Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Nuclear Comeback Stalls As Two Reactors Are Abandoned (theaustralian.com.au)

Posted by BeauHD on from the uncertain-future dept.

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.

58 of 389 comments (clear)

  1. Lost 2 out of three here as well - 1980 by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 4, Informative

            "At the beginning of the 1980s, only one of the five WPPSS plants was nearing completion. By this time, nuclear power had been reexamined and was found to not be as clean as was originally thought. Some cities boycotted nuclear power from the plants before the facilities were even up and running. The cost overruns reached the point where more than $24 billion would be required to complete the work, but recouping funds would be a tricky matter because of less-than-promising sales. Construction halted on all but the near-completed second plant; the first plant was once again being redesigned. WPPSS was forced to default on $2.25 billion worth of municipal bonds."

            http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/0...

    1. Re:Lost 2 out of three here as well - 1980 by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 4, Informative

              http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/0...

      Man talk of the wrong link, the first paste tried to take one to facebook Correct link: http://www.investopedia.com/as...

    2. Re:Lost 2 out of three here as well - 1980 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Lost 2 out of three here as well - 1980 by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      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.

      This. And meanwhile China is kicking our ass and build a lot of nuclear;

      http://world-nuclear-news.org/...

      There is plenty of proof out there that plants can be built on time and on scedule if they are not parsed and strangled.

    4. Re:Lost 2 out of three here as well - 1980 by jbengt · · Score: 4, Informative

      Areas of the US with a lot of nuclear have historically also had the lowest rates.

      Not in my experience. Illinois has had some of the largest percent of electrical power as nuclear, but has had above average rates, for residential customers like me, at least.
      state-by-state rates
      state-by-state fuel types

    5. Re:Lost 2 out of three here as well - 1980 by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Lost 2 out of three here as well - 1980 by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Lost 2 out of three here as well - 1980 by mysticgoat · · Score: 4, Informative

      They have been running reliably for 40 years and have produced more clean power than solar and wind will for a long, long time.

      It is a horse barn truism that you cannot call the stable clean if for the last forty years you've been shovelling the manure into a stall rather than hauling it away. In the US spent fuel rods, the hottest type of nuclear waste, are stored in pools on site because so far there is no place to haul them to. Any knowledgeable prospective buyer of a horse ranch would want to see the costs of manure disposal show up in the accounting books and would turn away if told that there are no costs. But the nuclear industry doesn't track the costs of disposing of its waste, arguing that those costs belong to the future so we ain't going to account for them today.

      To come to the point, parent post is so much horse shit. It perpetuates the myths that nuclear power is clean and cheap, when in reality it is "clean" only in the sense that the industry is not yet doing the cleanup that has to be done sometime. Putting off costs until tomorrow is a cute accounting trick, but it doesn't reduce the total cost.

      In summary, to use the technical language of nuclear industry marketeers, the argument presented in parent post is so much horse shit.

    8. Re: Lost 2 out of three here as well - 1980 by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      A molten salt reactor has never been operated commercially. Only a couple of research reactors were built and this won't change any time soon - the required engineering is seriously difficult and expensive. Back in the 1970ies when Germany had to make a decision whether to build a molten salt reactor or a pebble bed reactor, the horrendous difficulty of engineering (NB! We are talking about West Germany - the engineering heart of the world) was the reason why the Juelich Nuclear Research Center decided to build a pebble bed reactor (also very difficult, but less so).
      Please explain how exactly a reactor that is so notoriously difficult to build would be cheaper.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  2. Watch Pandora's Promise by Alan+Evans · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Watch Pandora's Promise by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      It's a control issue. With second hand smoke banned almost everywhere you're not very likely to die from it unless you're a smoker. And if you are a smoker, the consequences have been explained to you in great detail. Same with heart disease, the leading cause is obesity and it's no secret. People worry about being hit by drunk drivers, not so much their own mistakes. Terrorists and meltdowns are risks we can't easily manage or mitigate, they just exist. And I'm not sure I can fully rationally explain this, but stopping a murderer seems more important than stopping an accident even though they'll both cost a life. Maybe even if it's more than one. Something to do with everyone getting their fair chance at life, if lightning strikes so be it. But to have someone else take it away from you offends me on a whole other level.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Watch Pandora's Promise by geekmux · · Score: 2

      People worry about being hit by drunk drivers, not so much their own mistakes....

