Where does Nuclear Power stand as an energy alternative?

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
This is the breakdown from my PUD's website...
Hydro 62.8 percent
Natural Gas 28.7 percent
Coal 2.1 percent
Nuclear 5.9 percent
Other * 0.5 percent



Newsflash....those who wish to stand in the way of everything no longer support hydro as "renewable"...

I'm not sure I understand??? How is hydro not renewable? Are you talking about extreme tree huggers saying the dam is bad for the river but they sure do enjoy having some of the lowest kWh rates in the country??

Btw, I didn't have a problem when the Trojan nuclear plant was around. It was both sad (it was a fixture in the area for many years and you could see it from the I-5) and cool watching that thing get decommissioned and when they floated the core thing up the Columbia to Hanford. Public sentiment killed it...

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
BTW..Solar doesn't need to load follow. What's needed is better distribution system. For example parts of the system in California are almost 100 yrs old. Capacity isn't really an issue in the United States.

Then why did you bring up load following as a weakness in nuclear, yet give solar a pass for actually not being able to load follow?

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Nuclear consumes a lot of water. It accounts for almost 40 percent of freshwater usage in the United States of which approx one-half is sent to the atmosphere via the cooling towers.

That 40% is a very dubious figure. Try closer to 3% for consumption.



I mentioned load follow because solar adoption creates peeks and valleys in terms of generation. Nuclear is a poor choice for filling those gaps which is why utilities use NatGas Peaker plants due to the faster response time and comparatively lower expense. For example in the state of California just about every new home built will by code have solar panels. At the moment due to the proliferation of solar adding capacity via nuclear doesn't make sense for that state nor does it for much of the U.S. Canada won't have near the penetration of solar that the US has.

Now nuclear may become a better option as EV adoption increases because the base load might be higher at night when everyone is charging and there haven't been any significant advancements in storage.

As for my freshwater usage comment here's one source.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl


As for my freshwater usage comment here's one source.


I don't believe that link confirms what you've stated, it claims:
Quote
While electricity accounted for only 3.3% of U.S. freshwater consumption in 2013, it has accounted for as high as roughly 40% of all freshwater withdrawals dating back to 2000


Note the huge rift between withdrawl and consumption. That's because the vast majority of that water is returned to where it came from, and those figures include all other thermal sources.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter

I'm not sure I understand??? How is hydro not renewable? Are you talking about extreme tree huggers saying the dam is bad for the river but they sure do enjoy having some of the lowest kWh rates in the country??

Btw, I didn't have a problem when the Trojan nuclear plant was around. It was both sad (it was a fixture in the area for many years and you could see it from the I-5) and cool watching that thing get decommissioned and when they floated the core thing up the Columbia to Hanford. Public sentiment killed it...


Yes, basically. Because every single grid that has managed low emissions without nuclear has used hydro, it has become a point of contention. VRE advocates claim decarbonization success with wind/solar, but these accolades always rest on top of a firm base of hydro-electric. This is now viewed as an obstacle to VRE penetration desires by those championing it as the ATE, and so hydro has become a target and its classification as "renewable" questioned.

Nuclear is technically also renewable with a breeder or seawater uranium extraction, but that doesn't fit the VRE plugger narrative.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl


As for my freshwater usage comment here's one source.


I don't believe that link confirms what you've stated, it claims:
Quote
While electricity accounted for only 3.3% of U.S. freshwater consumption in 2013, it has accounted for as high as roughly 40% of all freshwater withdrawals dating back to 2000


Note the huge rift between withdrawl and consumption. That's because the vast majority of that water is returned to where it came from, and those figures include all other thermal sources.


My understanding is that nuclear vents approx one-half of the water it consumes. I'll have to locate that source (IIRC it was a study done by the Australian govt).

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl


As for my freshwater usage comment here's one source.


I don't believe that link confirms what you've stated, it claims:
Quote
While electricity accounted for only 3.3% of U.S. freshwater consumption in 2013, it has accounted for as high as roughly 40% of all freshwater withdrawals dating back to 2000


Note the huge rift between withdrawl and consumption. That's because the vast majority of that water is returned to where it came from, and those figures include all other thermal sources.


My understanding is that nuclear vents approx one-half of the water it consumes. I'll have to locate that source (IIRC it was a study done by the Australian govt).


If it's the recent "study" I'm thinking of, as presented by the anti-nuclear crowd in Australia, it's been thoroughly debunked. An NPP uses no more water than any other thermal generator.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter

I'm not sure I understand??? How is hydro not renewable? Are you talking about extreme tree huggers saying the dam is bad for the river but they sure do enjoy having some of the lowest kWh rates in the country??

Btw, I didn't have a problem when the Trojan nuclear plant was around. It was both sad (it was a fixture in the area for many years and you could see it from the I-5) and cool watching that thing get decommissioned and when they floated the core thing up the Columbia to Hanford. Public sentiment killed it...


