Finishing an old Nuclear plant - Alabama

Status
Not open for further replies.

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
58,067
Location
Ontario, Canada
Saw this in my twitter feed today:
Haney outlines plans to finish idled nuclear plant

Cliff notes version:
Like with Watts Bar unit #2, the Bellefonte plant fell victim to cost overruns and bureaucracy that eventually killed it. Construction of the plant started in 1975, however the plug was pulled in 1988. Various attempts to finish the project happened over the years and more recently a plan to instead, build 2 new more advanced units at the site was tabled, but cancelled. Unit 1 was originally something like 86% complete, but unlike with Watts Bar #2 (which was finally made operational), the cancellation led to reclamation of parts for other facilities and completion now sits at somewhere around 50%.

Private investor and former developer Franklin Haney was able to reach a deal to buy the plant for $111 million, paid $22 million as a deposit, and has until November to complete the purchase.

Haney has hired Canadian company SNC-Lavalin, who owns CANDU Energy, to complete the project. SNC has been involved in many nuclear projects here in Ontario and has an excellent track record.

Where things get a bit funky here is:
- There is, at present, no public demand for the energy to be produced from the facility, whose generation capacity would sit at 2,470MWe
- Haney has indicated that he has secured "private interest" that would be purchasing all of the output from Unit #1 and is working on the same for #2
- Various groups have stated that the plant, in its present state, will not be certifiable, so starting from a "we are going to complete it" base is folly. There have been too many things left exposed for an extended period and extensive testing will need to be done to determine what's viable and what isn't and then from that point, a way forward, if possible, would need to be planned. SNC however, says they are confident in the viability of the project
21.gif


Nuclear is presently the 2nd biggest source of power in the state.
 
It has been sitting idle since 1988? If so, it will not be a "we are finishing it" job, it will be a "revamp everything" job. All of the control systems are certainly outdated, and moreover are likely shot from disuse. This is not to mention the piping and pump seals which have hardened. A complete "turnaround" is what is needed.

Crazy amount of money to be spent to revamp and certify, but good luck to them anyway.
 
The nuclear plant near me, Pilgrim, is scheduled to close in June 2019. It supplies 14% of the power generated in MA. My area is a summer resort whose population triples in the summer. I wonder where the make-up power is going to come from? I guess 'bama is too far away...
 
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
It has been sitting idle since 1988? If so, it will not be a "we are finishing it" job, it will be a "revamp everything" job. All of the control systems are certainly outdated, and moreover are likely shot from disuse. This is not to mention the piping and pump seals which have hardened. A complete "turnaround" is what is needed.

Crazy amount of money to be spent to revamp and certify, but good luck to them anyway.


Not quite, as there were numerous attempts to finish it at various points, for example, this quote from the linked article:

Quote:
The Tennessee Valley Authority, which invested more than $4 billion in the twin-reactor plant here before deciding to scrap the project two years ago, says it won't need the power Bellefonte can produce anytime in the foreseeable future.


So I'm not quite sure as to the status, as it was originally supposed to come online after Watts Bar 2 but they never proceeded.
 
The plant that I work in was Contracted for construction when a lot of Al smelters were intended for the state.

They fell through, and the cost of backing out was too high so it got "mostly" built, then mothballed for 7 years, albeit with dry nitrogen and heaters in the steam cycle...at this stage if you look up the movie "Earth Force" starring Gil Gerard (youtube), you can see it being portrayed as a nuke, as the chimney isn't there.

When it was time to get it into service (I was there for "removal from storage"), the main plant was completely disassembled, and re-assembled.

As a result, it was one of the most reliable power stations in the world for nearly 20 years.

If left half built, and not stored, YMMV.
 
Never happen TMI-1 is closing. Nuclear power is dead in the U.S.

I seriously doubt if Vogle #1 and #2 in GA will ever go online.
 
Last edited:
I think the buyer has something up his sleeve. It would cost billions, maybe 10's of billions to complete the unit. All the technology built into that plant is now obsolete and spare parts could not be sourced in any kind of volume.
 
1000 acres, with tons of copper, steel, and concrete?

Turn the land into a giant solar field, around 50-100 megawatts...

Recycle the metal and concrete...

I bet you will break even on your investment in 5-10 years...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Blueskies123
I think the buyer has something up his sleeve. It would cost billions, maybe 10's of billions to complete the unit. All the technology built into that plant is now obsolete and spare parts could not be sourced in any kind of volume.


I tend to agree that I think he has something up his sleeve.

Regarding the parts, there is supposed to be some sourcing from an abandoned build in India according to the article.
 
Originally Posted By: mattwithcats
1000 acres, with tons of copper, steel, and concrete?

