When a nuke closes

[OVERKILL]

Its output is replaced with gas. Full-stop.

As the 2024 date for the impending shutdown of our first large scale nuclear power plant looms here in Ontario, OPG (Ontario Power Generation) the Crown Corporation, which is the public generating asset of the former Ontario Hydro, has acquired a number of combined cycle gas plants and completed the full acquisition of a 50% stakes they owned previously:

OPG acquires numerous gas plants

Originally Posted by opg
"The role that natural gas plays in maintaining system reliability has become even more important with the addition of intermittent wind and solar generation in recent years. Natural gas is the partner or enabler of renewable energy, providing the flexibility required to ensure a reliable electricity system." - Ken Hartwick, OPG's President and CEO


Originally Posted by opg
Ontario Power Generation ("OPG"), under a new subsidiary, has entered into a purchase agreement with affiliates of TC Energy (formerly TransCanada Corporation) to acquire a portfolio of combined-cycle natural gas-fired plants in Ontario.


Total procured capacity, including the 50% stake in the Brighton plant is 2,693MW, which isn't far off from the ~3,000MW the 6 operating units at Pickering represent. Ontario is currently one of the world leaders in low emissions generation thanks to our nuclear fleet, with many days hovering around 20g CO2/kWh. This will be wiped out once Pickering retires. Obviously, OPG doesn't see a reversal on the decision to not refurbish Pickering, which would push its operating life into the 2060's, in the future

I've been advocating that Bruce Power, which is a private company that runs our public asset, Bruce Nuclear, take over operation of the Pickering site. The turnaround and improvements they've accomplished with the 8 units on the Bruce Peninsula are incredible. It's one of the top performing sites in the world and has received numerous uprates with more to come. The idea is that they could achieve similar at Pickering, as the B side never received its mid-life refurbishment.

Pickering's biggest issue is its relatively low output units when compared to the other 12 operating in the province. All the Bruce units are close to or above 800MW, the Darlington ones are close to 900. Pickering units are ~514MW. This makes them less economical to operate and makes it harder to justify refurbishing them given the CAPEX and slower payback.

 

[53' Stude]

Sounds good

 

[BISCUT]

I have a legitimate view of the nuclear energy production game. I am LE and and was assigned to deal with a local plant in NY. Won't say much but if you can get by the politics it's hard to truly legitimately be ani-nuc. I get it but whenever asked what is your replacement there never seems to be an answer that anyone with education and realism can demonstrate.

I always ponder to those anti-nuclear (which I'm cool with) is what is the solution? Aren't you also anti oil? And anti War? To me that's an oxymoron isn't it? No nuke ok! Got it but then how are you no war when war is soooo oil based? I'm a true New England boy and liberty for all is how I live and work. BUT you can't have it all.

I say this as a hey....nuclear has some fear for me but it's nothing that can't be controlled and I'd like to see a legitimate alternative. Wind I was all for but now in implementation I see just how many negatives it brings. I still hold some fingers for solar but even that has not been the boom we all would like to see. At least I can say real world in my area. And I have huge sunrise to 4pm sundown exposure. Neighbor next to me is breaking even despite the promises made due to exposure.

As usual, nothing promised has worked out for the middle class dude......at least in my experience which is limited. Disclaimer done.

 

[M56959]

Please keep the discussion technical and without political commentary.

 

[NO2]

It's too bad that they didn't just replace the nuclear plant with something more modern, like the ones that Hyundai is building. So much for carbon-free energy.

 

[sloinker]

I think that there is now new technology that uses small reactors located all over the place. Less fissile material and fail safe designs. Been a while since i looked at the science but the huge reactors may be doomed. Japan is shutting down the remains of its Fukishama site and that appears to be a trend, just like the Germans.

 

[Skippy722]

Originally Posted by sloinker
I think that there is now new technology that uses small reactors located all over the place. Less fissile material and fail safe designs. Been a while since i looked at the science but the huge reactors may be doomed. Japan is shutting down the remains of its Fukishama site and that appears to be a trend, just like the Germans.


Overkill has posted about them, SMR, Small Modular Reactor. I watched a video from NuScale. Each of their units is 60 megawatts and passively cooled.

