Nuclear - The cheapest way to decarbonize power

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Toaster_Jer

Now, it's time to develop really efficient batteries that don't have to be replaced all the time.

Elon Musk gets it... (Powerwall)


I think that over-simplifies it and ignores the unsuitability for stuff we like the idea of at a micro level to translate to the macro side of things. Shannow has already addressed that but when I think of "batteries" for something that is going to actually function as part of the grid, I don't think of these novelty items but rather something that aligns more closely with the scale of what it is being attached to.

Dams and reservoirs as batteries are what show the most promise here. Fill them up when the renewables are dumping power, and use that power to do the pumping, and then when the sun stops shining or the wind stops blowing, water is let back out, spinning turbines and generating reliable power, completely able to offset the power generated by the renewables that at that point, aren't working. And of course these reservoir based generation methods are completely scalable relative to the size of the renewable install they are supporting.

I believe Germany is already leveraging this as part of their green energy policy, though are still having to buy power from their neighbours and burn coal because of the knee-jerk shuttering of their nukes (which was an idiotic move, but anyways...)

 

[fdcg27]

Sure, nuclear is the only real replacement for fossil fuel fired plants.
Once you swallow the huge capital cost involved in building a fission power station, the operating costs themselves are really low.
There is no reason at all that nuclear fission plants can't be made quite safe.
In the Japanese case, a lack of depth and robustness in the backup systems as well as a lack of adequate response on the ground resulted in disaster, but that was in no way inevitable.
Finally, just to give some offended "experts" something to object to, there is nothing unnatural about harnessing nuclear energy.
Long before we as a species could burn fossil fuels, we relied upon nuclear energy in the forms of that big fusion reactor in the sky as well as the heat of the radioactive decay at the core of our world.
Without both of these things, we wouldn't be here to have this discussion.

 

[Kiwi_ME]

Deploying nuclear forms of energy is likely going to be far less damaging in the long term than continuing the use of fossil fuels. Are there any better alternatives for baseline power?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
Deploying nuclear forms of energy is likely going to be far less damaging in the long term than continuing the use of fossil fuels. Are there any better alternatives for baseline power?


Where available, hydro electric. Doesn't have the byproducts that have to be dealt with or the degree of risk.

Check out this Canadian monster:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_Falls_Generating_Station

Quote:
The Churchill Falls Generating Station is a hydroelectric power station located on the Churchill River in Newfoundland and Labrador. The underground power station can generate 5,428 MW, which makes it the second-largest in Canada, after the Robert-Bourassa generating station. The generating station was commissioned between 1971 and 1974. The facility is owned and operated by the Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation Limited (CFLCo), a joint venture between Nalcor Energy (65.8%) and Hydro-Québec (34.2%).


Or the other one referenced:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert-Bourassa_generating_station

Quote:
The Robert-Bourassa generating station (formerly known as La Grande-2) is a hydroelectric power station on the La Grande River that is part of Hydro-Québec's James Bay Project in Canada. The station can generate 5,616 MW and its 16 units were gradually commissioned between 1979 and 1981.[1] Annual generation is in the vicinity of 26500 GWh.[2]

Together with the adjacent 2,106 MW La Grande-2-A generating station (LG-2-A), commissioned in 1991-1992, it uses the reservoir and dam system of the Robert-Bourassa Reservoir to generate electricity. The two plants taken together account for more than 20% of Hydro-Québec's total installed capacity of 36,810 MW in 2009.[1] It is Canada's largest hydroelectric power station and currently[when?] ranks in 8th place on the list of largest hydroelectric power stations.

 

[DoubleWasp]

The first thing that will be required for a true energy solution to emerge will be the use of logic, rather than emotion to prevail.

Too many environmentalists hate hydroelectric power as much as anything.

 

[Shannow]

Lest I be accused of pushing coal's barrow again (I'm not)...

Hydro's not a carbon free deal either

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed/

You would think that in the scheme of things, harvesting all of the timber during the construction phase would be mandatory, and just plain make sense, but we tend not to.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Lest I be accused of pushing coal's barrow again (I'm not)...

Hydro's not a carbon free deal either

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed/

You would think that in the scheme of things, harvesting all of the timber during the construction phase would be mandatory, and just plain make sense, but we tend not to.