      And this mentality is exactly why I fear being killed by a distracted driver far more than any drunk driver. Every idiot behind the wheel holds a capability to become distracted, and a lot of them abuse it, particularly the younger generation of drivers who are addicted to social media.

      Terrorists and meltdowns are risks we can't easily manage or mitigate, they just exist.

      Terrorism is caused by many things, and can be defined many ways. A nuclear meltdown is caused by one thing, and an entire growing industry of power alternatives exist that fully mitigate the risk of a meltdown by essentially removing the risk altogether. Let's not try and compare these two risks as equal; they are clearly not.

    3. Re: Watch Pandora's Promise by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2

      Nuclear meltdowns remove all life from an area and poisons it for many years.

      Really? I guess you better tell the scientists who are studying the Chernobyl area where wildlife has seen an incredible resurgence, surpassing pre-meltdown levels. You might also want to inform those studying the Fukushima meltdown who have categorically shown absolutely ZERO deaths due to radioactivity.

      This kind of claptrap is exactly the useless, factless fearmongering ignorance that keeps the US and other countries from developing safe, cheap nuclear power.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    4. Re:Watch Pandora's Promise by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      In the article the GP linked to it says that the exposure to the general public from coal flyash is 10 times more radioactive than from a similar generating capacity nuclear power plant, but also is much less than the background radiation you would get anyway by being alive on earth.

      Too bad that's not how radiation works. It's not the coal ash radiation or the background radiation. It's the coal ash radiation and the background radiation. Further, that complete bullshit is based on averages, but radioactive material comes in discrete particles, it doesn't arrive in the real world as an average. If you suck down a hot particle and wind up with lung cancer, it's no comfort that the average increase in radioactivity is negligible. And finally, the radioactive waste is not uniformly distributed over a given area. That's an idiotic idea, and the truth is the reason why dilution is not the pollution solution. Winds tend along specific paths, so do currents, and rivers run in specific directions. Like materials tend to accrete (Why is "accrete" not in the Mozilla dictionary? What year is it?) in specific locations, because those locations are good at trapping those materials for one reason or another.

      TL;DR: It's wholly irrelevant if the output is below the background level.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Hmmm. They mention Westinghouse, but very late... by aslagle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

  4. Re: Boom by epyT-R · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:We used to be able to make nuclear plants by arth1 · · Score: 2

    We used to use Radium to gauge shoe size, then we realized there were easier and better ways and that was stupid, pointless and costly. Research your shit.

    Follow your own advice. Shoe-fitting fluoroscopes were powered by X-ray tubes, not radium.

  6. Re:Terrible news by Jeremi · · Score: 2

    And since fluctuating wind cannot be a baseload power source,

    Any power source can be a baseload power source, provided you pair it with enough storage capacity to smooth out the fluctuations.

    (Whether supplying sufficient storage capacity is practical using today's technology is a separate argument, but there's nothing fundamental preventing it, only the usual engineering problems, which are in the process of being solved)

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  7. Hmm, where have I heard that before? by Orgasmatron · · Score: 2, Funny

    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 is by design. The left has seized this approach above all others to kill nuclear power plants.

    They have networks of friendly lawyers who file bogus suits before amenable judges. They have friendly regulators that change the rules midstream. The effect is delay, delay, delay. And that means cost, cost, cost. While tthe construction site sits idle, the utility often has to pay a squadron of union electricians and/or plumbers to sit around while it is resolved in court or while engineering updates the plans to take into account the newest retarded rule change.

