Jump to content


Bye bye nukes ...


  • Please log in to reply
134 replies to this topic

#1 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,796 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 07:40 PM

Nuclear industry having a tough go, getting tighter all the time ...

http://money.msn.com...-chopping-block

http://nuclear-news....reactors-to-go/

#2 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,276 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 05 September 2013 - 08:07 PM

a great quote.  It's the money.

 

From Florida and the Carolinas to Texas and on to California, the underlying issue driving the demise of nuclear power is the same: bad and unsustainable economics. In Florida, a ratepayer rebellion in the face of rapidly rising reactor costs shared the same roots as Duke's abandonment of two reactors in North Carolina that were projected to have doubled in cost. InTexas, only foreign government-backed entities could afford the soaring costs of the STP reactors near San Antonio. InCalifornia, Southern California Edison is seeking to sidestep hundreds of millions of dollars in costs for damaged reactors that may simply be too expensive to repair. The story of nuclear power from coast to coast is one of bad economics."



#3 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,907 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 09:15 PM

a great quote.  It's the money.

 

From Florida and the Carolinas to Texas and on to California, the underlying issue driving the demise of nuclear power is the same: bad and unsustainable economics. In Florida, a ratepayer rebellion in the face of rapidly rising reactor costs shared the same roots as Duke's abandonment of two reactors in North Carolina that were projected to have doubled in cost. InTexas, only foreign government-backed entities could afford the soaring costs of the STP reactors near San Antonio. InCalifornia, Southern California Edison is seeking to sidestep hundreds of millions of dollars in costs for damaged reactors that may simply be too expensive to repair. The story of nuclear power from coast to coast is one of bad economics."

 

And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology.



#4 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,276 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 05 September 2013 - 09:18 PM

I don't buy that for a second. Example: San Onofre.  Possibly $3B to decommission.  Add that back to the cost of generation, how affordable was that energy now?

 

 

And why do we have regulation?  Three mile isle, Fukushima, and keep it going.  Chernobyl was one that wasn't regulated. How'd that work out?



#5 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,831 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 05 September 2013 - 09:18 PM

a great quote.  It's the money.

 

From Florida and the Carolinas to Texas and on to California, the underlying issue driving the demise of nuclear power is the same: bad and unsustainable economics. In Florida, a ratepayer rebellion in the face of rapidly rising reactor costs shared the same roots as Duke's abandonment of two reactors in North Carolina that were projected to have doubled in cost. InTexas, only foreign government-backed entities could afford the soaring costs of the STP reactors near San Antonio. InCalifornia, Southern California Edison is seeking to sidestep hundreds of millions of dollars in costs for damaged reactors that may simply be too expensive to repair. The story of nuclear power from coast to coast is one of bad economics."

 

And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology.

 

Would you prefer the nuclear industry be free of regulation?



#6 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,192 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 05 September 2013 - 09:23 PM


a great quote.  It's the money.
 
From Florida and the Carolinas to Texas and on to California, the underlying issue driving the demise of nuclear power is the same: bad and unsustainable economics. In Florida, a ratepayer rebellion in the face of rapidly rising reactor costs shared the same roots as Duke's abandonment of two reactors in North Carolina that were projected to have doubled in cost. InTexas, only foreign government-backed entities could afford the soaring costs of the STP reactors near San Antonio. InCalifornia, Southern California Edison is seeking to sidestep hundreds of millions of dollars in costs for damaged reactors that may simply be too expensive to repair. The story of nuclear power from coast to coast is one of bad economics."

 
And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology.
 
Would you prefer the nuclear industry be free of regulation?
. Yep that's exactly what anyone pointing out the red tape of government oversight wants. That was sarcasm no one says all regulation is bad but the EPA has made nuclear power the poster child for excessive regulations beyond what is required to safely operate a plant.

#7 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,907 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 09:26 PM

 

a great quote.  It's the money.

 

From Florida and the Carolinas to Texas and on to California, the underlying issue driving the demise of nuclear power is the same: bad and unsustainable economics. In Florida, a ratepayer rebellion in the face of rapidly rising reactor costs shared the same roots as Duke's abandonment of two reactors in North Carolina that were projected to have doubled in cost. InTexas, only foreign government-backed entities could afford the soaring costs of the STP reactors near San Antonio. InCalifornia, Southern California Edison is seeking to sidestep hundreds of millions of dollars in costs for damaged reactors that may simply be too expensive to repair. The story of nuclear power from coast to coast is one of bad economics."

 

And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology.

 

Would you prefer the nuclear industry be free of regulation?

No, did I say that?  A lot of the regulation in the industry is fear and panic driven.  As are the NIMBY lawsuits that need to be dealt with.

 

Most of this falls under 'we'll fuck with you 'til you give up and give money to your competitors'.