Looked at that way, you can say the same thing for a nuke. All the concrete, steel and land clearing that go into building this:

Which, tooting our own horn here, is the most powerful nuke plant on the planet at 7,276 MW, but still, that's a fair chunk of land cleared at roughly 300 acres IIRC.

 

[Kiwi_ME]

I have to question if hydro is long-term future-proof. Even we have occasional years of low lake levels and that could shift unpredictably in the next 100 years. We are currently 73% renewable, aiming for 90% in 10 years, ironically the same we were in 1975.
But for regions without these natural resources, what else can they do?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
I have to question if hydro is long-term future-proof. Even we have occasional years of low lake levels and that could shift unpredictably in the next 100 years. We are currently 73% renewable, aiming for 90% in 10 years, ironically the same we were in 1975.
But for regions without these natural resources, what else can they do?


the big drought that we had 8 years ago or so really highlighted that (at the time, we were evaporating 90-100ML per day, and water was really tight)...100 year "historical averages" told you absolutely nothing about avoiding disaster.

The 100 years contained two blocks, basically 50 very wet years, and 50 very dry years...if you modelled based on the dry, you'd never have built a power station here. You could never build the storage to collect the wet and carry it into the dry.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME

But for regions without these natural resources, what else can they do?


Well, they could, as you surmised, do nukes. A single CANDU ACR-1000 makes 1200MW. Four of them would power many European countries, including Denmark which could be run by our smallest nuke plant, Darlington, as it consumes only ~3,600MW. Ontario is a huge province and the majority of our power comes from the three big nukes we run.

 

[Kiwi_ME]

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Too many environmentalists hate hydroelectric power as much as anything.

I think, as engineers, we try to avoid confusing the fundamental science with emotion and politics. But in the end, our own survival depends on our choices being "environmentally-friendly" in the big picture. The path we are currently on needs significant correction.

http://phys.org/news/2016-01-aliens-silent-theyre-dead.html

 

[OVERKILL]

Kiwi_ME:

According to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_New_Zealand

You guys have 9,603MW of installed generating capacity total.

That means your entire country's energy needs could be met with eight ACR-1000's. So you look at the picture of Bruce I posted, that site has eight reactors (they are not ACR-1000's) and that's about the real estate necessary for that kind of install.

From a logistical standpoint you of course wouldn't do a single site, you'd break it up into multiple sites but the point is to see how much power you can generate in a relatively small area with one of these plants. It is incredible.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: Colt45ws
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: andyd


Uhmmn I generally agree with you, but for the recent happenings in Japan. When nuclear power goes bad, it goes bad for a long time.The costs can get steep. Somehow, the "what if" should be applied to the cost per kilo watt hour. Don't ask me how.


1. That wasn't a CANDU
2. It was built on a fault line
3. It was built in a location that could be effected by a Tsunami
4. It was not properly maintained

And there's a laundry list of other faults with the Japan situation which make it a very poor comparison to any sort of properly implemented modern nuclear install.

Agree. It amazes me that they were running a nuclear plant so shoddily.


The old ones are the best. Doesn't matter how often I hear it, this kind of stuff still kills me. (Perhaps literally eventually).

"Nuclear power is safe as houses, its those PEOPLE who design and operate (they usually leave out regulate) it that are the problem..... er, Generally."

Ok, a couple of selected nuclear highlights:

Windscale UK 1957, perhaps, I'm sorry to say, the most blatant example available. An air-cooled!!! graphite - moderated!!!!!! reactor, with a striking (and, as it turned out, not coincidental) resemblance to a pot-bellied stove. One lone engineer made a real pain in the arse of himself and insisted they install filter galleries at the top of the airshaft/chimney. Phew! And the fire brigade skooshed water in it, and the water didn't explode. Phew again!

But what can you expect from the Brits, eh? Culture of official secrecy, always stopping for tea, trying to maintain past glory with their very own Cold War A-bomb programme.

And engineering? Morris Marina. Nuff said.

Chernobyll 1986 Well known story: Graphite-moderated water cooled reactor with control system, procedural and containment flaws. Blew up and fire was contained with much difficulty and heroism.

