The Aging of Our Nuclear Power Plants Is Not So Graceful

Lasrick writes "This is a very thoughtful article on nuclear power plant aging: how operators use early retirement of plants to extract concessions from rate-payers and a discussion on how California's 'forward-looking planning process' has probably mitigated disruption from the closing of San Onofre."

Comments

NIMBY

[fredgiblet]

It's going to be pretty ugly in a couple decades. It would be nice if people could be rational and let us build newer reactors.

Re:NIMBY

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The reason reactors are not being built has to do with the cost -- they're not cost-effective for utilities unless they get huge subsidies.

2. Where are you going to put the nuclear waste? No, seriously, stop joking around: where are you *really* going to put the waste? This has been well-studied, and there's no good answer.

3. Improving efficiency is faster and more-effective than increasing output in the near term. Sure, we do need increased capacity, but instead of burning money in the form of subsidies lavished on for-profit energy companies, let's commit real public expenditure on real efficiency initiatives.

Re:NIMBY

[Zynder]

Oh well please, AC, enlighten us with how exactly you propose we generate and supply the 1.21 GW of power that each person will eventually need. Our society craves more power (of all kinds!) and capitalism flourishes when each participant is continuously consuming more and more. You will not get us, as a modern society with all of our toys, to take a step back in time and do without. It just won't happen. GP is correct, we have several technologies, such as pebble bed reactors, that are not the unsafe designs of the 50s and 60s. But when you try to tell someone that, all they can think of is Chernobyl and Fukushima. Both were outdated and should have been scrapped but due to irrational fear, were allowed to keep running past thier expiration date.

Re:NIMBY

[KiloByte]

1. The reason reactors are not being built has to do with the cost -- they're not cost-effective for utilities unless they get huge subsidies.

Like, say, burning coal and oil? Let's see what the price of those would be if you had to store the waste.

2. Where are you going to put the nuclear waste?

Burning coal produces a lot more of radioactive dust which is simply put into the air. Almost any solution for (relatively) easy to secure barrels is better to that. Oh, and besides radioactive stuff, you get carbon dioxide, sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides and a laundry list of other pollutants.

So any comparison that is not biased towards combusting carbon-based deposits by many orders of magnitude shows that if we had any shred of rationality we should replace those with nuclear power. Geothermal is better where it's available, wind not really.

Re:NIMBY

[john.r.strohm]

With all due respect, you appear to fail to understand the distinction between base load plants and topping plants.

Base load plants supply the huge amount of power that MUST BE THERE 24x7. Topping plants supply the variable amount that is or is not needed depending on seasons, weather, uncharacteristic heat waves, sudden cold snaps, Pink Floyd concert light shows...

MOST of the power demand is base load demand. Heating and cooling don't stop. Water pumping doesn't stop. Hospitals run 24x7. Ditto traffic lights.

For topping plants, there are lots of choices, natural gas being a popular one. For base load plants, there are at the moment exactly three viable choices: hydroelectric, coal, and nuclear (to be precise, negative void coefficient pressurized water reactors). We are maxed out on hydroelectric power: every dammable river in the country has already been dammed. Coal is about the dirtiest power generation technology known to man, as well as one of the most dangerous (Google "black lung disease" someday). That leaves nuclear as Hobson's Choice, if you actually care about environmental and safety issues. (Hint: Of the three, only one emits significant quantities of carbon dioxide.) (For that matter, if coal plants were held to the radiation release limits applied to nuclear plants, it would be impossible to light up a coal plant, because of the radioisotopes in the coal (carbon-14 being the big one) that go straight up the smokestack and into the atmosphere.)

*ANY* base load plant costs a lot of money and takes a long time to build, because, by their very nature, they are BIG.

Finally, observe that wind and solar are utterly unsuitable for base load, because the wind doesn't always blow, and the sun effectively "goes out" for several hours every day.

Re:NIMBY

[Random Destruction]

I have no idea where your 1.2 GW per person figure comes from

Turn in your nerd card.

Re:NIMBY

[CodeBuster]

Citation needed.

