Article

2008-05-13 Science & Technology

The limits to nuclear: McCain shouldnt try to follow French disaster

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by john frum 2008-05-13 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11144 views ] Top

#1 "Unlike other forms of power generation, nuclear reactors are designed to run flat-out, 24/7 they cant crank up their output at times of high demand or ease up when demand slows."

Can this possibly be true? Reactors are running full out or are off entirely? If so, it's a matter of proper design I would guess.

Subs creep along at a fraction of possible reactor output for days or weeks as far as I know. I suspect an agenda by somebody warping this article. Comment by a Nuc would be welcome.

Posted by Dogsbody">Dogsbody 2008-05-13 00:48|| 2008-05-13 00:48|| Front Page Top

#2 This is partially true. Newer designs will make it less so. Even the author admits nuke plants can be shut down on weekends if they have to. I'll leave it to smarter rantburgers to describe how newer plant designs might affect this equation. I believe it to be significant.

Beyond the plants themselves, we also have new ways to store electrical energy, including super capacitors and a bunch of new pluggable hybrids that will be on the road by the time we finally open new nuclear plants. As importantly, there will be new technology for coordinating when these energy storage elements charge or discharge (based on need for load balancing, economic considerations, etc.). Checkout gridpoint.com if you are interested in one way of implementing this sort of 'smart grid' thinking. It can also manage backup generators so that peak power generation can become more distributed.

The net effect of these advances is that the gap between peak and base load will diminish while the flexiblity of generating capacity should at least slightly improve. This means we will be able to get a lot higher than the low 20% range we now have for nuclear power. Plus, it will take over a generation to build all the new nuke plants so this will be a gradual process.

Fundamentally, France made a good geopolitical decision. It made itself less dependent on the US for protecting access to its energy sources allowing it the luxury to conduct a typically French (amoral, cynical, often cowardly) foreign policy while making itself the dominant electricity provider in Europe. The fact that a state owned utility in a schlerotic socialist economy did poorly is a separate matter. The writer displays a bit of economic cluelessness when he thinks it odd that EdF gave discounts to huge customers who consume power at night.

Posted by JAB 2008-05-13 01:36|| 2008-05-13 01:36|| Front Page Top

#3 Compare wid REDDIT > ECONOMIST.com - RUSSIA'S OIL INDUSTRY - PROBLEMS IN THE PIPELINE.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-05-13 01:54|| 2008-05-13 01:54|| Front Page Top

#4 Have problems with output during off hours? Use it to synthesise methanol from CO2 & water, and get green credits!

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2008-05-13 02:14|| 2008-05-13 02:14|| Front Page Top

#5 The old-fashioned and highly effective way to store excess electricity is to pump water uphill in a hydro scheme. The water is then ready to generate electricity at peak times.

And the UK was going down the same path as France until they discovered North Sea oil and gas.

And this is a real gem - French homes were converted to inefficient electric home heating.

All home uses of electricity are energy inefficient compared to direct combustion of hydrocarbons. What does he propose? Banning electric lights because candles are more efficient.

Posted by phil_b 2008-05-13 03:11|| 2008-05-13 03:11|| Front Page Top

#6 Yeah, this is total BS. Of course, what do you expect from someone more interested in fashion and coolness than being even a little bit tech savvy. This is over twenty years naval nuclear talking. Lawrence Solomon is just another example of the sad state of journalism in the world. More interested in being a lunatic than producing factual news articles.

Posted by AlmostAnonymous5839">AlmostAnonymous5839 2008-05-13 03:31|| 2008-05-13 03:31|| Front Page Top

#7 THIS IS TOTAL BS. 100%, TOTALLY COMPLETELY BS.

Solomon is saying that Nuclear plants can't load follow. Tell that to the northern utilities who has so much nuclear capacity, they HAVE to load follow. All the time. Every night. Shithead's doubtless sitting in a house powered by a nuke that's load following.

Solomon's navy nuke? He's either as big a idiot as Jimmah 'i'm no antisemite' Carter, or is viciously lying through his teeth: navy nuke reactors can load follow. I could tell you how quickly a CVN nuclear reactor can go from 0 to 100%, and any power level in between, but then I'd have to kill you. What I can tell you is that the time is in units of seconds. Ya think the navy would take delivery of a ship where, when the captain says to go half speed, NOW, only to have a swabbie 100 feet under the waterline to tell him that he can't?

