naval nuclear fission reactors, provided about 5.7% of the world's energy and 13% of the world's electricity in 2012.[2] In 2013, the IAEA report that there are 437 operational nuclear power reactors,[3] in 31 countries,[4] although not every reactor is producing electricity.[5] In addition, there are approximately 140 naval vessels using nuclear propulsion in operation, powered by some 180 reactors."

Wiki isn't always accurate, so maybe you disagree with some, or all, of that.

Macha · 12-12-2013 11:22am

georgesstreet wrote: »

So if you think it's such a tiny proportion, why is it such an apparent concern for you?

Macha says 15% and you say 1.8%, although perhaps the word "global" is where the difference occurs. I don't know.

I said (or at least I meant) 15% of electricity, which is a subsection of total energy. It's in the low single digits for overall energy.

hungry hippo 4 · 12-12-2013 11:41am

Thoughts on Fukushima anyone?

Capt'n Midnight · 12-12-2013 12:15pm

georgesstreet wrote: »

So if you think it's such a tiny proportion, why is it such an apparent concern for you?

If it's such a tiny proportion why do we need it ?

Macha says 15% and you say 1.8%, although perhaps the word "global" is where the difference occurs. I don't know.

It's the bit in my post about nuclear not being used for process heat / heating / transport / petrochemicals etc.

You've posted a wiki link
I've posted numbers

If you've been following the debate you'll know I've discounted naval reactors on the basis that the US Navy has had reactors for 60 years and they still haven't been commercialised. They are a clear indication that nuclear power can't be done properly on the cheap.

http://nuclear-news.net/2013/06/20/nuclear-power-down-in-2012/

Data from the International Atomic Energy Agency showed that nuclear power plants around the world produced a total of 2346 TWh in 2012 – some 7% fewer than in 2011. The figures illustrate the effects of a full year of mostly-suspended operation in Japan, the loss of eight units in Germany as well as other operational issues around the world.

With a total of 48 operable Japanese reactors producing no power during the year, 2012′s nuclear generation was the lowest since 1999. Problems for Crystal River, Fort Calhoun and the two San Onofre units in the USA meant they produced no power, while in Belgium Doel 3 and Tihange 2 were out of action for half of the year.

Add to that list the Korean reactors offline because of safety issues and the US reactors that can't compete with cheap gas.

Nuclear is not as reliable as people would like to claim, they are very vulnerable to politics and public opinion, and scams and jellyfish.

Also large power units means that transformer failures have a greater impact than would other wise have.

georgesstreet · 12-12-2013 2:53pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If it's such a tiny proportion why do we need it ?

I neither think it is a tiny proportion, nor do I have views as to whether it's needed or not. I can't help notice that you claim it is a tiny proportion, and didn't answer why it exercises you if you think it's so tiny a proportion.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I
You've posted a wiki link
I've posted numbers

If you've been following the debate you'll know I've discounted naval reactors on the basis that the US Navy has had reactors for 60 years and they still haven't been commercialised. They are a clear indication that nuclear power can't be done properly on the cheap.

The wiki link has quite a few numbers. If you dispute them then tell us which ones are false.

You are free to discount whatever you want to discount, we all are.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Nuclear is not as reliable as people would like to claim, they are very vulnerable to politics and public opinion, and scams and jellyfish.

Also large power units means that transformer failures have a greater impact than would other wise have.

I haven't seen such claims from people recently here in this thread and am unsure which people you refer to. No power source is completely reliable, and all power sources are subject to transmission losses.

Capt'n Midnight · 12-12-2013 9:39pm

georgesstreet wrote: »

I haven't seen such claims from people recently here in this thread and am unsure which people you refer to. No power source is completely reliable, and all power sources are subject to transmission losses.

Not transmission loss, Transformer loss.

I would have said that transformer failures happen across the entire electrical industry and that nuclear was just more affected by such failures than other plants due of the the enforced stoppages of ~72 hours because of Xenon poisoning and such, but when you look up the litany of transformer incidents you start to get the impression that they are cutting corners, or that something just doesn't add up.

Recent incidents include , there are lots more I just cba going through them

Arkansas
Transformer explosion, fire shuts down nuclear reactor in Arkansas

Korea
The shutdown of the reactor last Thursday was due to damage of a transformer cable connection,

Transformer failure at Harris nuclear plant triggers emergency alert

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama – A reactor at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Farley near Dothan shut down automatically Tuesday following the failure of a transformer

U.S. Nuclear Generation Falls on Texas Reactor Transformer Fire

And of course the old reliable
Fukushima's nuclear cooling system offline for a 3rd time after finding dead rats near a transformer

Capt'n Midnight · 13-12-2013 10:20pm

It's been a long time since there were new technologies on the fission side.

