Germany Should have Gone with Nuclear

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

"Had California and Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of renewables like solar and wind farms, the two would already be generating 100% or more of their electricity from clean (low-emissions) energy sources, according to a new analysis by Environmental Progress."

Very interesting.

[Epic + 390]

26 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

"Had California and Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of renewables like solar and wind farms, the two would already be generating 100% or more of their electricity from clean (low-emissions) energy sources, according to a new analysis by Environmental Progress."

Just, wow.

I wonder how much they would be generating if they had instead invested $680 billion into @Jan van Eck's Molten Salt reactors.  They'd probably be exporting energy to Russia!

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

2 hours ago, Epic said:

Just, wow.

I wonder how much they would be generating if they had instead invested $680 billion into @Jan van Eck's Molten Salt reactors.  They'd probably be exporting energy to Russia!

And The C Foundation would have been getting hundreds of millions more in "Russian donations" 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

8 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

"Had California and Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of renewables like solar and wind farms, the two would already be generating 100% or more of their electricity from clean (low-emissions) energy sources, according to a new analysis by Environmental Progress."

Very interesting.

The reality is that any reactor design, even the old clunky ones from the 1950's, would achieve and could have achieved energy independence, for either political entity, and likely for a lot less than that $680 billion.  You have to remember that, excepting the Russian Chernobyl layout which was just ridiculous, every other reactor has performed well, specifically including Harrisburg, Pennsylvania's "Three Mile Island" reactor No. 2, or TMI-2, a Babcock & Wilcox design.  I will address that reactor briefly. 

The two reactors (TMI-1 and -2) sit on an island in the Susquehanna River, a broad, shallow river running down to the sea.  It is not navigable by freighters due to the shallowness. The reactors were built on that island to ensure access to lots of external cooling water, mostly to supply the condensing towers  (those big concrete structures you see water vapor coming out of).   River water is sprayed into the tower and air is forced upwards by powerful fans; the cooled air passes through horizontal radiators and that condenses the spent steam from the generating cycle, leading to more power extraction as shown in the "steam card."  (You can also have non-condensing steam plant, but that extracts less power, hence the cooling towers). 

Reactor TMI-2 developed some sort of problem  (and I don't know what it was, not really relevant) and went into automatic shutdown.  The rejected heat from the coolant system caused the water to expand slightly (water expends with rise in temperature), and a coolant dump valve opened, all according to design.  Unfortunately, that dump valve got stuck in the Open position, the operators got an erroneous signal (apparently a faulty sensor design) that it had closed, too much coolant water was dumped, there was insufficient coolant to keep the reactor core cool, and the core partially melted.  

As a result of the melted core, hydrogen gases built up inside the containment dome, and they vented out via vent valves which worked as  designed.  Everything else worked as designed.  The vented gases immediately dissipated in the airstream (moving air) outside the plant, and the radiation was at "background level," what you see everywhere on the planet.  so: the "failure" was in one dump valve (and its sensors), and the design flaw was the control system, and no mechanical closing to that piping.  You could say another design flaw was to use that particular uranium core reactor, which only consumes one half of one percent of the core material in its life cycle, instead of 100% in either a breeder reactor or a molten-salt Thorium reactor, but that is another debate.  In reality, TMI-2 was a complete success, not a failure.  The design prevented a complete meltdown, and there were zero deaths. 

It got expensive quickly as the neurotic public went bananas, insisting the politicians ensure zero further release of any material that was radioactive.  Some dump water accumulated in the reactor structure, in the bottom, and had to be removed.  Now the logical way to remove that is to install a hose with holes in it a few hundred feet long and drop that transverse to the river along the riverbed, and slowly pump out the water into the river.  The vast flow of river water instantly dilutes the coolant water and its slight contamination down to background levels, lower than detection.  This logical solution led to "freak-out" hysteria in the public, and the plant operator was forced to pump out every liter from the well and truck it away two thousand miles for disposal, at enormous expense.  That cost was staggering, led to a very long removal time, which led to a very long remediation time, and other problems, so TMI-2 was never repaired.  

TMI-1 kept running and is still running today.  This event happened in 1979.  So the Babcock design, while hopelessly outdated today, proved its ability to generate power for a half century.  TMI was a success, not a failure.  The public has a hard time understanding that. 