Turn the land into a giant solar field, around 50-100 megawatts...

Recycle the metal and concrete...

I bet you will break even on your investment in 5-10 years...


That wouldn't produce anywhere near the output the investor is looking for. If he's got the entire output from a 1,200MW reactor sold, solar couldn't touch that if you increased the area 10-fold.
 
It will be a monumental task to get it up and running. The old plants needed 10W-40 oil and the newly designed ones are calling for 0W-16.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Never happen TMI-1 is closing. Nuclear power is dead in the U.S.

I seriously doubt if Vogle #1 and #2 in GA will ever go online.


I'm cautiously optimistic. SMR's and the unreliability of renewables have brought some new attention to nuclear globally. Up here, we are investing significantly in refurbishment and SMR development, though I would say that the "traditional" multi-billion dollar nuke plant isn't going to be the way nuclear carries forward. SMR's are a fraction of the price and size and will be able to be built near loads. We have intentions of powering northern communities with them for example.
 
Originally Posted By: jk_636
The absolute dumbest way to boil water.

These people never learn.







I am hoping that's sarcasm, LOL
 
20% of US electricity is generated by nuclear at over 90% availability. Been doing this for 30-45 years. For a dumb idea it sure has worked. And up in the Northeast where clean air is tightly regulated, the % of nuclear has run 30-40% in decades past. If not for the shale gas revolution, nuclear power would still be a primary source.

In a way, 3 Mile Island accident in 1979 put a stopper on the nuclear industry before it really got going. And there hasn't been a comparable accident since in the US. The Chicken Little's won that one.

The primary coolant loop in a nuclear power plant doesn't boil its water. The steam generator does that. The notion of boiling water via a primary to secondary loop was a novel idea. US Submarines have relied on that since the mid-1950's....10 yrs of operations between refueling overhauls. Sure seems like a smart way to boil water to me. The Russians experimented with other designs besides water...in some cases with disastrous results.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Saw this in my twitter feed today:
Haney outlines plans to finish idled nuclear plant

Cliff notes version:
Like with Watts Bar unit #2, the Bellefonte plant fell victim to cost overruns and bureaucracy that eventually killed it. Construction of the plant started in 1975, however the plug was pulled in 1988. Various attempts to finish the project happened over the years and more recently a plan to instead, build 2 new more advanced units at the site was tabled, but cancelled. Unit 1 was originally something like 86% complete, but unlike with Watts Bar #2 (which was finally made operational), the cancellation led to reclamation of parts for other facilities and completion now sits at somewhere around 50%.

Private investor and former developer Franklin Haney was able to reach a deal to buy the plant for $111 million, paid $22 million as a deposit, and has until November to complete the purchase.

Haney has hired Canadian company SNC-Lavalin, who owns CANDU Energy, to complete the project. SNC has been involved in many nuclear projects here in Ontario and has an excellent track record.

Where things get a bit funky here is:
- There is, at present, no public demand for the energy to be produced from the facility, whose generation capacity would sit at 2,470MWe
- Haney has indicated that he has secured "private interest" that would be purchasing all of the output from Unit #1 and is working on the same for #2
- Various groups have stated that the plant, in its present state, will not be certifiable, so starting from a "we are going to complete it" base is folly. There have been too many things left exposed for an extended period and extensive testing will need to be done to determine what's viable and what isn't and then from that point, a way forward, if possible, would need to be planned. SNC however, says they are confident in the viability of the project
21.gif


Nuclear is presently the 2nd biggest source of power in the state.


Well I think nuclear has a place in our energy future. But not the current water cooled design.

The US messed up. Decades ago there were many nuclear designs being worked on. Admiral Rickover choose water cooled for nuclear submarines and the US jumped on the bandwagon for all nuclear reactors. Water cooled may have been the right decision for something immersed in the ocean but maybe not for a nuclear power plant on land. Many college students are going into nuclear physics and many designs are being reworked. Cooling with liquid salt seems like a good option. You can shut down the plant and go on vacation for a few weeks, come back and nothing would have overheated. Some plants can burn spent nuclear fuel rods. And there is fusion which will be commercialized. Works pretty well for the sun. The Nuclear Regulatory Agency needs to get with the program and allow newer technology plants to be built and not take 20 years to do it.

I would not finish a plant that used old technology. Many old technology plants are being shutdown as they are too expensive to run compared to natural gas.
 
Originally Posted By: mattwithcats
1000 acres, with tons of copper, steel, and concrete?

Turn the land into a giant solar field, around 50-100 megawatts...

I googled it...


Conveniently 1,000,000 square metres (250 acres).