Fusion just got interesting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24429621

The BBC understands that during an experiment in late September, the amount of energy released through the fusion reaction exceeded the amount of energy being absorbed by the fuel - the first time this had been achieved at any fusion facility in the world.

And there could be a new source of Hydrogen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25349983

Scientists from the University of Lyon have discovered a new way to split hydrogen gas from water, using rocks.

...
Olivine is a common green mineral, sometimes mined as the semi-precious stone "peridot". The serpentine mineral that forms from it is beloved of sculptors and is often used as a decorative facing stone for buildings.

The mineralogists at Lyon were expecting the reaction to take weeks, if not months, so having set the experiment running one afternoon they were shocked to discover that half of the olivine crystal had already reacted when they took a look at it the next morning.

They realised that the addition of aluminium, dissolved from the ruby crystal, was key, speeding up the rate at which the olivine crystals dissolve in water and new serpentine minerals grow. Any source of aluminium could be used, and at the lower temperature experiments the researchers also used bauxite.

...
An interesting further application of the serpentine that is produced by this reaction, is the capture of atmospheric carbon. Serpentine in nature is known to actively scour CO2 by carbonation, and has previously been suggested as a feedstock for sequestering atmospheric carbon on a global scale.

http://www.geo.umn.edu/courses/1001/minerals/olivine.shtml

A relative lack of economic uses, however, should not diminish olivine’s geologic importance. The primary minerals in ultramafic rocks, olivine minerals may be the most abundant minerals in the Earth as they form the majority of the Earth’s mantle rock.

Capt'n Midnight · 13-12-2013 11:30pm

More on Nuclear reliability, and we're not even half way through the month yet.

NRC investigates shutdown at Clinton nuclear plant

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20131206/NEWS/312060068/?nclick_check=1

A malfunction signal as the Hope Creek nuclear plant was returning to service from an unplanned shutdown on Sunday forced the Delaware River-side complex to shut down again early Thursday morning, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported this morning.

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant shut down Wednesday

The number of out-of-order nuclear reactors at South Korea’s power plants has increased to seven after a power turbine went down at Hanbit due to a glitch.

Nuclear probably isn't the future
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/12/10/4534556/duke-energy-files-12b-nuclear.html

Duke Energy has filed with federal regulators a nearly $1.2 billion plan to decommission its shuttered Crystal River nuclear plant.

Duke decided in February to retire the plant rather than risk trying to fix its reactor containment building, whose concrete walls were damaged during a botched repair job in 2009. Repairs could have cost up to $3.4 billion.

http://grist.org/news/the-six-u-s-nuclear-power-plants-most-likely-to-shut-down/

Five U.S. nuclear power plants have recently shuttered or announced upcoming closures: Vermont Yankee in Vermont, San Onofre in California, Kewaunee in Wisconsin, Crystal River in Florida, and Oyster Creek in New Jersey. Those closures have been largely the result of falling power prices and rising maintenance costs.

Here are six more nuclear plants that Morningstar identifies as the most likely to close next:

Capt'n Midnight · 17-12-2013 10:36pm

Today's News. A reminder if needed that cost overruns aren't exactly rare in the nuclear industry, even when you take long term inflation into account.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/business/energy-environment/usec-enricher-of-uranium-for-us-seeks-bankruptcy.html

WASHINGTON — USEC, the sole American company in the uranium enrichment business, said Monday that it would file for bankruptcy early next year, although it hopes to keep operating.
...
It plans to complete testing on prototype centrifuges and build more of them to offer enrichment on a commercial basis. USEC is aiming to compete with technologies developed in Western Europe and Russia.

But the market for enrichment has gone soft as many nuclear reactors have closed. Now, the company says that effort will cost $6.5 billion and will not be finished until 2017. Initially, it was supposed to cost $1.7 billion and be completed by 2005.

A reminder too that Hinkley C won't be adding 3.2GW to the grid since Hinkley B will be shutting down in ~2023 with a loss of 840MW generating capacity.

Extra flood defences and cooling tanks for the £16Bn plant,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/nuclearpower/10516997/Hinkley-Point-C-nuclear-power-plant-to-have-extra-flood-defences.html

Details of the upgrades emerged after the worst storm surge in 60 years flooded 1,400 homes on the east coast of England.

New coal has 25% less emissions mainly by operating at higher temperatures.
Gas has 50% less because there's more hydrogen in hydrocarbons than in coal.