Three successive levels of design of reactors has occurred since the original Babcock & Wilcox design.  Now called "Generation IV," the Gen IV design uses no coolant water at all.  The entire core is a molten salt at about 800 degrees, it runs in the heat-transfer cycle under low pressure, and if any of the parts fail, it will rise in temperature, melt a plug in the bottom, and all that salt flows out of the reactor core into a big pit, loses criticality, and then the salt passively cools by heat transfer to the walls of the pit.  SO it is about as fail-safe as you can get.  

These machines are cheap to build, as you avoid the stupendous costs of all the complicated plumbing and valves and generators and the rest of the stuff the panicky and rather stupid public forces the Regulators to insist on with pressure-water or boiling-water reactors. And, since it burns the spent fuel from earlier designs, you easily have 500 years of free fuel out there to go burn, costs you nothing, indeed any plant operator can get paid to accept the spent fuels as an additional profit center. You can build thousands of these machines and make a totally stable grid across North America for a lot less than any other generating system, run it for free, and you are all set for centuries as far as free electrical power is concerned. 

Except, of course, since we do not teach physics, chemistry, or even thinking in the school system, it is not happening.  The public and its politicians are profoundly stupid.

[Epic + 390]

8 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Except, of course, since we do not teach physics, chemistry, or even thinking in the school system, it is not happening. 

^Quoted, because it needs to be said more than once.  

[Refman + 207]

On 9/13/2018 at 12:19 AM, Marina Schwarz said:

"Had California and Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of renewables like solar and wind farms, the two would already be generating 100% or more of their electricity from clean (low-emissions) energy sources, according to a new analysis by Environmental Progress."

Very interesting.

I'm on the fence with nuclear, I love the carbon free power and it's huge base load capability, but it's incredibly expensive. New plants are always chronically behind schedule and massively over budget. Then there are the problems like we had at Fukushima, which shows that even when you think you've though of everything, bad things can still happen. 

I believe that existing plants should be kept operating as long as they pass safety audits and are not located in active seismic zones. Some of the new reactor designs are very interesting, and safer, but can they be built any cheaper than existing nukes and on schedule?

Renewables are in the process of killing coal, after that it will natural gas. For the price of one incredibly over budget and behind schedule nuke you can build a lot of renewables which also have the advantage of producing electricity within a year or tow, instead of 10 years from now. I wonder how much interest is accrued on some of these nukes when they take billions to construct over 10 years.

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 hours ago, Refman said:

I'm on the fence with nuclear, I love the carbon free power and it's huge base load capability, but it's incredibly expensive. New plants are always chronically behind schedule and massively over budget. Then there are the problems like we had at Fukushima, which shows that even when you think you've though of everything, bad things can still happen. 

I believe that existing plants should be kept operating as long as they pass safety audits and are not located in active seismic zones. Some of the new reactor designs are very interesting, and safer, but can they be built any cheaper than existing nukes and on schedule?

Renewables are in the process of killing coal, after that it will natural gas. For the price of one incredibly over budget and behind schedule nuke you can build a lot of renewables which also have the advantage of producing electricity within a year or tow, instead of 10 years from now. I wonder how much interest is accrued on some of these nukes when they take billions to construct over 10 years.

 

Greg, what makes nuke plants so expensive are compliance with all the Rules to counter every conceivable combination of events that the anti-nuke crowd dreams up.  But you don't need any of that with the new, molten-salt Thorium reactors. 

For example, there is that "containment dome," a massive shell sixteen feet thick.  You don't need that any more.

There are those water coolant systems, with back-up coolant piping and supplies, all those automatic valves, a big control room to run the valves, and back-up diesel generators.  All gone, as the molten-salt reactor needs no coolant. 

There is that on-site fire department, with lots of trucks and firemen staffed 24/7, at staggering expense, all gone.

There is that big fancy "control room," with all those expensive technicians, all gone. 

It gets really cheap to build and to run when you get rid of all the stuff layered onto those water plants. 

You can build them on a production line and truck to the job-site.  Need a plant?  Order today, deliver next week.  Fast enough for you?

Anywhere from 10 MW to 200 MW of pure power, running flawlessly, straight out of the shipping carton.  Plug and play. 

Costs you nothing to run.  Works on scrap stuff sitting around the country in those spent-storage pools and containers. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, mthebold said:

 

I will grant the public one thing: they were often screwed over by industry in terrible ways, and they're smart enough to remember that.  One might even argue (only half tongue in cheek) that a combination of heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants, herbicides, pesticides, and the declining quality of food - all of which were perpetrated by industry - has lowered the average IQ to the point where wind turbines and solar panels seem like a good idea.  I think there's a moral to this: you can get ahead today by screwing people over, but it will catch up to you. 