At the average, with each of those square meters closely packed, receiving 4.7KWh in a day, at 20% efficiency, that's a GWh in a day. If it does it over an 8 hour generating window, that's an average of 125 MW. Total Generation over the day is about 40MW...however that point is meaningless, as you have to use it when it's made, or lose 10%+ of it and $250MWh round trip to store it (Lazard's Levelised Cost of storage).

(That generation figure can be reduced by 60+% some months)

The two units under construction would do that in 24 minutes.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: mattwithcats
1000 acres, with tons of copper, steel, and concrete?

Turn the land into a giant solar field, around 50-100 megawatts...

I googled it...


Conveniently 1,000,000 square metres (250 acres).

At the average, with each of those square meters closely packed, receiving 4.7KWh in a day, at 20% efficiency, that's a GWh in a day. If it does it over an 8 hour generating window, that's an average of 125 MW. Total Generation over the day is about 40MW...however that point is meaningless, as you have to use it when it's made, or lose 10%+ of it and $250MWh round trip to store it (Lazard's Levelised Cost of storage).

(That generation figure can be reduced by 60+% some months)

The two units under construction would do that in 24 minutes.



That's always ignored by the greenwashers on their bent for virtue signal nirvana. It's like the plan to (which I believe, thanks to new government, has been cancelled) cover the grounds of the Nanticoke generating station, which represented 3,000MW of Ontario's former coal-fired generation, with solar panels.

- The fact that the plant could have just been converted to gas is ignored (and we installed a ton of new gas instead)
- The fact that the output from that facility was replaced by reactivated and refurbished Nuclear (Bruce A), so the additional subsidized sideshow is completely pointless is ignored

Solar has, in northernly climates, proven to be horrifically inefficient and effectively not financially viable without subsidy at this time. Our large 10MW local solar farm would require $0.25/kWh to break-even on install costs over the life of the panels, and that doesn't include factoring in degradation of the PV units, which will lower output over their lifetime or maintenance. It occupies 200 acres of farm land and, thanks to action by the new administration, had stage 3 cancelled. Apparently, the local utility, riding the FIT subsidy gravy train, had ELEVEN more solar installs in the works
crazy2.gif
ALL of which have now been cancelled because they weren't viable without rate-subsidized hand-outs.

Further investment in hydro-electric, which has a time-tested track record of proven reliability, should have been the focus here, particularly in bodies where we already have an HE presence. But water power doesn't jump out and slap somebody in the face screaming "GREEEEEEN" quite like the field of wind turbines or solar panels that we've been conditioned to identify with that term.

Shannow, you touched on several valuable points such as density, reliability and working around the limitations of intermittency. 100MW of solar taking up >500 acres will never match the output of a 100MW SMR occupying 4. Factor in the lifespan of the PV being 1/5th that of the mini nuke and things look even worse.

The "worst case scenario" for a solar install + storage to match the wide-open output of a nuke over a 24hr window would likely surprise some of the advocates who likely haven't put sufficient thought into the requirements for such a scenario.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: jk_636
The absolute dumbest way to boil water.

These people never learn.







I am hoping that's sarcasm, LOL


Not sarcasm at all.

It is the dumbest way to boil water.

Well, perhaps "dumb" isn't the best way to qualify it.

Let me try again...

Nuclear power is the best way to create energy utilizing poisonous fuel sources that effectively never lose their toxicity, contaminate everything around them (during use and once they are spent and buried) and put humans, animals and environment at incalculable risk. The safe exposure level of ionizing radiation in humans is 0%. Anything more than that causes health problems...and godzilla...which in a roundabout way is a risk to your health...

There is nothing safe about them. All industrial facilities whether it be refining operations, chemical operations or nuclear operations Are always leaking something, all the time no matter what nonsense the company feeds you. The magical chain link fence surrounding the perimeter stops nothing. Ask anyone who has ever worked in any type of said facility and they will tell you the same thing (if they are to be honest off the record.)

I'm not a greenpeace activist, just a guy who used to work adjacent to such industries mentioned above who doesn't like seeing humans poisoned and people die of cancer in the name of "clean, safe energy," which, after you consider the cost of cleanup/remediation WHEN things go wrong, becomes the MOST expensive form of energy production available. Don't take my word for it, ask the Japanese. Fukushima Daiichi operations are going great. Pumping zillions of gallons of contaminated water right back into the pacific. Yum! Anyone up for some sushi?

But hey, it creates jobs right? And as long as your kid doesn't develop a brain tumor the size of a football or dies of leukemia then it is someone elses problem right? Hooray capitalism!

If you choose to work in such an industry thats cool, more power to you (no pun intended) just don't lie to yourself or pretend this is something it isn't.

There are better ways.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: jk_636


Not sarcasm at all.

It is the dumbest way to boil water.