I'm still not convinced that nuclear is low carbon overall due to hidden costs. Regardless Hinkley C will be producing carbon until it opens via construction and concrete and transport so it won't be reducing anything for a good while yet. A wind farm on the Arklow bank would probably be carbon neutral ten times over by then.

Looks like fossil fuel isn't the main source of greenhouse gasses, so the nuclear trump card of low carbon might not mean so much after all. Reducing methane from ruminants might be a better approach. Breeding better cattle, changing their gut flora, dung beetles there are lots of ideas. If only we could harvest or use the 250-500L of methane they produce each day.

In the same way that moving from incandescent light bulbs to LED / CFL has a bigger effect on the electricity demand than nuclear supplies , figuring out a way to reduce the amount of methane cattle belch is more beneficial to global warming than switching to nuclear.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25416050

Cattle are the biggest source of greenhouse gases, accounting for more than three-quarters of all emissions from global livestock, a survey shows.

The assessment, described as the most detailed of its kind, identified Europe and the Americas as the world's epicentres of beef production.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/sep/26/greenhouse-gas-emissions-livestock

Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock could be cut by up to 30% if farmers adopt better techniques without having to overhaul entire production systems, according to a study released on Thursday by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation

http://grist.org/list/scientists-plan-to-reduce-greenhouse-gases-by-breeding-fartless-cows/

Regular Grist readers will remember that we’re really quite interested in this unusual source of methane. It’s silly, but it’s also a big problem. Scientists now think, though, that they’ve hit on a solution: They might simply be able to breed to farts and burps out of cows.

vaccine to stop cattle burping
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6431

Or just feed them grass instead of soya or corn

Markcheese · 18-12-2013 3:05pm

Are grass fed cattle less gas producing than meal fed ? I thought it was the other way round .. Should Irish farmers be looking for a carbon (or methane) payment for grass fed animals...

Greensleeves · 18-12-2013 7:09pm

There are EU agriculture emissions targets but Ireland is not happy with them. The Irish position seems to be that a cut in Irish production of beef and dairy would increase the production elsewhere so there would be no nett gain in CO2 savings. I suppose the next step might be suggesting a reduction in consumption of meat and dairy products but I can't see that making anyone happy either. I think the German Green Party suggested it at one point and there was a resounding NEIN.

"EU climate change targets require a 20 per cent reduction in Irish emissions by 2020. Yet Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions profile is unique in the dominance of the agriculture sector. Nearly 40 per cent of emissions are agricultural and latest projections are for a slight increase in emissions by 2020."

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/simon-coveney-says-eu-has-got-it-wrong-on-carbon-emissions-targets-for-agriculture-1.1512688

djpbarry · 18-12-2013 7:21pm

[MOD] Let's keep the discussion on-topic please folks.

Ta.[/MOD]

Capt'n Midnight · 18-12-2013 8:29pm

Today's nuclear news

The hidden costs are huge
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10525538/Subsidies-for-UK-nuclear-plant-could-reach-17bn-and-may-be-unnecessary.html

It said that total "public support" for the project could reach £17bn - equating to several hundred pounds for every UK household - compared with EDF's construction cost estimate of £16bn.

It's subject to politics
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25434996

The operators of the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan are to decommission two reactors that were not badly damaged by the earthquake and tsunami in 2011.

They have bowed to public pressure that the plant be shut permanently.

...
Nearly three years after the disaster, Japan is still without any nuclear power.

It's reliable, except when it's not. Japan isn't the only place with a 3 year outage.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/236282361.html

Regulators say nuclear plant near Omaha can restart after nearly 3 years spent fixing problems

This is just scary from an economic point of view. This is the type of reactor they are building in Hinkley. Not a single EPR reactor is currently operating. Nuclear is reliable, except when it's not.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/flamanville-epr-reactor-runs-into-trouble/article5470382.ece

The controversial French EPR at Flamanville in France has once again run into trouble, with the French nuclear watchdog the Nuclear Safety Authority (Agence de surete nucleaire) calling for a halt in work, according to reports appearing in the French press.
...
The gigantic reactor capable of producing 1650 Megawatts of power has had teething problems ever since work first began almost eight years ago. Initially expected to go on stream in 2012, the reactor is now slated to become operational in 2016 with a corresponding rise in cost – from an initial € 3.3 billion to an estimated € 9 billion. Not a single EPR reactor is currently operating. The plant in Olkiouoto in Finland, delayed by several years has yet to be commissioned and the Finnish operator TVO is locked in a bitter arbitration battle to the tune of € 2.7 billion with French nuclear giant Areva, the designer of the troubled reactor.

Nuclear power: is it the future?

Comments