There are two reasons why MOST nukes are baseload (run 100%, 24-7): ITS CHEAP POWER. Regional power control centers are REQUIRED BY LAW and Public Service Commission rules to buy the cheapest power available, and after hydro, Nuke is IT. Cheap megawatts are snapped up first, by law, and Nuke megawatts are the cheapest out there, so they are snapped up first by law and by economics. I can't tell you how cheap power is, but I have been told that the profit margin on the megawatts coming out of the nuclear units in the south are positively OBSCENE. The greenies like Solmon KNOW THIS, and it TERRIFIES them.

Now, there is a more subtle second reason why nuclear units don't normally load follow: NRC regulations require that the person who turns the knob that controls the power level at a nuclear plant MUST have a nuclear operator's licence. Thus, to do load following, the dispatcher at the region-level distribution control center has to have a nuke license. That's expensive unless you've got more than 50% nukes in your mix, because below that, you're already telling them to run flat out 100% 24/7.

If we want a lot of electric cars out there, we've GOT to get to 80% nukes: they'll be baseload, or somebody's gonna lose their performance bonus, or their jobs.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2008-05-13 04:39|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2008-05-13 04:39|| Front Page Top

#8 Rods in, rods out.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Did I hear something about pebble bed reactors recently? What does this mean? Is this the latest stuff? Do the Russians have newer stuff since the US hasn't built anything for decades?

Posted by gorb 2008-05-13 05:11|| 2008-05-13 05:11|| Front Page Top

#9 Actually, I think it was the Chinese.

Exciting stuff. No possibility of a Chernobyl.

I read this article, and it talks about the problems of excess energy, and think, "Well, wouldn't that DROP the overall price?"

Posted by Mizzou Mafia 2008-05-13 05:32|| 2008-05-13 05:32|| Front Page Top

#10 The excess heat could also be used in greenhouses or even to increase yield for biomass creating bacteria.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2008-05-13 06:45|| 2008-05-13 06:45|| Front Page Top

#11 John McCain is 100% correct in his underlying premise that an innovative approach using alternative energy technologies is crucial for America to achieve greater energy independence and to lower costs for long-term economic growth.

Finally, a politician making sense about something we need to do! Hallelujah!

Posted by Gliling Lumplump3518 2008-05-13 06:52|| 2008-05-13 06:52|| Front Page Top

#12 "innovative approach" + government = disaster.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2008-05-13 08:07|| 2008-05-13 08:07|| Front Page Top

#13 The bonehead author assumes that all new plants will be of the old pressurized water design. Wrong.

He needs to study the newest Japanese and French reactors. He also needs to study the distribution grid. Power cna be transmitted a long ways, and pwoer losses occur in the grid. 2 AM for those california reactors is 6 AM for the NY consumers. Opening up the markets will fix the supply/demand issues, as will discounted prices for factories and other industrial consumers which run at night.

And add ot that the hybrid/electrical ehicles that will be consuming power overnight.

I think the problem of excess supply solves itself.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-13 09:25|| 2008-05-13 09:25|| Front Page Top

#14 Proof that you don't need learning or facts to be a "journalist".

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-05-13 09:30|| 2008-05-13 09:30|| Front Page Top

#15 I'm in the business and Ptah is absolutely right. This Solomon fellow is full of it.

Posted by Ebbomble Untervehr2749 2008-05-13 09:38|| 2008-05-13 09:38|| Front Page Top

#16 PWR reactors can be throttled but any design that boils a fluid (e.g. coal) will have a bigger lag (minutes) than a gas turbine (seconds). The problem is how to smooth out voltage drop from spiking demand. It can be done by having excess generating capacity on line and switching it to needed sections or have local buffers (batteries, capacitors) that can absorb the excess load for the seconds to minutes until the generators can match the demand.

As for nukes, the price of nuke and coal electrity are about equal (~3¢/kWH). The price for nuke electricty can even drop with standardized design, construction, and esp., reasonable regulation. Fuel costs of nuke plants are ~0.5¢/kWH while fuel costs for coal plants are the largest expense and will continue to rise as more coal is used in power plants and substituted for oil as a raw material.

Posted by ed 2008-05-13 09:48|| 2008-05-13 09:48|| Front Page Top

#17 What's the long range forecast for the supply of nuclear fuel for power plants? Can supply meet demand?