Well, perhaps "dumb" isn't the best way to qualify it.

Let me try again...

Nuclear power is the best way to create energy utilizing poisonous fuel sources that effectively never lose their toxicity, contaminate everything around them (during use and once they are spent and buried) and put humans, animals and environment at incalculable risk. The safe exposure level of ionizing radiation in humans is 0%. Anything more than that causes health problems...and godzilla...which in a roundabout way is a risk to your health...

There is nothing safe about them. All industrial facilities whether it be refining operations, chemical operations or nuclear operations Are always leaking something, all the time no matter what nonsense the company feeds you. The magical chain link fence surrounding the perimeter stops nothing. Ask anyone who has ever worked in any type of said facility and they will tell you the same thing (if they are to be honest off the record.)

I'm not a greenpeace activist, just a guy who used to work adjacent to such industries mentioned above who doesn't like seeing humans poisoned and people die of cancer in the name of "clean, safe energy," which, after you consider the cost of cleanup/remediation WHEN things go wrong, becomes the MOST expensive form of energy production available. Don't take my word for it, ask the Japanese. Fukushima Daiichi operations are going great. Pumping zillions of gallons of contaminated water right back into the pacific. Yum! Anyone up for some sushi?

But hey, it creates jobs right? And as long as your kid doesn't develop a brain tumor the size of a football or dies of leukemia then it is someone elses problem right? Hooray capitalism!

If you choose to work in such an industry thats cool, more power to you (no pun intended) just don't lie to yourself or pretend this is something it isn't.

There are better ways.


Did you miss anything in your Greenpeace talking point rant?

Is there a correlation between countries that have the highest incidences of cancer and those that have Nuclear power? I mean, if any of what you've stated is true, there would be statistical evidence of this trend. However, looking at the WCRF data, there doesn't appear to be any correlation at all:
https://www.wcrf.org/int/cancer-facts-figures/data-cancer-frequency-country

#1 is Denmark, which has zero nuclear power.
#2 is metropolitan France, which is a country that's >80% nuclear powered. Rural France is at #47.
#3 is Australia, which has zero nuclear power.

Japan is at #48 on the list, despite having a large amount of Nuclear power

In fact many of the countries with significant Nuclear power, like the UK, Romania, Japan..etc are quite a ways down or near the bottom of the list.

The Nuclear industry provides valuable medical isotopes and directly contributes to reduced CO2 and other emissions that are the result of burning fossil fuels, which are the primary source of power on this planet, be they burned to produce mobility or electricity to drive the mining operation for the solar cells, lithium for your batteries or whatever you are fan of that you are going to tell me is "green" and is the "better way".

Nuclear energy is the most efficient way to drive a steam turbine to produce electricity. 1KG of Uranium provides the same amount of power as 1,000KG of coal with zero greenhouse gas emissions and that's just using a traditional reactor design. Coupled with a fast reactor to reprocess the waste, you eliminate the extremely long-lived actinides currently the primary problem with existing waste, and end up with something far more benign as well as producing massively more power in the process. I've posted plenty of threads on this site, one recently, about reactors that run on the waste of existing reactors with a final waste product volume that is greatly reduced and presents significantly simplified handling and storage as its longest lived components will have half lives of a few hundred years vs 10's of thousands for existing waste and that doesn't factor in further use with a breeder, which is yet another step that can be taken to reduce and ideally eliminate the footprint.

GE and many others, including a few start-ups, are working on these designs, however the concept is not new. Breeders and fast reactors have been known about since the 1960's, there simply wasn't the economics or the drive to pursue them when we could run the cheaper reactors and store what came out of them.

Some reading if you are interested:
A quick overview of GE's PRISM Fast Reactor:
http://gehitachiprism.com/prism-waste-not-want-not/

The Moltex Safe Salt fast "waste burner" reactor and family:
http://www.moltexenergy.com/learnmore/An_Introduction_Moltex_Energy_Technology_Portfolio.pdf

Also, regarding your comment about folks working in and around these facilities:
1. I've personally toured Bruce Nuclear
2. I have a good friend who worked on the Bruce Refurbishment project and has been in the industry for 40 years
3. My next door neighbour growing up was a nuclear engineer that worked at Darlington and then eventually Bruce
4. A friend of mine's husband currently works at Bruce
5. Al, on this site, who worked in the industry

Not one of those people shares your jaded position, which primarily appears to be based on hyperbole, green-washed fear-mongering nonsense and "the government is out to get you" hysteria
21.gif


I find the paradox of the anti-nuclear activist utterly delicious. They oppose all development of nuclear power while knowing full well that the only way to deal with our existing stores of waste is to further develop nuclear power. To be so conflicted must seriously take its toll.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top