    A few years delay can double the cost.

    See also: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~bl... (old, but good)

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
    1. Re:Hmm, where have I heard that before? by Uberbah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is by design. The left has seized this approach above all others to kill nuclear power plants.

      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.

      They have networks of friendly lawyers who file bogus suits before amenable judges. They have friendly regulators that change the rules midstream. The effect is blah blah blah blah

      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?

  8. Re: Boom by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    People are more than willing to pay more for energy sources that don't produce CO2.

    1. Many people are NOT willing to pay more, hence the election of our current president.
    2. The people that are willing to pay more don't have to, since wind is already cost-competitive with FF and solar will be soon.

    "Standardized" nukes like the AP1000 were supposed to lower construction costs and reduce maintenance. But so far they have NOT lowered costs, and appear to be worse in every way. There is no path forward for nukes in America, but to go with a complete redesign, and no one wants to pay the NRE for that.

    My prediction: Hinkley Point will also be cancelled before it goes live.

    Here is an alternative link since TFA is paywalled (at least for me).

  9. Re:Terrible news by uncqual · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm so glad that we abandoned air travel after early deadly crashes showed how unsafe the technology was (really? people flying in heavier than air vehicles - absurd and obviously stupid).

    I'm sure some people who continued to dream of air transport claimed that the technology would only get better and safer. Perhaps some even made absurd claims such as "In less than one hundred years, we may see more than a five year span where no one died in a crash of a United States-certificated scheduled airline operating anywhere in the world" which, of course, would have been an absurd prediction. Fortunately, we largely ignored such idiots.

    --
    Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  10. Re: Boom by William+Baric · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re: Boom by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

    I've been following the AP1000 project for quite a long time. The delays are due to several reasons. The projects started later than planned. Also the design was done before Fukushima. In China, where the first units are being constructed, there was a moratorium and construction stopped for like one year and a half to reevaluate the design taking into account what happened at Fukushima and changes were made to the design in the middle of construction which caused further delays. In the USA what also happened is that the manufacturing infrastructure has decayed, due to no new construction since the 1980s, so setting up the supply chain has taken even longer than in China. China has recent experience with reactor construction. If you factor out these delays, it seems to be taking the average construction time for reactor builds since the 1980s, which is like 5 years construction time. If they build it in modules like was originally planned for a small series production I think they could do it in 4 years.

    Of course if construction is delayed and you still need to pay salaries to the construction crews then the cost goes up. But once the reactors enter operation they'll pay for themselves in just a couple of years.

  12. Nuclear power is expensive by peppepz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Nuclear power is expensive by Afty0r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the energy source they believe to be cheap, safe and clean is neither cheap, nor safe, nor clean

      Actually, it certainly is SAFE and CLEAN - but you're right that it's not cheap. Not until you take into account the cost of the CO2 emitted by LNG-burning plants which are what you get if you don't choose nuclear. Then suddenly they look real cheap.

      But no-one is taking that into account...

  13. Re: Boom by cheesybagel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'll give you one example of issues that happened in the US. Some of the metal alloys in the original specification weren't being manufactured anymore. So newer alloys had to be qualified, tested, and certified, this impact the schedule by months.

    It's a new construction so of course there are delays.

  14. Meanwhile in Russia... by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Meanwhile in Russia... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      From Wikipedia:

      "In 2015, after several minor delays, problems at the recently completed BN-800 indicated a redesign was needed. Construction of the BN-1200 was put on "indefinite hold",[1] and Rosenergoatom has stated that no decision to continue will be made before 2019."

      That's why people aren't rushing to build these things. They are wonderful until someone notices that some unforeseen design flaw needs to be rectified, or some unforeseen stupidity mode comes to light, and suddenly it's delayed for a decade and billions are added to the price.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Meanwhile in Russia... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3

      No, but it makes people think twice when the project could cost billions more than expected or be cancelled entirely.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Meanwhile in Russia... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      There's nothing inherently different about nuclear power

      Congratulations, that's the dumbest thing I've seen yet this morning. I can usually find some spectacularly idiotic statement about nuclear power on Slashdot before noon, and it has not disappointed today.