 

[JHZR2]

In theory with enough renewables and energy storage, the use of leaker plants can be minimized. And, it's possibke to get above 40% thermal,efficiency off of these NG plants. Come a spike in that commodity cost, new recuperation and bottoming cycle technologies will surely be innovated.

But all of that comes at its own cost and complexity. There is no free lunch.

 

[The_Nuke]

I'm definitely pro-Nuke!!

 

[KevD47]

It's a crying shame the world's opinion of nuke is based on 40-50yr old technology in controls, fail safes, general design and a few (relatively speaking) incompetent people. Chernobyl built on the cheap followed by sheer incompetence by the operators. 3-mile island could have been prevented, but again, 40 years ago we didn't have what we have available to us now. Fukushima knew the generators were in a vulnerable location for a tsunami that could easily breach the small sea wall. I get it, each incident is a spectacle, and also based on your grandfather's nuke and design practices.

The US should have two new reactors online in Georgia in the next couple years or so (Votgle), the first in over 40 years. Hopefully the reputation can start to be rebuilt.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by JHZR2
In theory with enough renewables and energy storage, the use of leaker plants can be minimized. And, it's possibke to get above 40% thermal,efficiency off of these NG plants. Come a spike in that commodity cost, new recuperation and bottoming cycle technologies will surely be innovated.

But all of that comes at its own cost and complexity. There is no free lunch.


That depends on geography. Nova Scotia has far better wind turbine performance than Ontario but even they have large lulls in wind output. I track our wind fleet output, summer capacity factory is around 8-9%; utterly abysmal. I'm not concerned about the thermal efficiency, it's the fact that they are going to take our world leading low CO2 emissions and toss them out the window, as these facilities are >300g CO2/kWh, versus the nukes which are around 15.

We will be building more nukes, we know that, so this is a somewhat interim measure, but the fact that this facility never received its mid-life refurbishment and will thus be shutdown is infuriating, as it has reliability provided us with power since the early 1970's and there's nothing wrong with the facility itself, it is more than capable of, post refurbishment, operating until the 2060's like Bruce and Darlington.

My plan (that I've advocated) for this facility is to refurbish the B side (the A side, the two units operating were already retubed) and demo the two shuttered units, replacing them with SMR's (Moltex SSR is likely the most appropriate, runs on used CANDU fuel). This achieves two things:
1. It keeps the site active, avoiding the cost of decommissioning
2. Provides an already grid-connected location for a commercial SMR build-out with fuel on-site, it's the closest you can get to plug-n-play

Once the two retubed A units are EOL, replace them with more SMR's. That way, the entire site can be phased into SMR units. This would be far more cost effective IMHO.

 

[Pew]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
That depends on geography. Nova Scotia has far better wind turbine performance than Ontario but even they have large lulls in wind output. I track our wind fleet output, summer capacity factory is around 8-9%; utterly abysmal. I'm not concerned about the thermal efficiency, it's the fact that they are going to take our world leading low CO2 emissions and toss them out the window, as these facilities are >300g CO2/kWh, versus the nukes which are around 15.


How do wind turbines create CO2 emissions?

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by Pew
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
That depends on geography. Nova Scotia has far better wind turbine performance than Ontario but even they have large lulls in wind output. I track our wind fleet output, summer capacity factory is around 8-9%; utterly abysmal. I'm not concerned about the thermal efficiency, it's the fact that they are going to take our world leading low CO2 emissions and toss them out the window, as these facilities are >300g CO2/kWh, versus the nukes which are around 15.


How do wind turbines create CO2 emissions?


NatGas peaker plants are sometimes used to fill the void when the wind isn't blowing. NatGas is used because it is comparatively faster than nuclear at ramping up and down.

 

[Pew]

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by Pew
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
That depends on geography. Nova Scotia has far better wind turbine performance than Ontario but even they have large lulls in wind output. I track our wind fleet output, summer capacity factory is around 8-9%; utterly abysmal. I'm not concerned about the thermal efficiency, it's the fact that they are going to take our world leading low CO2 emissions and toss them out the window, as these facilities are >300g CO2/kWh, versus the nukes which are around 15.