Yes, basically. Because every single grid that has managed low emissions without nuclear has used hydro, it has become a point of contention. VRE advocates claim decarbonization success with wind/solar, but these accolades always rest on top of a firm base of hydro-electric. This is now viewed as an obstacle to VRE penetration desires by those championing it as the ATE, and so hydro has become a target and its classification as "renewable" questioned.

Nuclear is technically also renewable with a breeder or seawater uranium extraction, but that doesn't fit the VRE plugger narrative.



I think the NE US is planning to heavily rely upon hydro from Canada as they attempt to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl


As for my freshwater usage comment here's one source.


I don't believe that link confirms what you've stated, it claims:
Quote
While electricity accounted for only 3.3% of U.S. freshwater consumption in 2013, it has accounted for as high as roughly 40% of all freshwater withdrawals dating back to 2000


Note the huge rift between withdrawl and consumption. That's because the vast majority of that water is returned to where it came from, and those figures include all other thermal sources.


My understanding is that nuclear vents approx one-half of the water it consumes. I'll have to locate that source (IIRC it was a study done by the Australian govt).


If it's the recent "study" I'm thinking of, as presented by the anti-nuclear crowd in Australia, it's been thoroughly debunked. An NPP uses no more water than any other thermal generator.


HERE

In any case droughts are a concern in the United States. Especially the SE US which is why nobody can figure out why two new nuclear reactors were allowed to be built in GA/SC.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl


As for my freshwater usage comment here's one source.


I don't believe that link confirms what you've stated, it claims:
Quote
While electricity accounted for only 3.3% of U.S. freshwater consumption in 2013, it has accounted for as high as roughly 40% of all freshwater withdrawals dating back to 2000


Note the huge rift between withdrawl and consumption. That's because the vast majority of that water is returned to where it came from, and those figures include all other thermal sources.


My understanding is that nuclear vents approx one-half of the water it consumes. I'll have to locate that source (IIRC it was a study done by the Australian govt).


Here's the same source you linked earlier:
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/anderson-k1/

Quote
The tower has fans that pump air into the bottom of the hyperboloid shaped structure and pumps air out of the top as well. This creates a fairly strong upward airflow. The heated water is then released at roughly 10% of the total height. As this water falls it is cooled by the upward airflow. About 2% of the water is transferred into steam and released out of the top. The rest cools and falls into a water basin at the bottom of the tower. This basin then feeds the condenser with cold water. [1]

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
In any case droughts are a concern in the United States. Especially the SE US which is why nobody can figure out why two new nuclear reactors were allowed to be built in GA/SC.


Again, see Palo Verde. The overall water consumption, with cooling towers, is very small, which is why they've managed to make it work in the desert. Water "use" is a VRE plugger strawman used for shooting down nuclear. If coal works, so will a nuke, given their similar level of water use in practice. The most susceptible plants to droughts/cooling constraint are those that use once-through cooling, which nobody would build in one of those areas. They would use cooling towers like with a similarly sited coal plant.

Going forward, with SMR's that are passively cooled, having access to water won't even be a concern.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl


As for my freshwater usage comment here's one source.


I don't believe that link confirms what you've stated, it claims:
Quote
While electricity accounted for only 3.3% of U.S. freshwater consumption in 2013, it has accounted for as high as roughly 40% of all freshwater withdrawals dating back to 2000


Note the huge rift between withdrawl and consumption. That's because the vast majority of that water is returned to where it came from, and those figures include all other thermal sources.


My understanding is that nuclear vents approx one-half of the water it consumes. I'll have to locate that source (IIRC it was a study done by the Australian govt).


Here's the same source you linked earlier:
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/anderson-k1/

Quote
The tower has fans that pump air into the bottom of the hyperboloid shaped structure and pumps air out of the top as well. This creates a fairly strong upward airflow. The heated water is then released at roughly 10% of the total height. As this water falls it is cooled by the upward airflow. About 2% of the water is transferred into steam and released out of the top. The rest cools and falls into a water basin at the bottom of the tower. This basin then feeds the condenser with cold water. [1]


Did you look at table 1 of the study from Australia?

Of course I imagine the amount of usage varies from plant to plant because the cooling regime is designed according to what's available at the site.


In any case it doesn't change the fact that nuclear is not an ideal generation source when paired with solar.

 

[Mr Nice]

Nuclear power is very safe if done correctly.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl

Did you look at table 1 of the study from Australia?


Yes, it showed, with cooling towers, really not much of a difference between coal and a nuke.

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Of course I imagine the amount of usage varies from plant to plant because the cooling regime is designed according to what's available at the site.
In any case it doesn't change the fact that nuclear is not an ideal generation source when paired with solar.


Yes, just like with a fossil plant.

Did you see the table I posted earlier with Bruce load following? It can bypass steam, per unit, to follow the load profile of the grid. That site consists of 8 of our 18 operating reactors in the province.

