Is the nuclear renaissance dead yet?

[jsbiff]

I realize this is a forum devoted to fusion more than fission, but I believe there is a lot of general expertise on these forums regarding both, so I hope you don't mind if I ask about this here.

I came across this article:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1009/S ... ad-yet.htm

Of course, over the period of my adult life, I've seen several such articles. I suppose there something quite similar in spirit and details published every month or two (maybe more frequently) by the anti-nukes.

No one ever seems to get around to explaining *why* there are so many problems? In particular, the industry seems to have done a good job of giving low risk of actual catastrophic meltdowns happening, but. . .

* Why is reactor construction so horrendously expensive, and in fact, often 5-10 times over the original budgets?

* Why do so many 'minor' problems happen, like the problems at Davis-Besse, Vermont Yankee, etc? Why can't we keep these things in reliable operation for long periods of time, without environmental contamination, fires, leaks, etc?

* Would the GE-Hitachi approach (as represented by the PRISM design) of small, factory manufactured modular reactor systems be very likely to reduce costs and improve quality/reliability/safety (when asking about safety, I do realize that the IFR-style reactor design the PRISM is based off of is supposed to be pretty much meltdown-proof, but is it safe from the types of contamination problems like the Vermont Yankee leaks)?

UPDATE: I just found a most eye-opening paper, which makes me question very much how much the above linked article actually jibes with reality:

http://tedrockwell.typepad.com/files/fa ... 010apr.pdf

Sorry if everyone else is already familiar with that, but it's the first I've seen that paper.

Here's a choice selection out of that article:

Comparing the economic arguments with the real world, we note that numerous European countries are now finding that nuclear plants, having amortized much of the initial construction cost, are now clearing about $2 million profit per day per plant. This profit is so large and so certain that the competitors to nuclear plants are howling “unfair!” And nuclear plant owners are now facing "windfall profits taxes" and "unearned income" fees of hundreds of millions of dollars each year, each plant. Not just in socialist Europe, but even the Attorney General of Connecticut has joined in the call for such a tax. This is "the bottom line" in any discussion of long-term economic viability.

[chrismb]

A bit of a confused start in the article:

Is the "nuclear renaissance" dead yet?
by Harvey Wasserman

America's much hyped "reactor renaissance" is facing a quadruple bypass. In actual new construction, proposed projects and overseas sales, soaring costs are killing new nukes. And the old ones are leaking like Dark Age relics teetering on the brink of disaster.

So.. is this the end of the dark ages, or the renaissance!?

Actually, I think this is exactly the issue. IMHO we are still in the medaeval times of nuclear energy. It will not become a 'renaissance' until the folks of the world realise that 'nuclear' is THE ONLY viable power source of the future. Once people cotton on to that inevitable fact, then we might get a true renaissance of nuclear power.

Even if fusion works out in the next hundred years, fission will still be a big part of that nuclear mix for several thousand years, due to its high specific energy output.

The reason there are big over runs (again, IMHO) is that not enough nuclear stations are being built. This means that there is not enough experience, so the construction industries are still trying to build nuc stations as if they were regular power stations, and c*cking it up.

A recent example, I heard a new build in Finland has suddenly become 2 years overdue because after assembling the majority of the build the regulators did an inspection only to discover that the central reactor chamber had been penetrated by construction workers installing some 'strengthening' parts, contrary to the agreed drawings. They always did that kind of thing for coal-burners, so why not here? So major reconstructions are now underway.

Once industries actually gain enough experience at building these things, and also people figure out that the way the French recycle and store their fuels is a good standard to follow, then budgets will work out fine.

[jsbiff]

A bit of a confused start in the article:

Is the "nuclear renaissance" dead yet?
by Harvey Wasserman

America's much hyped "reactor renaissance" is facing a quadruple bypass. In actual new construction, proposed projects and overseas sales, soaring costs are killing new nukes. And the old ones are leaking like Dark Age relics teetering on the brink of disaster.

So.. is this the end of the dark ages, or the renaissance!?

Well, on that bit particularly, I *think* the author is saying that *other* people are treating this period as if it were a nuclear renaissance - in part because of the Obama Administration, earlier this year, approving a large amount of government loan guarantees for nuclear power plant construction projects. But the author thinks it's really still the dark ages. Or something like that.

