Slashdot Mirror
US Nuclear Comeback Stalls As Two Reactors Are Abandoned (theaustralian.com.au)
Brad Plumer reports via The New York Times (Warning: may be paywalled; alternate source): In a major blow to the future of nuclear power in the United States, two South Carolina utilities said on Monday that they would abandon two unfinished nuclear reactors in the state, putting an end to a project that was once expected to showcase advanced nuclear technology but has since been plagued by delays and cost overruns. The two reactors, which have cost the utilities roughly $9 billion, remain less than 40 percent built. The cancellation means there are just two new nuclear units being built in the country -- both in Georgia -- while more than a dozen older nuclear plants are being retired in the face of low natural gas prices. Originally scheduled to come online by 2018, the V.C. Summer nuclear project in South Carolina had been plagued by disputes with regulators and numerous construction problems. This year, utility officials estimated that the reactors would not begin generating electricity before 2021 and could cost as much as $25 billion -- more than twice the initial $11.5 billion estimate. The utilities also struggled with an energy landscape that had changed dramatically since the large reactors were proposed in 2007. Demand for electricity has plateaued nationwide as a result of major improvements in energy efficiency, weakening the case for massive new power plants. And a glut of cheap natural gas from the hydraulic fracturing boom has given states a low-cost energy alternative. Facing those pressures, the two owners of the project, South Carolina Electric & Gas and Santee Cooper, announced they would halt construction rather than saddle customers with additional costs.
We used to be able to make nuclear plants, now we can't. Either we forgot how, or something else happened. Place your bets.
The NRC needs an overhaul. Modern designs are very safe and emit less radioactivity than burning coal. People are needlessly scared. People perceive threat wrong. They fear terrorist attacks and nuclear meltdowns but don't even know that smoking, heart disease and driving are considerably more likely to kill them.
The prime factor in this decision, the bankruptcy of Westinghouse, isn't mentioned in the article until you get halfway through. I guess factors such as these don't really fit the narrative of "nuclear bad".
You mean the rich progressive hypocrites who pretend to care about the little guy? I'm all for weaning off fossil fuels but the economics have to work too.
Sure, let's add to the list of hopeful assumptions: ...
2. Magic batteries will be developed, holding utility-scale amounts of power. This might involve Trump annexing Bolivia, but if it benefits wind, Greenpeace will be okay with that.
3. We will never run out of natural gas.
I'm not a progressive at all (I'm mostly far right), I don't hesitate to claim that I don't care about the little guy, but the same way I buy "free range" eggs, even if those eggs cost between 150% and 200% more than regular eggs for the exact same product, I would pay more for electricity coming from energy sources that produce less pollution.
I find it ironic that nuclear power supporters here get condescending and accuse everyone else of being anti-scientific and of living in a fantasy world, all while pointing at worldwide conspiracies in order to explain why no one invests in nuclear energy anymore, without accepting the more simple and realistic explanation that the energy source they believe to be cheap, safe and clean is neither cheap, nor safe, nor clean. It's always only a couple years away from becoming such, but its's not just there yet. And it has been so since the 80s.
The same left that hasn't gotten a single policy past since Medicare/Medicaid since the 60's? Tthat couldn't get a Public Option through congress much less single payer? You're a complete idiot if you think the left has any power.
This is under the same government that DGAF about mass poisonings in leaded drinking water or DuPond runoff, that exports fracking to the world, and lets BP go on incompetently drilling of the coast after trying their best to run the Gulf of Mexico?
Meanwhile, Russia is building 7 reactors right now: https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/Worl... , and is collaborating with China. Russian nuclear export agency is also building reactors in Bangladesh and Thailand.
Oh, but it's not all. Russia has the world's only power-generating fast-neutron reactor (BN-800) and is preparing to build the second generation (BN-1200) of this reactor type. All the while pursuing the revolutionary project of lead-cooled reactor (i.e. reactor cooled with molten lead as coolant) that will allow to achieve almost 100% closed loop within the territory of a power plant, including fuel reprocessing.
Yep, US is way behind in nuclear technology, and it's entirely self-inflicted.
The prime factor in this decision, the bankruptcy of Westinghouse, isn't mentioned in the article until you get halfway through. I guess factors such as these don't really fit the narrative of "nuclear bad".
No, but it does fit the narrative of 'nuclear unprofitable and uneconomic, even with government backed insurance and no paying for cleanup at end of life'.
But once the reactors enter operation they'll pay for themselves in just a couple of years.