Now, I'm not going to say that this is a great use of nuclear, it isn't, given what I described earlier. These plants are the most efficient when operating at high capacity factors and dropping off during the day would be a less than ideal use of that generation. However, it is quite possible to use solar, with perhaps pumped storage, to displace the need for gas peakers if things were done properly. In that way, one could have a properly sized base of nuclear with a solar/storage peaker displacement mechanism.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl

Did you look at table 1 of the study from Australia?


Yes, it showed, with cooling towers, really not much of a difference between coal and a nuke.

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Of course I imagine the amount of usage varies from plant to plant because the cooling regime is designed according to what's available at the site.
In any case it doesn't change the fact that nuclear is not an ideal generation source when paired with solar.


Yes, just like with a fossil plant.

Did you see the table I posted earlier with Bruce load following? It can bypass steam, per unit, to follow the load profile of the grid. That site consists of 8 of our 18 operating reactors in the province.

Now, I'm not going to say that this is a great use of nuclear, it isn't, given what I described earlier. These plants are the most efficient when operating at high capacity factors and dropping off during the day would be a less than ideal use of that generation. However, it is quite possible to use solar, with perhaps pumped storage, to displace the need for gas peakers if things were done properly. In that way, one could have a properly sized base of nuclear with a solar/storage peaker displacement mechanism.


Ya, that was interesting. Still digesting what it all means.

 

[emg]

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
I think the NE US is planning to heavily rely upon hydro from Canada as they attempt to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.


If the stories about Canada almost running out of power last winter are true... good luck.

Every fantasy of replacing fossil fuels with unreliable energy relies on being able to import reliable energy from other states or countries when the unreliable power isn't there. That only works until everyone else switches to unreliable power, at which point absolutely everything collapses.

 

[emg]

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
In any case it doesn't change the fact that nuclear is not an ideal generation source when paired with solar.


I think you mean 'solar is not an ideal generation source when paired with nuclear'.

A power source that requires large amounts of energy to produce, varies radically in output through the year even in ideal conditions, and is only available at most half the day is a really silly idea if you have any other alternative that's actually reliable all year round. Solar is great if you have to live off the grid, but that's about it.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by emg
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
I think the NE US is planning to heavily rely upon hydro from Canada as they attempt to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.


If the stories about Canada almost running out of power last winter are true... good luck.

Every fantasy of replacing fossil fuels with unreliable energy relies on being able to import reliable energy from other states or countries when the unreliable power isn't there. That only works until everyone else switches to unreliable power, at which point absolutely everything collapses.


If you mean Quebec, which is the primary exporter of hydro-electric, then yes, they have limited export capacity. There is an Ontario/Quebec interconnect that we (Ontario) tend to lean on during summer months to avoid burning gas, but at other times of the year Quebec leans on it, importing Ontario Nuclear/hydro or even gas.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by emg
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
In any case it doesn't change the fact that nuclear is not an ideal generation source when paired with solar.


I think you mean 'solar is not an ideal generation source when paired with nuclear'.

A power source that requires large amounts of energy to produce, varies radically in output through the year even in ideal conditions, and is only available at most half the day is a really silly idea if you have any other alternative that's actually reliable all year round. Solar is great if you have to live off the grid, but that's about it.


No actually I don't. The variability isn't that great in the lower 48 especially the bottom half the country. For example the northern edge of Texas is essentially 20 degrees farther south than the US/Canadian border. Texas is on the same line of latitude as North Africa and the Middle East.

In the US the un-subsidized cost of solar is rapidly approaching that of more traditional sources which is why, in the US, utilities generally are investing in grid management/storage rather than generation.


Of course in an ideal world, we'd all have a power unit about the size of a briefcase which we could then plug into/power our homes. Talk about freedom.

 

[Tusky]

Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by Cujet
Fusion may actually happen. LockMart seems to believe in, and claims to be designing, reduced size fusion reactors. With some wording about sustaining a reaction for 10 seconds.

That is long enough to provide plenty of usable energy, especially if restarts can follow.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Compact_Fusion_Reactor


It's one of those things like AI, always about 20 years away although it seems like it's actually getting closer these days. ITER will still take a while start up and the costs of the project is high. It seems like every time they get close, they run into some instability problem and that problem takes a while to figure out.

Remember cold fusion? Even after it was dead, there was always some talk of someone being able to do something with it and it was just around the corner. Reminds me of hydrogen powered cars and fuel cells.

 

[Tusky]

Yes, I remember cold fusion. These days its called LENR, Low Energy Nuclear Rx. There's a conference every year at MIT. A company in Washington state (Brillouin) is now getting a decent coefficient of performance (COP) of about 2, aiming for much higher. The phenomena does exist. It's tricky to get it to perform , it does not seem to be amenable to throttlingm so first uses will be on-off or base-load niches. Brillouin targets water heating and space heating as first commercial projects...they will license the tech to existing companies in those businesses.

Do I think it will come to pass in 2019? No, but the 2020s may see a complete change in some energy markets.