Oh please, really? Do you honestly believe that environmentalists don't deliberately delay power plant construction (especially nuclear) in the United States? Give me a break. Also, I said that it was a substantial cost, not the only cost. The problem is legal and economic, so it cannot be solved by a new reactor design because it wouldn't matter what design was proposed to the environmentalists, they'd still be against it. The legal problems require political not technical solutions and the economic problems are largely caused by the legal and political problems. Dragging out engineering projects, in the courts and through political maneuvering, is expensive and that's were the delays deal economic damage. The environmentalists wouldn't use those tactics if they weren't effective.

please explain how the failure of WPPSS in the late 70's and early 80's was the result of this versus economic, technical, and competency factors.

Are you going to tell me that there wasn't a single lawsuit filed or political agitation conducted by environmental groups opposed to a new reactor? I don't believe that the problem is entirely caused by technology or lack of engineering competency.

Then please explain how the new designs will escape this fate. After all, since there must be places which don't have this problem, these new designs must be operating successfully in large numbers. Where are these places?

Of course new designs cannot solve what amounts to a problem of politics. As for where nuclear power is widespread, how about France? I think that there are three basic reasons why France was able to build many reactors, using a modified US design (Westinghouse I think) no less, while things have been more problematic here in the US. First, France has almost no natural deposits of either coal, natural gas or petroleum and few rivers to be dammed so for the French it was pretty much nuclear or nothing. Second, the French have a much greater faith in their scientists and engineers than we do here in the United States. The French scientists and engineers in turn work hard to earn and sustain that trust by doing good work. I cannot recall there ever being a serious nuclear accident in France for example. Finally, it seems that the French legal system doesn't allow for NIMBYs to get in the way of projects that are deemed to be in the national interest whereas anyone with money for the filing fees can cause no end of legal trouble here in the United States.

In any case, it will still take decades for them to come on line in significant numbers at BEST (based on production estimates).

Wah, wah, wah it's too hard and it takes to long to get strated so why even try right? There's a productive attitude. You could use that argument against just about anything worth doing. Indeed, just imagine where we might be as a nation today if we allowed that objection to override all good sense. The difficulty of the task should inform our long term planning, but it shouldn't be taken as a reason to do nothing or not to get started. I could trot out that same argument for why we should do nothing about global warming, why bother to do anything now when the benefits won't be seen for decades, but I suspect that you wouldn't like the argument as much in that case.

Sure, it's not base load, but maybe we should be looking at a solution for that?

I don't claim to be omniscient, is there something else that we ought to be looking at? Something perhaps that all of the other scientists and engineers around the world have missed? I doubt it, but I'm willing to be surprised. Please tell us your brilliant plan for replacing all of the world's base load nuclear generation with fairy dust and unicorn farts (this ought to be good).

Retirement isn't bad

[meustrus]

Please don't talk about "early" retirement like it's bad to retire nuclear plants too early. The real problem in the world is that they are not being retired at all long past their originally intended lifetime. These power plants are literally blowing up. Every first world nuclear disaster involves an old power plant that should have been retired a long time ago. This is a serious problem caused by people thinking that they can just eke a little more out of these reactors instead of spending the huge amounts it takes to build new ones. So please, don't tell the world that we should be wary of "early" retirement like there are even any reactors that young anymore.

Re:This subject is shill ridden

[gman003]

I don't think they're shills. Fanboys, perhaps, but not shills. Honestly, the nuclear industry just doesn't seem big enough to warrant forum shills. Talking heads or TV experts, yeah, possible shills, but not Slashdotters. We're not that important.

I, for one, think nuclear is something we need to be using more, but I'm advocating a nuclear+hydro+geothermal+solar+wind+tidal as a replacement for coal+gas+oil, not as a pure nuclear solution (at least, until we get fusion working - if fusion delivers on its promises, I would have zero issue with a pure-fusion power grid). But if you want to advocate a pure-renewable system, I wouldn't downmod you (I've actually got mod points right now).

Just a suggestion, though? Saying "we need more studies" or "what's the *real* cost?" tends to come across more like FUD than actual debate, particularly when you're coming from a position that is just as questionable in those areas. Maybe they're thinking *you're* the shill?