Japan's Nuclear reboot: Curtailing LNG

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
47,527
Location
Ontario, Canada
Yeah, I think we've got that ironed out: - At Pickering, inlet and outlet are both in close proximity to each other, and at shore level. There is a diking/peninsula system that separates the intakes from the outlets - At Bruce (above pic) the outlet is clearly visible, and there's an underground channel that reaches out into the lake to fill the intake channel that runs behind the facility. - At Darlington, the inlet is a channel that runs for 700M out from the facility to fill the lagoon/channel behind it like in Bruce. However the outlet is spaced even further out into the lake (1.8Km) to further buffer its effects
 
Last edited:

irv

Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
2,195
Location
Oshawa, Ont. Canada
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Yeah, I think we've got that ironed out: - At Pickering, inlet and outlet are both in close proximity to each other, and at shore level. There is a diking/peninsula system that separates the intakes from the outlets - At Bruce (above pic) the outlet is clearly visible, and there's an underground channel that reaches out into the lake to fill the intake channel that runs behind the facility. - At Darlington, the inlet is a channel that runs for 700M out from the facility to fill the lagoon/channel behind it like in Bruce. However the outlet is spaced even further out into the lake (1.8Km) to further buffer its effects
Glad you were able to find that information out, OK. I likely knew that at one time, but with the trng we are subjected to, it is easy to forget the things that are of less importance. cheers
 

irv

Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
2,195
Location
Oshawa, Ont. Canada
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
For sure. Here's hoping for Darlington B grin
Yes, hopefully someday? From I have heard, if DNGS B is ever built, it, or more units will be single units unlike our current 4 together meshed together. Having the 4 in one bldg like our's and Bruce is suppose to be fairly tough to manage/run. Most American and Euro plants are singular from what I have been told and are able to be run more efficiently. Like most things we hear and read, by the time, if it is ever built, it will change 10 times at least until then.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
47,527
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by irv
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
For sure. Here's hoping for Darlington B grin
Yes, hopefully someday? From I have heard, if DNGS B is ever built, it, or more units will be single units unlike our current 4 together meshed together. Having the 4 in one bldg like our's and Bruce is suppose to be fairly tough to manage/run. Most American and Euro plants are singular from what I have been told and are able to be run more efficiently. Like most things we hear and read, by the time, if it is ever built, it will change 10 times at least until then.
Actually, many of the single units in the states are shutting down because they aren't cost effective to run in this age of cheap natural gas. Cost of Operation is directly offset by the ability to produce. Our large clusters produce significant volumes of power, thus making their operating costs lower. Nukes, as you are intimately aware, have significant regulation, oversight and staffing. That's the case whether the plant has 1 unit or 8. So while staffing may vary, it doesn't scale directly with the # of units. That is, it doesn't take 8x the staff to run Bruce that it would to run Point Lepreau; it doesn't take 4x the staff to run Darlington. Ergo, the higher the density of the site, the more it is able to offset its operating costs. This means of our group, Bruce is probably the cheapest to run (it also has the most staff, its own paramilitary, an ethanol plant and a marijuana grow op) and it makes a healthy profit for Bruce Power at $0.067/kWh, which is less than what we pay OPG. In fact I think that's key, as Bruce's cost is only planned to increase to $0.077/kWh after all six units are rerfurb'd, whilst OPG is begging for money/increases to help offset the Darlington refurb costs, as the site almost produces 1/2 of what Bruce does (half the revenue) and they will be losing the revenue from 3,000MW of Nuclear when Pickering starts to wind down in 2024. IF, and that's a big if, traditional units are built as B, we'll likely see a cluster of 4x CANDU 6's, as that appears to have been what won the bid after the environmental assessment and just before Wynnebat axed the project in 2013. That is, they are pretty much "ready to go" for that site, whereas if we used something else, there'd be a lot more red tape to go through before construction could commence. Alternatively, if the Moltex setup is successful at Point Lepreau, we may see a setup of their SMR's as the new B site, which promises far lower operating costs, staffing and regulations over traditional units. And it could run off the waste from the existing A site. Whatever goes there, OPG appears to be keen on keeping the doors open, as my understanding is that they fully intend on renewing the environmental assessment in 2022 to allow for a B site to proceed. I will say that I've been contacting the Energy Minister as well as the Premier advocating for us to do something at Darlington before Pickering starts its wind down. I've also been quite vocal about reconsidering the refurbishment of Pickering B, as the plant is being cut short on its intended lifespan, which included a mid-life refurb that it never saw. Ultimately, had we done Darlington B when it was originally planned, we could have avoided the entire circus with wind and solar, completely eliminated coal and likely even gas. 4,800MW of nuclear would have completely wiped out the requirements for additional gas capacity necessary to prop up wind and solar when they don't show up for work. Hydro-electric upgrades would have ensured it. We would then spill hydro to modulate output or export at a profit, since spillage has no cost. Would have been a far more effective solution than paying people $0.80/kWh to put solar panels on their roof.
 