Put another way, there were no new nukes built for something like 20 or 30 years. Now, we are just beginning a phase of building some more, which is the so-called "Renaissance", with the "Dark Ages" being the period of no construction. I guess that makes the first period of construction the height of the Roman Empire?

Wait, where was I again?

Metaphorgotten. . .

God I hope this new batch works out better, more safely, more profitably, etc than the last generation - I really think the public's fear, and investors reluctance to invest in nuclear is because previously built nuclear plants have had all kinds of problems, and people just have no confidence in them, and they didn't make much money for the investors ([tinfoilhat]I think, unless they secretly made gobs of cash, and it's just being hushed up [/tinfoilhat]) .

The real "reactor renaissance" *could* happen, but only if we can start building reactors on-time, within-budge, without accidents or shutdowns for maintenance to fix problems which are close to becoming accidents (c.f. Davis-Besse), producing lots of power at cheap rates to ratepayers.

If that happens, the public will (rightly) start to ignore the anti-nukes. As it stands, it seems like the Anti-nukes have a lot of *reasonable* reservations about nuclear power, because nuclear power has had a somewhat bad history the last 50 years.

Unfortunately, if that guy is right about a lot of the new construction going into big cost over-runs, it's gonna be 1980 all over again. We've gone Back To the Future! Quick, Marty, jump in the DeLorean!

"A recent example, I heard a new build in Finland has suddenly become 2 years overdue because after assembling the majority of the build the regulators did an inspection only to discover that the central reactor chamber had been penetrated by construction workers installing some 'strengthening' parts, contrary to the agreed drawings. They always did that kind of thing for coal-burners, so why not here? So major reconstructions are now underway."

What, how can that even happen? Aren't the construction crews under any sort of supervision from the engineers that designed the plant, and whoever is paying for the construction? What the heck are construction companies doing making *any* changes to the design of a nuclear power plant during construction? The construction company should be fired and fined every cent they were paid for work on the project, and some to boot.

I would NOT want a contractor taking it upon themselves to unilaterally make changes to a nuclear plant design without consulting the engineers and regulators. I mean, if they think there's something *wrong* with the plans, then they should raise objections, surely. But making changes on something as potentially hazardous as a nuke plant should be dealt with *severely*. Man, oh man.

[GIThruster]

Just waving my hand to say everything jsbiff is saying seems CORRECT!

[Axil]

As it stands, it seems like the Anti-nukes have a lot of *reasonable* reservations about nuclear power, because nuclear power has had a somewhat bad history the last 50 years.

In the last 50 years in the US, how many injuries have resulted from nuclear plant accidents; in comparison, how many deaths from natural gas expositions or coal mine accidents? How many houses have be destroyed by natural gas explosions?

How many wells have been poisoned by natural gas fracking or coal waste runoff?

Do you have a gas pipe running under your house?

Convince me that nuclear power is more dangerous than coal or natural gas.

Let me offer the first argument:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmHmSOf7oCA

PS: how many oceans has nuclear power polluted or caused $billion in damages to the gulf coast?

[Tom Ligon]

Couple of reasons, neither very good.

First, we need to take lessons from the French in standardizing reactors. We ain't never built one like whichever one we're building at the moment. And never will again. And no contractor working on one today is likely to have worked on one before.

Second, we have a government willing to do stupid stuff like shutting down Yucca Mountain. Buddy of mine in NRC and I were discussing this a few days ago. I personally think Yucca Mountain is brilliant. He thinks its primary problem as a long-term storage facility is heat generation by long-lived isotopes, but that it is good enough for now and we could eventually figure a way to totally destroy (i.e burn up ... a potential Polywell application we have discussed) the waste rather than let it sit for ten thousand years.

No bad thing that happened in Yucca Mountain, as proposed, could equal what happened when that pipeline let loose and flattened a neighborhood last week.

[KitemanSA]

Bury the fission PRODUCTS, burn the Actinides. Duhh!

[TallDave]

What, how can that even happen? Aren't the construction crews under any sort of supervision from the engineers that designed the plant, and whoever is paying for the construction? What the heck are construction companies doing making *any* changes to the design of a nuclear power plant during construction? The construction company should be fired and fined every cent they were paid for work on the project, and some to boot.