      If there's nothing inherently different about nuclear power, why do you want it? Oh, so there is something inherently different about it? Then why can't you accept that it comes with its own inherent risks?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Meanwhile in Russia... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Or the USA is just better at making risk management decisions, and decided that given current developments in technology, it makes a lot more sense to do something else. It's too bad we're not a lot better or we would have been smart enough to spend all the money we started spending on nuke plants back in the 1970s on solar plants. Most of the panels would still be working today, they would have paid back their energy investment in seven years, and we could have actually been enjoying electrical output instead of fighting senseless battles over inapplicable technology.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Meanwhile in Russia... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Repeat after me: "solar panels are not replacement for the baseload generation".

      Repeat after me: "pretending storage doesn't exist or isn't getting better is douchey"

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Meanwhile in Russia... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Pretending that grid-level storage exists now (never mind 70-s) is not just stupid, it's total assholery.

      You seem to be somehow unaware that there are numerous storage facilities of various sorts online already, and that there are many more coming online soon, and that there will be even more of them as the costs continue to fall. Also, nuclear base load is a myth, so you're way off in the land of the crazies anyway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  15. Re:Hmmm. They mention Westinghouse, but very late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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'.

  16. Re: Boom by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'll give you one example of issues that happened in the US.

    Why was none of this foreseeable? Why wasn't it in the original quoted price? With nuclear you get massive overruns to double or triple the original cost, you get decades of delay, but you also get lots of GREAT excuses that somehow make it all okay, and won't happen next time ....

  17. Re: Boom by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"???

  18. Re:Terrible news by Bongo · · Score: 3, Informative

    To follow the analogy, today we have the added issue of many people preferring cheap sustainable clean safe beautiful air balloons.
    And some people questioning this saying, but how will you move 2 million passengers a year in air balloons?
    And other people saying, we'll make efficiency savings, so it isn't a problem.

  19. Re: Boom by Interfacer · · Score: 2

    For one thing, if projects take years and years, specialty alloys that were once available from manufacturer A may have been discontinued because the market was too small to justify keeping certain production processes running.

    And by the time the project actually goes ahead, years and years after the original quote was requested, you find out that instead of buying alloy A off the shelf for the quoted price, you now need to pay a manufacturer to a) design an alterative alloy b) implement the production process c) perform all the testing, qualification and certification.

    This is probably common in nuclear projects because from the political go-ahead to the actual ordering it can take many years.

  20. Re:Terrible news by Bongo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  21. Coder vs engineer writ large by dbIII · · Score: 2

    It should not be too difficult to convert these unfinished plants to use coal instead of nuclear

    Yes, just like it's not too difficult to convert a motorbike into a steam locomotive.


    Come on guys - at least THINK before posting.

  22. Re: Boom by dbIII · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Standardized" nukes like the AP1000 were supposed to lower construction costs and reduce maintenance

    Playing devils advocate here - the first one has only just gone live in China (or is about to) despite them being a 1970s style design so those reduced costs are not expected for a while until the rough edges of the design are sorted out. It was only the utterly clueless nuke fanboys (of which there are a few on this site) who claimed that cost savings would be showing up already.
    Whatever people think about nukes I don't see private enterprise touching it for a while. Socialist intervention or no nukes, tough choice for those pushing nukes due to their political bent instead of practicality. At least if it's pushed by government without any pretence at being a business proposition we may see incremental development instead of a step back into the 1970s driven by a failed attempt at economic viability.

  23. Re:Terrible news by multi+io · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  24. We can't manage meltdowns? Wtf? by Viol8 · · Score: 2

    Meltdowns are almost always a combination of bad reactor design + human error. Both of these can be mitigated.