Posted by JohnQC 2008-05-13 09:57|| 2008-05-13 09:57|| Front Page Top

#18 Some of the numbers I've seen have stated between 50 and 1000 years. It all depends on price. At low prices the recoverable supply is limited to high quality mines. Raise the price and other sources become available (e.g. the uranium and thorium in coal exceed the energy value of burning the coal itself), even seawater extraction. Even if ore prices rise 10 times, the cost of electricity will by a small amount since most of the fuel cost is in the processing.

Then there are breeder reactors. Current reactors extract only about 0.5% of the possible energy from the uranium ore.

Posted by ed 2008-05-13 10:11|| 2008-05-13 10:11|| Front Page Top

#19 Of course, Jimmy Carter banned reprocessing and closed down breeder reactor development in the US.

Posted by john frum 2008-05-13 10:29|| 2008-05-13 10:29|| Front Page Top

#20 We can't mine uranium any more. The tailings pollute the Colorado river with radioactive waste.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-05-13 10:38|| 2008-05-13 10:38|| Front Page Top

#21 Base load is typically 40% or so of peak load so if we had twice as many nukes now, things would be fine even without load management or better designed power plants.

Also, there is nothing wrong with the US sending power to Canada when they need it (cold winter nights) since they send it to us when we need it (hot summer days).

Posted by mhw 2008-05-13 10:47|| 2008-05-13 10:47|| Front Page Top

#22 I'm pretty sure that if we have too much power we'll find ways to use it.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-05-13 11:17|| 2008-05-13 11:17|| Front Page Top

#23 The price will fall until someone finds a use for it.

Namely Aluminium smelters etc.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2008-05-13 11:22|| 2008-05-13 11:22|| Front Page Top

#24 Long distance power distribution would want an improved national power grid, I think (international to include Canada). Hasn't part of our problem been not enough wires and transformers for really peak loads like California draws on bad days in the summer?

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-05-13 11:55|| 2008-05-13 11:55|| Front Page Top

#25 sawgrass ethanols distillers might set upto use it overnight at cheaper rates.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-13 12:15|| 2008-05-13 12:15|| Front Page Top

#26 Our problem is not enough of everything. And the left wing nut cases have been successful in standing in the way of new engergy production for 30 years. Their long running successful policy is simply "NO" to everything. No new refineries, no new power plants, no nuclear, no looking for oil in the Atlantic, or the Pacific, or the Gulf (except China will soon be doing it off the coast of Cuba anyway), No...sorry.. you can't touch ANWR. And we don't believe you when you say you can burn coal cleanly (Too bad, we are the world's Saudia Arabia of coal.) Wind and solar are OK but NOT in my backyard or where any rats or birds live.

This problem will need to be solved with leadership. We need someone with cojones to steamroll over these liberals and sign Executive orders to do something.

Posted by Intrinsicpilot 2008-05-13 12:29|| 2008-05-13 12:29|| Front Page Top

#27 This is what France does. It sells its nuclear surplus to its European Union neighbours, a market of 700 million people.

This number is high. Way high. I'm thinking 400m.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2008-05-13 13:41|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2008-05-13 13:41|| Front Page Top

#28 497,198,740 as per a 2008 estimate.

More proof you don't need facts or education to be a journalist!!!

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-05-13 13:53|| 2008-05-13 13:53|| Front Page Top

#29 Aaaand... while I am on the subject of making up facts to support your idea from Mr. Solomon...

France exports "...exporting 18% of its total production (about 100 TWh) to Italy, the Netherlands, Britain, and Germany..."

Populations:
Germany: 82,369,548

Italy: 58,145,321

Netherlands: 16,645,313

Britain: 60,943,912

Which, all totaled equals 218,104,094 potential souls that could consume French nuclear power. So... where does the 700 million number come from? Did you just get lazy and look up Europe, Lawrence? 'cuz it sure look like it, dumbass.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-05-13 14:05|| 2008-05-13 14:05|| Front Page Top

#30 Hasn't part of our problem been not enough wires and transformers for really peak loads like California draws on bad days in the summer?

No, that's Caliphornia's problem. And they're welcome to it.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-05-13 14:08|| 2008-05-13 14:08|| Front Page Top

#31 "excess generating capacity on line and switching it to needed sections or have local buffers "

but given the high capital cost of nukes, doesnt that kill the total cost per kwh? Isnt that the problem ALL capital intensive power sources, including solar and wind as WELL as nuke face? Isnt that the reason natural gas dominates peaking units?