irv

Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
2,195
Location
Oshawa, Ont. Canada
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by irv
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
For sure. Here's hoping for Darlington B grin
Yes, hopefully someday? From I have heard, if DNGS B is ever built, it, or more units will be single units unlike our current 4 together meshed together. Having the 4 in one bldg like our's and Bruce is suppose to be fairly tough to manage/run. Most American and Euro plants are singular from what I have been told and are able to be run more efficiently. Like most things we hear and read, by the time, if it is ever built, it will change 10 times at least until then.
Actually, many of the single units in the states are shutting down because they aren't cost effective to run in this age of cheap natural gas. Cost of Operation is directly offset by the ability to produce. Our large clusters produce significant volumes of power, thus making their operating costs lower. Nukes, as you are intimately aware, have significant regulation, oversight and staffing. That's the case whether the plant has 1 unit or 8. So while staffing may vary, it doesn't scale directly with the # of units. That is, it doesn't take 8x the staff to run Bruce that it would to run Point Lepreau; it doesn't take 4x the staff to run Darlington. Ergo, the higher the density of the site, the more it is able to offset its operating costs. This means of our group, Bruce is probably the cheapest to run (it also has the most staff, its own paramilitary, an ethanol plant and a marijuana grow op) and it makes a healthy profit for Bruce Power at $0.067/kWh, which is less than what we pay OPG. In fact I think that's key, as Bruce's cost is only planned to increase to $0.077/kWh after all six units are rerfurb'd, whilst OPG is begging for money/increases to help offset the Darlington refurb costs, as the site almost produces 1/2 of what Bruce does (half the revenue) and they will be losing the revenue from 3,000MW of Nuclear when Pickering starts to wind down in 2024. IF, and that's a big if, traditional units are built as B, we'll likely see a cluster of 4x CANDU 6's, as that appears to have been what won the bid after the environmental assessment and just before Wynnebat axed the project in 2013. That is, they are pretty much "ready to go" for that site, whereas if we used something else, there'd be a lot more red tape to go through before construction could commence. Alternatively, if the Moltex setup is successful at Point Lepreau, we may see a setup of their SMR's as the new B site, which promises far lower operating costs, staffing and regulations over traditional units. And it could run off the waste from the existing A site. Whatever goes there, OPG appears to be keen on keeping the doors open, as my understanding is that they fully intend on renewing the environmental assessment in 2022 to allow for a B site to proceed. I will say that I've been contacting the Energy Minister as well as the Premier advocating for us to do something at Darlington before Pickering starts its wind down. I've also been quite vocal about reconsidering the refurbishment of Pickering B, as the plant is being cut short on its intended lifespan, which included a mid-life refurb that it never saw. Ultimately, had we done Darlington B when it was originally planned, we could have avoided the entire circus with wind and solar, completely eliminated coal and likely even gas. 4,800MW of nuclear would have completely wiped out the requirements for additional gas capacity necessary to prop up wind and solar when they don't show up for work. Hydro-electric upgrades would have ensured it. We would then spill hydro to modulate output or export at a profit, since spillage has no cost. Would have been a far more effective solution than paying people $0.80/kWh to put solar panels on their roof.
But there was no money in that. coffee (what a show solar and wind came to be!) As far as multiple VS single units go, that is what I/we were told at our last Business plan roll out, but I have been there long enough to only believe half of what I see and nothing of what I hear, however. As you know, it comes down to the Gov't and what they decide we are going to do or build. As Sir Adam Beck said laying on his deathbed, ""I had hoped to live to forge a band of iron around the Hydro to prevent its destruction by the politicians." Good for you for contacting the Energy Minister and the Premier. Hopefully with Ford in office, he/they will listen rather than just brush your ideals away like you don't know what you're talking about. Wynne and Mcliar were something else to say the least! They knew everything you wrote above, they were told time and time again but it did not matter to them. Personally, I think the pair should be behind bars for what they did to this Province.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
47,527
Location
Ontario, Canada
I agree completely. Wynne, McGuinty, Butts, and everybody else involved in the taxpayer-funded free-for-all that masqueraded as environmental stewardship should be imprisoned. The fact that >90% of the contracts went to party sponsors is just a slap in the face to the ratepayers who were hosed by this self-serving clutch of entitled pigs. The sale of hydro ONE and the condescension that dripped off of every word that slogged out of Uncle Orville's mouth; she knew better than the folks that put her there and had the audacity to claim that this disaster that she and her predecessor created was NECESSARY for the greater good? An unfathomable fib of epic proportions as anybody familiar with OPG's plans prior to this spectacle was aware. She preached this fantastic lie until it was evident that nobody was buying it anymore and then she tried to buy us off with our own money via massive debt-funded deferment of the contract cost disaster that she created! The fact that she now has to sit in Queens Park with non-party status and watch as Ford dismantles everything? It's glorious, but nowhere near enough.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
18,706
Location
...
Meanwhile, back on Hokkaido, the authorities are asking for a 20% power usage reduction till the end of this week. As far as I have heard the big nuclear plant is still on emergency power. Some of their other power generation plants have suffered damage and need further repairs. Transportation is up and running with reduced services. The quake was upgraded to a mag 7.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
47,527
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by PimTac
Meanwhile, back on Hokkaido, the authorities are asking for a 20% power usage reduction till the end of this week. As far as I have heard the big nuclear plant is still on emergency power. Some of their other power generation plants have suffered damage and need further repairs. Transportation is up and running with reduced services. The quake was upgraded to a mag 7.
Will be watching with interest.
 
Top