#8 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,831 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 05 September 2013 - 09:28 PM

 

 


a great quote.  It's the money.
 
From Florida and the Carolinas to Texas and on to California, the underlying issue driving the demise of nuclear power is the same: bad and unsustainable economics. In Florida, a ratepayer rebellion in the face of rapidly rising reactor costs shared the same roots as Duke's abandonment of two reactors in North Carolina that were projected to have doubled in cost. InTexas, only foreign government-backed entities could afford the soaring costs of the STP reactors near San Antonio. InCalifornia, Southern California Edison is seeking to sidestep hundreds of millions of dollars in costs for damaged reactors that may simply be too expensive to repair. The story of nuclear power from coast to coast is one of bad economics."

 
And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology.
 
Would you prefer the nuclear industry be free of regulation?
. Yep that's exactly what anyone pointing out the red tape of government oversight wants. That was sarcasm no one says all regulation is bad but the EPA has made nuclear power the poster child for excessive regulations beyond what is required to safely operate a plant.

 

Just checking.  I trust you are aware of the track record for deregulation.  

 

Just wondering if you would feel the same about removal of regulations if you lived near a reactor.



#9 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,831 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 05 September 2013 - 09:30 PM

 

 

a great quote.  It's the money.

 

From Florida and the Carolinas to Texas and on to California, the underlying issue driving the demise of nuclear power is the same: bad and unsustainable economics. In Florida, a ratepayer rebellion in the face of rapidly rising reactor costs shared the same roots as Duke's abandonment of two reactors in North Carolina that were projected to have doubled in cost. InTexas, only foreign government-backed entities could afford the soaring costs of the STP reactors near San Antonio. InCalifornia, Southern California Edison is seeking to sidestep hundreds of millions of dollars in costs for damaged reactors that may simply be too expensive to repair. The story of nuclear power from coast to coast is one of bad economics."

 

And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology.

 

Would you prefer the nuclear industry be free of regulation?

No, did I say that?  A lot of the regulation in the industry is fear and panic driven.  As are the NIMBY lawsuits that need to be dealt with.

 

Most of this falls under 'we'll fuck with you 'til you give up and give money to your competitors'.

 

I have no doubt that is exactly the mindset of the regulators.  Or, at least, how you see the mindset of the regulators.



#10 jetboy

jetboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 09:35 PM

If/when we see GHG tax, nuclear looks great again. 

 

Considering our current generation fleet, I'd rather live downwind of a nuclear reactor than a coal plant.



#11 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 05 September 2013 - 09:40 PM

And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology.

 

Actually, given the "free market" these nukes would not even be able to exist because they could not get liability and continuing operations insurance. Congress passed a law long ago protecting them from such free market economics. 



#12 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,276 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 05 September 2013 - 09:42 PM

The only reason for nukes would be if GHG are an actual problem, and we decide that we need carbon free sources of electricity.  The taxes will be high to make nukes cost effective.

 

There are few utilities who want to end up like Tokyo Power and Light - staring bankruptcy in the face.  And few countries would want to be like Japan, on the hook for containing up a mess that will not be clean for decades, or centuries.

 

Just take the cost of Fukushima and amortize it over all functioning nuke plants. Pretty soon the economics of the entire industry are suspect.



#13 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,796 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 09:53 PM


a great quote.  It's the money.
 
From Florida and the Carolinas to Texas and on to California, the underlying issue driving the demise of nuclear power is the same: bad and unsustainable economics. In Florida, a ratepayer rebellion in the face of rapidly rising reactor costs shared the same roots as Duke's abandonment of two reactors in North Carolina that were projected to have doubled in cost. InTexas, only foreign government-backed entities could afford the soaring costs of the STP reactors near San Antonio. InCalifornia, Southern California Edison is seeking to sidestep hundreds of millions of dollars in costs for damaged reactors that may simply be too expensive to repair. The story of nuclear power from coast to coast is one of bad economics."

 
And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology.

That isn't true.

Nuclear used to be affordable because the power was a byproduct of enriching material for our nuclear weapons. Now we don't need the weapons grade material, but the costs of mining uranium, purifying material, storing waste, safely handling pre and post fuel, and maintaining incredibly complex systems that are in some cases over fifty years old, these costs just keep increasing as the base of nuclear power plants decrease.

#14 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,907 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 09:54 PM

 

 

 

a great quote.  It's the money.

 

From Florida and the Carolinas to Texas and on to California, the underlying issue driving the demise of nuclear power is the same: bad and unsustainable economics. In Florida, a ratepayer rebellion in the face of rapidly rising reactor costs shared the same roots as Duke's abandonment of two reactors in North Carolina that were projected to have doubled in cost. InTexas, only foreign government-backed entities could afford the soaring costs of the STP reactors near San Antonio. InCalifornia, Southern California Edison is seeking to sidestep hundreds of millions of dollars in costs for damaged reactors that may simply be too expensive to repair. The story of nuclear power from coast to coast is one of bad economics."