But what can you expect from the Ruski's eh? Slavonic fatalism, culture of official secrecy and infallibility, always stopping for vodka, desperately trying to match US nuclear supremacy in the Cold War.

and engineering? Lada. Nuff said

So what we need is a culture and people to whom correct, meticulous procedure is almost a religion. A people with profound historical reasons to be suspicious of, and careful about, radiation and matters nuclear. A people so strongly opposed to militarism that they refused to have an army for a period, and still limit its operations to conform to its Self Defence Force title.

and engineering? Toyota. Nuff sai.....oh, wait

Maybe we could get the Swiss involved? There'd be a few bob in it for them.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Chernobyl was a pretty good example of what happens when you literally do everything wrong.

 

[Kiwi_ME]

Originally Posted By: Ducked

...Ok, a couple of selected nuclear highlights...

I noticed you only "selected" the examples that failed?
You could add 3-Mile Island and have an amazing choice of awful cars to associate with that.

With today's engineering and technology rather than that of the 1950s we could build a pretty reliable plant.

And even an occasional accident will pale in comparison to the permanent environmental damage we have already caused with fossil fuels, much of it yet to be witnessed.

 

[Toaster_Jer]

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Russia-connects-BN800-fast-reactor-to-grid-11121501.html

Yeah, that is all we need now. Rosatom's Fast Neutron Reactor! Hah! It's likely a Graphite Reactor. Just like Chernobyl. Will they never learn...

LFTRs use slow neutrons due to what's known as effective capture area. It increases the likelihood of a neutron being captured and causing fission - and it's safer and requires less shielding.

Fast reactors also create all sorts of daughter product [censored] that is both dangerous and unstable. More stupids from the nuke weapons people. They want those products. It permits their current premier to puff his chest out more often. Why can't we play it safe with Thorium U233. Other countries are using it safely. Can't tell me they don't want to use them later for weapons. IMO

 

[Toaster_Jer]

That Powerwall does not affect the grid is false. It's a resource regardless. If the grid providers were allowed access (within limits), it can be a real boon to grid stability. Of course, an investment in software by the grid managers is required for that. Tough. Spend the money.

On a personal level, the Powerwall concept isolates you, the user, form power company shenanigans. That's another reason they poo-poo it.

RE: Modular Reactors. Bwahaha! Those are still LWRs. The problem with LWRs was shown with Fukushima. The core requires constant cooling. Even after a SCRAM, the daughter products continue to generate lots of heat for days or weeks - until they decay. Those instabilities due to "poisoning" is one reason Chernobyl melted.
Even "exhausted" fuel in the spent fuel pools melted down once the water (containment) boiled away.

The only safe system is one that is totally passive once SCRAMmed. The only ones that do that are Thorium LFTRs. What you're seeing is the reluctance of governments to give up having reactors that can create nuclear weapon materials.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Toaster_Jer
That Powerwall does not affect the grid is false. It's a resource regardless. If the grid providers were allowed access (within limits), it can be a real boon to grid stability.


So does it or doesn't it interact with the grid ?

You say that the premise that it doesn't is false...then go on to explain what need to be done to get it to do so.

So it doesn't as it currently stands ?

What do you consider a reasonable charge for the owners of the powerwalls in having the wear and tear on the batteries of being bumped up and down with every frequency event ?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Chernobyl was a pretty good example of what happens when you literally do everything wrong.


No kidding...poorly-trained personnel, poorly-designed reactor that the people running it actually didn't know much about (the design was a "state secret"), no containment building, and running it at over 100% power.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
Originally Posted By: Ducked

...Ok, a couple of selected nuclear highlights...

I noticed you only "selected" the examples that failed?
You could add 3-Mile Island and have an amazing choice of awful cars to associate with that.

With today's engineering and technology rather than that of the 1950s we could build a pretty reliable plant.

And even an occasional accident will pale in comparison to the permanent environmental damage we have already caused with fossil fuels, much of it yet to be witnessed.


Yes, Three Mile Island was terrible. It is so bad that...the plant's other reactor is STILL RUNNING! Yes, 35 years after TMI-2 melted down, TMI-1 is still operating!