    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.

    1. Re:We can't manage meltdowns? Wtf? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
  25. Re:Terrible news by uncqual · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, but 2,000 square miles is a tiny percentage of the planet Earth.

    And, that is the hard lesson learned by the Japanese and the world -- own up immediately so the world (the US and western Europe to lessor degree) can deploy resources (generators, cables, helicopters, et al) can within an hour initiate deployment of resources. rather than being too proud to ask for help.

    If asked immediately, the world could have helped, and possibly prevented meltdown, but the Japanese for cultural reason et al waited too long. THAT needs to be fixed. When you are at any risk of losing a core of an old-school reactor, open the kimono and beg for help. Simple.

    --
    Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  26. Re: Boom by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

    Some of the metal alloys in the original specification weren't being manufactured anymore. So newer alloys had to be qualified, tested, and certified,

    So, why not just make the specified alloy again instead of coming up with a whole new one?

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  27. Re:Terrible news by dave420 · · Score: 2

    A thin slice of your spinal column is but a tiny percentage of your body - by your logic it'd be fine to remove it.

  28. Re:We do know how to make nuclear plants.. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, no.

    You can tell that this narrative about the Left ruining everything is nonsense by how it only ever applies to things that failed. If they were really that powerful we wouldn't be burning oil in our cars or scrapping Obamacare. And if it really worked the right wing NIMBYs would have blocked every wind farm from ever being built.

    The Chinese cancelled most of their new reactors, just finishing the ones they have already started, shortly after Fukushima. Not entirely due to safety concerns either, but because they realized that the market for nuclear power was failing and renewable energy was the smart investment. Look at China now, leading the world in wind, in electric vehicles, even giving the Tesla/Panasonic gigafactory a run for battery production.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  29. Re:Terrible news by pedrop357 · · Score: 2

    Considering how many lives were saved having nuclear power over the alternatives at the time (oil, coal), it could be a very reasonable tradeoff.

  30. Deaths from Energy Accidents by archer,+the · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can check the number of deaths from energy accidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Below are some entries, in deaths per PWh:

    Coal (China): 170,000
    Coal (US): 10,000
    Oil: 36,000
    Natural Gas: 4,000
    Solar: 440
    Wind: 150
    Hydro (non-US): 1,400
    Hydro (US): 5
    Nuclear(non-US): 90
    Nuclear(US): 0.01

  31. Re: Boom by Interfacer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've actually worked in the nuclear fuel industry. So I know a little bit about dealing with that sector. Thanks to many factors, nuclear is a politically very sensitive topic. Even fairly innocent projects can take years of political maneuvering before anything gets actually off the ground. So what typically happens is that an initial study is done to figure out what the project will cost.

    These numbers are then put into a budget request and made part of a political agenda. At that point you get the usual cow trading, political posturing and dealing with environmental action committees. Keep in mind that at this point, there are still no vendor contracts because nothing is set in stone and the future of the project is still unclear. For the building of a nuclear reactor which noone wants in their beack yard, this stage can take many years. Eventually the deal is struck and X billion dollars are allocated in the overall budget.

    And that is when the actual work starts and actual contracts are to be signed. And that is when the project team discovers things like alloys no longer being manufactured.

    I have been lucky enough to work on software to perform data logging for the compression of nuclear fuel powder into MOX tablets. I say lucky, because I've always been interested in nuclear physics. And I can tell you that for projects that do not have to be part of a political agenda (such as mine), things can be pretty efficient and well controlled in terms of cost. Because the project is usually decided by the site board of leadership. Even pretty expensive projects can be done efficiently if the budget falls within the overal site budget.

  32. Re: Boom by Chas · · Score: 2

    Then why not invest in MSR setups?