How do wind turbines create CO2 emissions?


NatGas peaker plants are used to fill the void when the wind isn't blowing. NatGas is used because it is comparatively faster than nuclear at ramping up and down.


Oh I see, that makes sense. I thought the wind turbines themselves were somehow producing CO2 emissions from just....spinning.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by KevD47
It's a crying shame the world's opinion of nuke is based on 40-50yr old technology in controls, fail safes, general design and a few (relatively speaking) incompetent people. Chernobyl built on the cheap followed by sheer incompetence by the operators. 3-mile island could have been prevented, but again, 40 years ago we didn't have what we have available to us now. Fukushima knew the generators were in a vulnerable location for a tsunami that could easily breach the small sea wall. I get it, each incident is a spectacle, and also based on your grandfather's nuke and design practices.

The US should have two new reactors online in Georgia in the next couple years or so (Votgle), the first in over 40 years. Hopefully the reputation can start to be rebuilt.



IIRC Toshiba had a self-regulating design which was about the size of a trailer that could be buried and power a small town.

 

[emg]

Originally Posted by Pew
Oh I see, that makes sense. I thought the wind turbines themselves were somehow producing CO2 emissions from just....spinning.


Building them produces a substantial amount. Not just from the manufacture of the windmills, but the infrastructure required to support them; building roads into the wilderness, transporting them across the country, etc, etc.

And dismantling and removing them, if anyone is ever going to do that rather than just let them rust in place.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Pew
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
That depends on geography. Nova Scotia has far better wind turbine performance than Ontario but even they have large lulls in wind output. I track our wind fleet output, summer capacity factory is around 8-9%; utterly abysmal. I'm not concerned about the thermal efficiency, it's the fact that they are going to take our world leading low CO2 emissions and toss them out the window, as these facilities are >300g CO2/kWh, versus the nukes which are around 15.


How do wind turbines create CO2 emissions?


As BMWTurboDzl noted, it's the gas that produces the CO2, which is what will be replacing Pickering (nuclear) in Ontario, and is basically always what's on standby to augment/replace wind capacity when it goes AWOL. Fast ramping gas plants were built to support wind/solar in Ontario because gas is cheap, and gas plants are cheap. The previous administration built wind/solar and we got a pile of gas to back it up. That gas capacity is, as expected, used intermittently and it appears that the public generator is buying some of these already built gas plants to use to replace the capacity previously provided by Pickering nuclear.

Ontario has 10,277MW of installed gas capacity at this time, but it only provides 6% of our electricity. That's because 86% of our demand is currently met by nuclear (61%) and Hydro (25%). The remainder is wind, solar, biomass and gas. That percentage will increase when Pickering shutters, dropping 15% of our low emissions generation offline and replacing it with gas.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted by emg
Originally Posted by Pew
Oh I see, that makes sense. I thought the wind turbines themselves were somehow producing CO2 emissions from just....spinning.


Building them produces a substantial amount. Not just from the manufacture of the windmills, but the infrastructure required to support them; building roads into the wilderness, transporting them across the country, etc, etc.

And dismantling and removing them, if anyone is ever going to do that rather than just let them rust in place.



Wind turbines are just plain inefficient, destroy wildlife, and most people do not want to live near them. We should more nuclear.

 

[Ammofirst]

Out west we have already transitioned to mulberry squeezins

 

[Schmoe]

I was all for wind energy too, and living in Oklahoma, wind turbines are EVERYWHERE. Just drive up I-35 from Texas to OKC, you'll see. However, the truth has been coming out. When you look at cradle to grave, they emit a lot of CO2. Just in the manufacturing process alone. Then look at transportation to the sites, then look at the infrastructure required to place a windgen. Also, those long blades do not last a long time and are changed more frequently than you'd think. They are opening up landfills, especially in Wyoming, that simply lay the blades flat, and then bury them. No recycling whatsoever. When you take into account all that energy needed to get these things to produce power on-line, natural gas is cheaper and cleaner. A new natural gas plant built next to a coal plant saves tons of CO2, use existing infrastructure. Getting natural gas to a site takes minimal amount of work with all these new pipe lines coming on line from the Anadarko Basin.