Im not a technologist, but I see only two real solutions - 1. Improved power storage technology
or 2. Demand side management

This later could make nukes (and solar and wind, BTW) more viable for a larger share of total power, by reducing peaking through technical and pricing strategies.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-05-13 14:11|| 2008-05-13 14:11|| Front Page Top

#32 #25 good point. To me that IS an aspect of demand side management, by shifting load away from peak times.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-05-13 14:12|| 2008-05-13 14:12|| Front Page Top

#33 Classic flag set to 'yes' to archive this one. Once again, Rantburg University at its best.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2008-05-13 14:49|| 2008-05-13 14:49|| Front Page Top

#34 Libhawk: breeder reactors. Make their own fuel and are highly efficiet.

As to capitalization costs, how much of that is to avoid frivolous lawsuits? A lot I bet. If government would get out of the way for the most part, and the courts woudl go to a "loser pays" system to prevent frivolous lawsuits, you'd see the costs drop significantly.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-13 15:36|| 2008-05-13 15:36|| Front Page Top

#35 "but given the high capital cost of nukes, doesnt that kill the total cost per kwh? Isnt that the problem ALL capital intensive power sources, including solar and wind as WELL as nuke face? Isnt that the reason natural gas dominates peaking units?"

Not exactly. Medium capital costs, astronomical financing costs, and extremely low fuel costs. The costs of the newest nuke units are very high were accounted to 'capital', but were actually financial due to interest piling up on construction loans while environmentalists gamed the federal complaint process to delay start-ups.

I heard of a guy who was fired from his company get back at the company by opening a small business and claimed to be a viable competitor, bidding for jobs that his former employer bid upon as well. When the government agency awarded a contract to his former company, he'd file serial SBA discrimination complaints. He reportedly boasted that he hung up multi-millions in profits for the cost of several postage stamps as the Feds took months to jump through all the paperwork hoops to address all the complaints, including the silly ones. Yes, he needed a life, and he got it by making someone else's life miserable.

People have no idea how much energy is packed in uranium.

Posted by ptah">ptah 2008-05-13 15:39|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2008-05-13 15:39|| Front Page Top

#36 Unlike other forms of power generation, nuclear reactors are designed to run flat-out, 24/7 they cant crank up their output at times of high demand or ease up when demand slows.

Complete Bullshit, the Navy's Nuke ships do it all the time

Posted by Redneck Jim">Redneck Jim 2008-05-13 15:52|| 2008-05-13 15:52|| Front Page Top

#37 In france they dont have the same lawsuit issues, IIUC, and capital cost per KW are still pretty high. Low enough to make nukes more competive with coal for baseload power than here (where until quite recently they werent competitive for baseload) but not enough to be competitive for peak power, AFAIK.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-05-13 16:05|| 2008-05-13 16:05|| Front Page Top

#38 36 - on a warship youre not really concerned with the cost per KWH, and natural gas isnt really much of an alternative.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-05-13 16:06|| 2008-05-13 16:06|| Front Page Top

#39 Well, even if they dropped output to 40% for eight hours at night the cost should not even double, which is still less than what I am paying today.

Posted by gorb 2008-05-13 16:29|| 2008-05-13 16:29|| Front Page Top

#40 "excess generating capacity on line and switching it to needed sections or have local buffers "

but given the high capital cost of nukes, doesnt that kill the total cost per kwh?

No. Excess generating capacity that is online but not supplying power is called "spinning reserve". It is typically a gas fired turbine plant and can supply power in a few minutes and the cost is figured into your electric bill. Because demand is highly predictable with time and weather, the amount of ready reserves can be closely matched to demand.

buffers

Buffers are important to smoothed demand spikes (i.e. brownouts) from unexpected demand. Battery banks that can instantly supply 10-15 minutes of power provide the time needed for spinning and replacement reserves to go to full power as well as reduce the amount of spinning reserves that use energy w/o contributing power to the grid.

This becomes much more important when rechargeable cars become much more common and a bunch of folks recharge at the same time (the equivalent of a bunch of folks setting their sprinklers to all go on at 2AM). Eventually there will have to be some communication link to control the time and rate of recharge.

Costwise, battery buffers are 1/2 or less the cost of gas turbine plants plus their upkeep is near zero. With mass production 10-20% the cost. But they only store electricity, not generate it.