This is the most ridiculous sentence I have read so far today. Do you have the foggiest notion of how much these reactors cost and the value of their annual production? "A couple of years"???
And that's what's unfair. One lot are happy to invoke magic in the service of their favourite technology, but not allow it for other technologies.
So nuclear is always the real world nitty gritty pessimistic accident prone can never work nor be safe, whilst alternative energies are assessed by the optimistic future looking wizards and magicians who can deliver the utopia vision.
And meanwhile people have to get up in the morning and go to work, so they are going to be burning something, which will be natural gas.
Actually, no.
What happened is the NIMBYs and 'Green' movement (intentional use of quotes since they are usually clueless knee-jerkers who know sweet F.A about the actual environment) made the whole thing a political football resulting in 300-400% cost increases pushing it to the borderline of economic.
'We' could quite happily produce them for a sensible price - and the Chinese are. All that needs to be done is not intentionally pushing the costs through the roof for no actual gain in safety, efficiency, or production.
Actually, that is a tiny bit unfair, it is also caused by certain corporations who exist on government style cost-plus contracts using regulatory capture, and who cream billions of dollars by making things cost as much as possible.
However, it is clear that exactly ZERO of the problem is the ability to actually produce cheap effective safe nuclear power. In fact what we are doing now is forcing the burning of more fossil fuels, and the lifespan extension of older and less efficient/safe reactors. Congratulations Greenpeace et.al.
Well, when an aircraft crashed, you never had to evacuate and cordon off 2,000 square miles around the crash site for the next 50 years.
There were also many plants built for much less, and on schedule. They have been running reliably for 40 years and have produced more clean power than solar and wind will for a long, long time. Areas of the US with a lot of nuclear have historically also had the lowest rates. Unfortunately for nuclear, natural gas has become too cheap to compete with and there is no value in the market place on the reliability and emission free characteristics of nuclear.
Our failure to build new nuclear come from a lack of commitment. Yes, huge first of a kind projects will have budget and schedule problems. But even the more expensive existing plants have paid for themselves several times over, and many are still running and can run for another 20+ years. Unfortunately the general public has been fed a steady diet of FUD from the O&G industry for so long that they have an army of followers to help spread it. Meanwhile, the average person is completely ignorant of the real risks in comparison to stuff they accept every day.
So, like Germany, we will spend a shitload of money on the partial solution of solar and wind, and our overall CO2 emissions will not be significantly reduced. we will suffer a failure of will, insight, and commitment.
Meltdowns are almost always a combination of bad reactor design + human error. Both of these can be mitigated.
In theory yes, but in practice there are budgets and profitability to think about. Part of the reason why nuclear is now so expensive is because we realized that those "bordering on impossible" scenarios are actually not that unlikely and need to be addressed.
People seem to conveniently forget that france has generated > 50% of its grid electricity from nuclear for over 50 years without a single major incident.
Yes, it was a great welfare programme for the energy companies. The French electorate has got fed up giving them money though, which is why they are struggling to raise the funds to build plants in other countries like Hinkley C, and having to rely on Chinese investment.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Unfortunately for nuclear, natural gas has become too cheap to compete with and there is no value in the market place on the reliability and emission free characteristics of nuclear.
The major problem is our shortsightedness. Nuclear plants take a long time to construct and operate for a long time as well. Natural gas prices can fluctuate a lot in the time it takes to plan, get approvals, and build a nuclear power plant, not to mention during it's operational time. Natural gas has traded for as low as $1.02 (1992) and as high as $15.39 (2005).
The mean construction time for the 441 operational reactors from this time last year was 7.5 years. To be fair, 18 of those reactors were completed in 3 years, included 3 in the US. Argentina did it's best of offset this by taking 33 years to complete it's Atucha-2 reactor though. But this also doesn't take into account planning, zoning, approvals, etc. So ten plus years would not be an unreasonable estimate.
If a company saw natural gas prices peak at $15 in 2005 and peak at $13 in 2008/09 they may have started planning to build a reactor. by the time they started construction, prices would have dropped to $4 for natural gas. So they panic and worry that prices will stay low as it's been below $4 since 2015. I would guess it's unlikely to stay that low, but we don't think long term in the US any longer. Everything seems to be what's happening this quarter.
It's not unfortunate that natural gas is cheap, since it has also displaced a ton of oil and coal power. That has netted us a major reduction in carbon emissions.
It's unfortunate that it is also displacing nuclear, especially since natural gas prices may rise again but nuclear will remain stable for decades. And yes, agreed about the FUD and the unfortunate result. But still, cheap natural gas is an environmental win.