    They're smaller, denser and far less complicated to set up than solid fuel reactors. Therefore, cheaper in the long run.
    They don't require vast quantities of water because they don't use water to cool the reactor or run the turbine.
    They can burn existing nuclear waste and they can burn existing mine tailings that had to be stored because they're high in thorium.
    They can even be built in such a way that an entire reactor, dump tank and turbine header can be built as a single unit the size of a tractor trailer. Then plugged into a concrete pit like a battery.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  33. Re: Boom by Chas · · Score: 2

    Actually no. Most of it is stored in open air casks.
    And most of it is only very mildly radioactive. Hell, you could hold it in a rubber-gloved hand. The issue is that it's like this for millions of years.

    The main problem is the way the US government "picked a winner" with solid fuel reactors and solid fuels that are "done" after only giving up a tiny percentage of energy in "fast" reactors.
    It makes far more sense to go with MSR reactors where the fuel is kept in until it and most of the byproducts cook down.
    And while we're still producing waste at the end, it's only a tiny fraction of what's produced today (and we can cook off the stuff we have today too). And while most of it is MUCH more radioactive, the majority of it breaks down in months and years, with a tiny remainder that'll require something in the neighborhood of a human lifetime to break down.

    Even so, nuclear produces less waste. It produces more CONCENTRATED waste. Rather than blowing it up a stack and into the atmosphere where it becomes somebody else's problem.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  34. Re:Terrible news by Chas · · Score: 2

    The problem with nuclear right now is that the US "picked a winner" in nuclear by going with solid fuel fast reactors.
    While the reactors themselves aren't terribly huge, the bulk of a plant are the water cooling towers and all the plumbing for the safety systems.
    And, contrary to popular belief, REACTORS do NOT "blow up". What you're seeing in these cases are STEAM explosions from the cooling systems.

    In an MSR style reactor, most of that crap is done away with. Because you don't need it and aren't using water to cool the reactor.
    If you need to shut the reactor down, you simply pop the plug to the reactor's dump tank and the reactor shuts down.

    As for pricing of power. Not going to speak to that.
    I'll simply point to power density.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  35. Re:Terrible news by Chas · · Score: 2

    No. A variable power source (wind/solar/etc) CANNOT be baseload.
    Because baseload is the minimum required 24x7x365.

    Wind is not 24x7x365.
    Solar is not 24x7x365.

    Maybe tacking in battery. But then you have to factor in replacing batteries every 7-10 years.

    Or you're talking about a plant that's solar-PLUS-something else (natural gas, oil, etc) or wind-PLUS-something else.
    And that's a completely different animal.

    Coal is a baseload power source (hence the term "brown power").
    Oil is a baseload power source.
    Natural gas can be a baseload power source.
    Nuclear is a baseload power source.
    Hydro is a baseload power source.
    Geothermal is a baseload power source.

    Then, to meet demand, you have peaking plants. Which can also be coal, oil, NG or even hydro. They aren't meant to be up and running 24x7. So they come up for a few hours during the day and shut down in the evening.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  36. Re:We used to be able to make nuclear plants by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    We used to be able to make nuclear plants, now we can't.

    Wrong. We never knew how to make nuclear plants worth building, and we still don't. The difference is that today, people are aware enough of that fact to stop new construction. At the time we built those plants, people were still dazzled by lies like "safe", "clean", or "too cheap to meter". Now that all of those claims have been shown to be false, nobody wants a nuke plant anywhere near them, and many of us don't want them to exist at all.

    I have high hopes for the Stellarator, but fission power is garbage.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  37. Re: Boom by jimbolauski · · Score: 2

    The "waste" from nuclear reactors can be recycled, there is still waste from recycling but instead of decaying in 1,000s of years it's 100's of years. The amount of nuclear waste to generate electricity for a year for the average American is 40 grams. Burning fossil fuels produce between 350 and 1000 grams per kWH they produce multiple orders of magnitude more waste then nuclear power does.

    --
    Knowledge = Power
    P= W/t
    t=Money
    Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make