Politicians, on the other hand, seem to be plenty intelligent.  They just apply that intelligence to accumulating wealth & power, which doesn't require technical proficiency.  Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if all the lawyering, subsidies, and energy price spikes associated with renewables have made them and their ilk quite wealthy.  Most likely, they know exactly what they're doing. 

Paul, that is seriously scary!

You have to wonder if the human body has a self-regenerating capability, or in the alternative if the genes passed forward remain isolated from the assaults of the heavy metals and herbicides  (Round-up being the worst, brought to you by that most egregious offender, Monsanto Corporation). There still seem to be rather bright people born in the last two decades, I meet these kids around college campuses, it gives me (a little) hope for the future. 

[NickW + 2,714]

I'd agree that if you want to go down the zero carbon route then nuclear is a must for large northern European countries with peak winter demands. 

[DA? + 301]

JV talks about the onsite fire department being a reason for nuclear power being so expensive. Well it happens I used to be a nuclear operative / fire rescue, we were a drop in the ocean when it comes to nuclear energy. We will not see nuclear energy coming back for many years even if a big push was made on molten salt. It's just to expensive, anything related to the nuclear industry is like the defence industry everything costs a hundred times more and takes ten times longer.

It's not surprising the public is scared of anything nuclear, it's a complicated subject and even in Europe and the USA it doesn't have a good safety record. I have to say as someone was on about the lack of education these days, there has never been a time with some many people so well educated. Reminds me of an interview on ABC radio with a Professor on how they changed Norways educational system, thinking people would make better decisions. Well happens even when well educated we still are terrible at being rational, just we are even more arrogant that we are correct.   

I have nothing against nuclear power as long as it's done correctly and cheap, but it's not especially with the costs of renewables, smart systems, energy storage and so on going down so rapidly.

 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, DA? said:

JV talks about the onsite fire department being a reason for nuclear power being so expensive. Well it happens I used to be a nuclear operative / fire rescue, we were a drop in the ocean when it comes to nuclear energy. We will not see nuclear energy coming back for many years even if a big push was made on molten salt. It's just to expensive, anything related to the nuclear industry is like the defence industry everything costs a hundred times more and takes ten times longer.

It's not surprising the public is scared of anything nuclear, it's a complicated subject and even in Europe and the USA it doesn't have a good safety record. I have to say as someone was on about the lack of education these days, there has never been a time with some many people so well educated. Reminds me of an interview on ABC radio with a Professor on how they changed Norways educational system, thinking people would make better decisions. Well happens even when well educated we still are terrible at being rational, just we are even more arrogant that we are correct.   

I have nothing against nuclear power as long as it's done correctly and cheap, but it's not especially with the costs of renewables, smart systems, energy storage and so on going down so rapidly.

 

Good post. 

While not anti nuclear I have reservations about its real cost. The nuclear flag flyers here always overlook the fact that a massive proportion of early development costs where underwritten by governments because the reactors were a handy Plutonium generator. 

[DA? + 301]

14 minutes ago, NickW said:

Good post. 

While not anti nuclear I have reservations about its real cost. The nuclear flag flyers here always overlook the fact that a massive proportion of early development costs where underwritten by governments because the reactors were a handy Plutonium generator. 

It's funny how only renewables get subsidies and the others well lets brush that under the carpet. Although just to be clear as this one always gets jumped on commercial reactors although possible do not supply material for weapons. But governments are always keen to point out military and civilian are separate but without civilian the weapons would be far to expensive.

But yeah for me comes down to economics and they aren't.

Oh and rather a soft underbelly for security.  

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

5 hours ago, NickW said:

Good post. 

While not anti nuclear I have reservations about its real cost. The nuclear flag flyers here always overlook the fact that a massive proportion of early development costs where underwritten by governments because the reactors were a handy Plutonium generator. 

True. There are many different designs for nuclear reactors but the one that emerged as the dominant technology, the Pressurized-Water Reactor (PWR) was initially selected for some military motivations : it was the technology adopted by the US navy for powering the nuclear submarines. The admiral Hyman Rickover in charge of the original development of naval nuclear propulsion oversaw also the development of  the world's first commercial pressurized water reactor used for generating electricity.  Today most of the civilian nuclear reactors are still using a technology adopted not because it was the best solution for generating nuclear electricity but because it was the more suitable for powering submarines. As they had already done the research and development for the submarine reactors it was easier and cheaper to  adopt the same design for the civilian reactors. This is why some other design types as the molten salt thorium reactors were put aside.