It doesn't surprise me. Europe is run by the unions. They probably have a law that engineers must stay off the premises.

No bad thing that happened in Yucca Mountain, as proposed, could equal what happened when that pipeline let loose and flattened a neighborhood last week.

Good point.

[jmc]

The price of nuclear plants is rising as the number built is in decline. It seems like much the same way that an increase in production yields a learning curve, a decrease in production creates a forgetting curve.

I agree that nuclear power plant installation needs to be scaled up before it has a hope of coming down in price.

[KitemanSA]

Hey folks,

The point someone skirted around earlier is that there are TWO types of "economies of scale". You can do one-up REALLY BIG plants or a large number of identical moderate sized plants.

Back when the electricity use was growing exponentially, the REALLY BIG plants made sense. Now there is just too much capital locked up in them, and too many years before demand catches up with the big step in supply to be profitable. America needs to build 100ish MW plants with regularity, not onesy-twosy GW plants.

Seems likely that many 100MW plants would be built on the same site as demand grows. After all, why do multiple site certifications if you can do one and use it many times. This might allow one set of operators to multi-task and control all the plants from one control room. Quite a savings, no?

JMHO.

Oh, and for a number of reasons, I prefer that 100MW plant to be Thorium fueled (and Polywell replaced?)

[GIThruster]

Couple of reasons, neither very good.

First, we need to take lessons from the French in standardizing reactors. We ain't never built one like whichever one we're building at the moment. And never will again. And no contractor working on one today is likely to have worked on one before.

Second, we have a government willing to do stupid stuff like shutting down Yucca Mountain. Buddy of mine in NRC and I were discussing this a few days ago. I personally think Yucca Mountain is brilliant. He thinks its primary problem as a long-term storage facility is heat generation by long-lived isotopes, but that it is good enough for now and we could eventually figure a way to totally destroy (i.e burn up ... a potential Polywell application we have discussed) the waste rather than let it sit for ten thousand years.

No bad thing that happened in Yucca Mountain, as proposed, could equal what happened when that pipeline let loose and flattened a neighborhood last week.

Yucca Mountain was closed for good reasons. It was originally based on the idea that "out of sight is out of mind" but when they were cutting it, they found the area was not nearly so stable as they'd hoped, and had fissures all over the place. The original intention was to dump stuff there because it wouldn't matter when the containers eventually leaked and dumped stuff on the floor. What they found was that this would not be safe.

Once you recognize that you have to provide containers for nuke waste for thousands of years, you also realize that there is NO BENEFIT storing those containers underground. You have to actively monitor them. This isn't easier inside a dark hole in the ground.

Until we learn how to destroy all our waste, we're stuck needing somewhere to store it, and Yucca Mountain might be as good a place as any, though you could make a case for any desert location. The real lesson to learn here though, is that we have only just begun to pay the hidden costs of nuclear energy. We've been stealing from our children for decades and unless and until we find a way to burn all that waste (ain't gonna happen but we can certainly burn some of it) we have an ever growing problem of handling, storing and securing waste.

Nuclear energy is the cheapest energy source we have, if you don't count any of the hidden costs like handling waste. Once you do start to count them, it is certainly the most expensive energy source by far.

[jsbiff]

The point someone skirted around earlier is that there are TWO types of "economies of scale". You can do one-up REALLY BIG plants or a large number of identical moderate sized plants.

Back when the electricity use was growing exponentially, the REALLY BIG plants made sense. Now there is just too much capital locked up in them, and too many years before demand catches up with the big step in supply to be profitable. America needs to build 100ish MW plants with regularity, not onesy-twosy GW plants.

I'm not completely sure, but I *think* that is (almost) exactly the idea GE is trying to sell with the S-PRISM design. They split the difference a little bit - supposdly the PRISM generates 311 MWe, but it's a fairly small reactor that is supposed to be factory-manufactured (instead of built on-site), so I think the idea is that the standardization and QA available building them in factory means you can get very consistent quality/reliability/performance characteristics. The smallish-output is supposed to go along with doing lots of small, cheap installs (I've even heard proposals that this size reactor could potentially be retrofitted to old Coal Plants, replacing the coal boilers, but otherwise reusing the steam turbines and rest of the plant infrastructures (transformers and other equipment to tie the plant into the grid, etc).