 

And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology.

 

Would you prefer the nuclear industry be free of regulation?

No, did I say that?  A lot of the regulation in the industry is fear and panic driven.  As are the NIMBY lawsuits that need to be dealt with.

 

Most of this falls under 'we'll fuck with you 'til you give up and give money to your competitors'.

 

I have no doubt that is exactly the mindset of the regulators.  Or, at least, how you see the mindset of the regulators.

 

See Obama's campaign comments in regard to coal fired plants.

 



#15 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,796 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 10:03 PM




a great quote.  It's the money.
 
From Florida and the Carolinas to Texas and on to California, the underlying issue driving the demise of nuclear power is the same: bad and unsustainable economics. In Florida, a ratepayer rebellion in the face of rapidly rising reactor costs shared the same roots as Duke's abandonment of two reactors in North Carolina that were projected to have doubled in cost. InTexas, only foreign government-backed entities could afford the soaring costs of the STP reactors near San Antonio. InCalifornia, Southern California Edison is seeking to sidestep hundreds of millions of dollars in costs for damaged reactors that may simply be too expensive to repair. The story of nuclear power from coast to coast is one of bad economics."

 
And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology.
 
Would you prefer the nuclear industry be free of regulation?
. Yep that's exactly what anyone pointing out the red tape of government oversight wants. That was sarcasm no one says all regulation is bad but the EPA has made nuclear power the poster child for excessive regulations beyond what is required to safely operate a plant.
Wrong.

EPA compliance is minor. The compliance is largely NRC and DOE.

Many nuclear processes get basically waved through NEPA compliance with a categorical exclusion.

#16 Fat Point Jack

Fat Point Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 10:04 PM

Those human beings just keep fucking things up. 

 

http://en.wikipedia....ear_Power_Plant



#17 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,229 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 10:08 PM

The world seems to be saying no nukes is good nukes.  Happy Jack not included. 



#18 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,831 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 05 September 2013 - 10:13 PM

Those human beings just keep fucking things up. 

 

http://en.wikipedia....ear_Power_Plant

 

I wonder how these folks feel about the oppressive regulations.

 

"The 2010 U.S. population within 10 miles (16 km) of Crystal River was 20,695, an increase of 50.9 percent in a decade, according to an analysis of U.S. Census data for msnbc.com. The 2010 U.S. population within 50 miles (80 km) was 1,046,741, an increase of 32.4 percent since 2000. Cities within 50 miles include Ocala, (38 miles to city center) and Spring Hill (34 miles to city center).[10]"



#19 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,907 posts

Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:35 PM


Those human beings just keep fucking things up. 
 
http://en.wikipedia....ear_Power_Plant

 
I wonder how these folks feel about the oppressive regulations.
 
"The 2010 U.S. population within 10 miles (16 km) of Crystal River was 20,695, an increase of 50.9 percent in a decade, according to an analysis of U.S. Census data for msnbc.com. The 2010 U.S. population within 50 miles (80 km) was 1,046,741, an increase of 32.4 percent since 2000. Cities within 50 miles include Ocala, (38 miles to city center) and Spring Hill (34 miles to city center).[10]"
 
Well, you picked a plant that's now closed.  It was closed in 2009 when it was damaged during a shutdown for repairs and refueling.  My guess would be that the folks there are a little sad to see it go.  It provided a lot of jobs in a predominantly rural area.  In fact, all that population growth in your cite occured while the plant was open and in operation so I figger they didn't mind too much.
 
The coal plants three are still working though.
 
You can see it here on Google earth. Oooops, that's the town of Crystal River. The power plant is up to the left there.

Manatees liked the warm water too.

#20 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,831 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 06 September 2013 - 12:04 AM

 


Those human beings just keep fucking things up. 
 
http://en.wikipedia....ear_Power_Plant

 
I wonder how these folks feel about the oppressive regulations.
 
"The 2010 U.S. population within 10 miles (16 km) of Crystal River was 20,695, an increase of 50.9 percent in a decade, according to an analysis of U.S. Census data for msnbc.com. The 2010 U.S. population within 50 miles (80 km) was 1,046,741, an increase of 32.4 percent since 2000. Cities within 50 miles include Ocala, (38 miles to city center) and Spring Hill (34 miles to city center).[10]"
 
Well, you picked a plant that's now closed.  It was closed in 2009 when it was damaged during a shutdown for repairs and refueling.  My guess would be that the folks there are a little sad to see it go.  It provided a lot of jobs in a predominantly rural area.  In fact, all that population growth in your cite occured while the plant was open and in operation so I figger they didn't mind too much.
 