Posted by ed 2008-05-13 19:32|| 2008-05-13 19:32|| Front Page Top

#41 I've read about flywheels as well.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-13 21:03|| 2008-05-13 21:03|| Front Page Top

#42 Solomon is an idiot and is obviously trying to spread disinformation.

The 100 or so nuclear plants in the US are operating out about a 97% utilization factor. That is, they are putting out, on average 97% of the power they could put out if they ran 100% rated power 24/365. The fact they don't load follow is because there is no spare capacity in them. And they do this as PTAH points out because they are the cheap producer.
The present US nuclear power owners are printing money. They are operating 20-40 year old plants long-sense paid for and most will be eligible to have their license extended 20 more years beyond their original design live time. The fuel costs are small for nuclear and so every extra kilowatt-hour is money in the bank.

The real problem is the environuts.
A nuclear plant that takes 10 years to build is very much more expensive ($billions) than the identical one built in 3years. PTAH is correct when he says that the environuts know this. Fortunately, some things have changed on the regulation side to address this.
Also, the supply of uranium and (thorium) are not an issue. The cost of nuclear energy is very insensitive to the cost of nuclear fuel and we could extract it from sea-water at a cost of that does no substantially change the economics of nuclear power and there is a 10000 year supply there. Of course one would still be able to mine it at economically viable cost for 1000 years.

And there are 3rd generation plant designs ready now. These have taken everything we have learned from running 100 plants for nearly 50 years and incorapated these changes.They will be less complicated than the previous generation and therefore safer. These are the plants that are that will be annouced in the next couple of years in the US.
Fourth generation nuclear plants will start being built in 10 to 13 years. See the General Atomics (the same people who brought us our favorite ORC slayer, the PREDITOR) GT-MHR reactor for a good example. These are exciting because

a) they have very high thermal efficiency (i.e. lower cost per kilowatt-hours)

b) small and modular design allows utilities to increase capacity in small (i.e. lower cost) amounts and can use a central control center

c) increased safety thru robust passive safety features

d) high operating temperatures allows for highly efficient generation of hydrogen during off peak
night operation. Again high efficiency means lower cost

And as #4 g(r)omgoru says, take the hydrogen (and oxygen) from a nuclear plant and the CO2 from a coal fired IGCC plant, mix together and out comes
methanol (or better yet DME which can be used in diesels as well).

What I would like for the US is to see us invest heavily in clean coal IGCC for peaking and 3rd generation nuclear power stations for baseload. IGCC can then produce methanol off-peak at night.
This can be done for about $.50/gal methanol. The
technology to do this has been in full scale commercial production in an Eastman Chemical facility in Kingsport TN since 1998. Of course the $.50/gal is pre-tax and does not account for the fact that methanol has a lower energy density than gasoline. We should also invest in converting GAS fired power plants into IGCC. And, of course, we need to start manufacturing more FFV cars and trucks.

In 10-20 years when the 4 generation nuclear power with hydrogen (and oxygen) production facilities is availible we again invest heavily in that. In addition we add CO2 capture to the IGCC plants (which are ideal suited to this). If we sent the CO2 in a pipeline to the 4 -generation nuclear plants, we would again get even more methanol. The combination of these would be a knife thru the heart of OPEC.

Anyway, the solution to our energy problems is a political one. The technology and other resources are already there.

Posted by Gleth Fillmore2319 2008-05-13 21:07|| 2008-05-13 21:07|| Front Page Top

#43 University level. Thanks Gleth.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-13 22:34|| 2008-05-13 22:34|| Front Page Top

#44 ION BIGNEWSNETWORK [paraph] > BUSH FEARS INCOMPLETE IRAQ MISSION, DEMOCRATIC VICTORY WILL INDUCE NEW TERROR ATTACK AGZ THE US.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-05-13 23:24|| 2008-05-13 23:24|| Front Page Top

23:55 Chuck Simmins
23:52 gorb
23:32 rjschwarz
23:24 JosephMendiola
23:20 JosephMendiola
23:14 JosephMendiola
22:59 trailing wife
22:45 Icerigger
22:44 Icerigger
22:39 Icerigger
22:34 OldSpook
22:21 Grusoling Panda8701
22:13 ryuge
22:10 DMFD
22:09 Shieldwolf
22:04 Frank G
21:58 JosephMendiola
21:11 Besoeker
21:10 OldSpook
21:07 Gleth Fillmore2319
21:06 GK
21:06 OldSpook
21:05 Jan
21:05 Besoeker