The argument goes that the IFR-based design of the PRISM is so safe, it could be safely put nearer to population centers than traditional 'big' reactors are - although, I really, truly expect a LOT of NIMBY protests against any utilities which actually try to do such a conversion.

Sadly, GE-Hitachi has been talking about PRISM for a few years, I think, but it doesn't seem like the concept is going anywhere.

Oh, and for a number of reasons, I prefer that 100MW plant to be Thorium fueled (and Polywell replaced?)

Right now, is there any advantage of Thorium over the IFR/PRISM type fast reactor? I think, possibly, PRISM is a lot closer to actual deployment than any of the Thorium proposals? There's certainly a LOT of fuel potentially available for fast reactors - all the waste sitting around at old thermal spectrum reactors. Since the PRISM concept is pitched by GE-H as being paired up with the ARC (Advanced Recycling Center) to reprocess waste fuel, there should be tons of fuel just waiting to be used.

Build enough PRISM reactors, and we might not even need Yucca Mountain (well, we might still need it, to store fuel short-term, because the ability of fact reactors to breed/recycle fuel, I think, means that each reactor will use up fuel supplies *very* slowly after it's initially fueled, so even if there are a few thousand PRISM reactors in operation, we might need to store some of our current waste stockpiles for a few centuries until it can be used up (and the reactors will slowly generate some true 'waste' which I think also needs to be safely stored for about 500 years to cool off to the point where it is no longer any kind of hazard - but does NOT need to be stored for 100,000 years, at least).

[GIThruster]

In general I'm all for micro-distributuon of power generation, but in the case of nukes, you do realize that a 1/5 sized plant needs all the same security measures as a full sized plant, so if you build 5 1/5 sized plants, you'll spent 5X as much on security and manage 5X the risk.

Doesn't make much sense to me, except unless you hold GE stock in which case I'm sure it's a great idea.

[jsbiff]

In general I'm all for micro-distributuon of power generation, but in the case of nukes, you do realize that a 1/5 sized plant needs all the same security measures as a full sized plant, so if you build 5 1/5 sized plants, you'll spent 5X as much on security and manage 5X the risk.

Or you put 4-5 reactors (perhaps more in some cases) at one site? Seems like the security costs of a plant with 5 small reactors wouldn't be significantly more than a plant with a single giant reactor? With the PRISM modules, 5 reactors gives you 1.5GWe total output (plus change - design output being 311MWe - which is close enough to 300 for me).

Added benefit: if one or two reactors need to be shutdown for maintenance, you may still be able to keep 2 or 3 others in operation, so you are only losing *part* of your revenue during maintenance, instead of it dropping to zero? Flip side of that is, all else being equal, more parts means more chance at least one of the parts fails (which is why a computer RAID hard-disk array with 5 drives, is more likely to have a drive failure of at least one of the drives, than a computer with only a single drive - but less likely to have a complete failure which renders the computer nonoperational).

Doesn't make much sense to me, except unless you hold GE stock in which case I'm sure it's a great idea.

Or you hold stock in a security services company.

[GIThruster]

Or you put 4-5 reactors (perhaps more in some cases) at one site? Seems like the security costs of a plant with 5 small reactors wouldn't be significantly more than a plant with a single giant reactor? With the PRISM modules, 5 reactors gives you 1.5GWe total output (plus change - design output being 311MWe - which is close enough to 300 for me).

Added benefit: if one or two reactors need to be shutdown for maintenance, you may still be able to keep 2 or 3 others in operation, so you are only losing *part* of your revenue during maintenance, instead of it dropping to zero? Flip side of that is, all else being equal, more parts means more chance at least one of the parts fails (which is why a computer RAID hard-disk array with 5 drives, is more likely to have a drive failure of at least one of the drives, than a computer with only a single drive - but less likely to have a complete failure which renders the computer nonoperational).

I have to say I think the modular idea is inspired. That's not "micro-distribution" but it has these advantages you mention and some others. For one, you're not taking up so much valuable real estate on rivers where people want to live. Seems a great idea.