The coal plants three are still working though.
 
You can see it here on Google earth. Oooops, that's the town of Crystal River. The power plant is up to the left there.

Manatees liked the warm water too.

 

Actually, Fat Point Jack picked the plant, but why get bogged down in details.  

 

So, folks will trade safety for jobs, eh?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  

 

I wonder how many of those folks actually worked at the plant.  That increase in population within 10 miles equals nearly 7,000 people.  That plant must have been crowded, eh?

 

I remember them selling the Calvert Cliffs plant as a boon to fishermen, as the Bay in front of it didn't freeze during those really cold years in the 70s.  They, too, were laughed at for that "selling point".



#21 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 06 September 2013 - 12:43 AM

The quicker they shut down Big Coal in this country, the better off we will all be.

 

Those plants have also been hurting the ratepayers - for instance, think of the nerve of the Southern Company charging ratepayers in Miss. for a coal plant which looks like it will cost over 6 BILLION dollars!

http://www.reuters.c...N0E11X120130520

 

There is a small population which this plants serves. - 185,000

 

That's just one example. The greed of these companies knows no bounds. They are so bad that the tea parties down there have teamed up with the environmentalists! Yes, even the teabaggerz understand it's Big Corp and Big Gubment screwing them.



#22 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,608 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 06 September 2013 - 01:59 AM

The world seems to be saying no nukes is good nukes.  Happy Jack not included. 

I remember those days that Happy Jack was promoting nukes.  Those were good times eh?



#23 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,907 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 02:15 AM

 

 


Those human beings just keep fucking things up. 
 
http://en.wikipedia....ear_Power_Plant

 
I wonder how these folks feel about the oppressive regulations.
 
"The 2010 U.S. population within 10 miles (16 km) of Crystal River was 20,695, an increase of 50.9 percent in a decade, according to an analysis of U.S. Census data for msnbc.com. The 2010 U.S. population within 50 miles (80 km) was 1,046,741, an increase of 32.4 percent since 2000. Cities within 50 miles include Ocala, (38 miles to city center) and Spring Hill (34 miles to city center).[10]"
 
Well, you picked a plant that's now closed.  It was closed in 2009 when it was damaged during a shutdown for repairs and refueling.  My guess would be that the folks there are a little sad to see it go.  It provided a lot of jobs in a predominantly rural area.  In fact, all that population growth in your cite occured while the plant was open and in operation so I figger they didn't mind too much.
 
The coal plants three are still working though.
 
You can see it here on Google earth. Oooops, that's the town of Crystal River. The power plant is up to the left there.

Manatees liked the warm water too.

 

Actually, Fat Point Jack picked the plant, but why get bogged down in details.  

 

So, folks will trade safety for jobs, eh?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  

 

I wonder how many of those folks actually worked at the plant.  That increase in population within 10 miles equals nearly 7,000 people.  That plant must have been crowded, eh?

 

I remember them selling the Calvert Cliffs plant as a boon to fishermen, as the Bay in front of it didn't freeze during those really cold years in the 70s.  They, too, were laughed at for that "selling point".

 

I don't know how many work at the plant.  But, I bet they buy cars and gas and groceries and houses and, well, lots of other stuff.

 

I'm not sure why you posted the population as relevant whether FPJ was first to post the link or not.

 

The plant had a problem which was discovered during routine maintenance, normal procedures were followed and it was determined that it wasn't worth repairing after a couple of years of design and analysis.

 

It doesn't appear that anyone was placed at risk nor was there a problem during the operational cycle.

 

Once again, folks moved in there while the plant was running and there were no problems.

 

Big deal.  I don't see what your point is.



#24 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 06 September 2013 - 03:28 AM

The world seems to be saying no nukes is good nukes.  Happy Jack not included. 

I remember those days that Happy Jack was promoting nukes.  Those were good times eh?

 

It's always telling when folks bat about .050 on their right/wrong predictions.



#25 frenchie

frenchie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,403 posts
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY

Posted 06 September 2013 - 03:28 AM

The plant had a problem which was discovered during routine maintenance

 

 

??

 

the gap was caused by workers applying more pressure to the concrete than it could handle while cutting a hole through which to replace the steam generators.[2] (Taking in the generators in through the equipment hatch was not an option as there was no room to maneuver the generators inside the hatch).

 

 

Problem was caused by (what should have been) routine maintenance (but wasn't, because of bad design).

 



#26 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,907 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 03:43 AM


The plant had a problem which was discovered during routine maintenance

 

 

??

 

 


>the gap was caused by workers applying more pressure to the concrete than it could handle while cutting a hole through which to replace the steam generators.[2] (Taking in the generators in through the equipment hatch was not an option as there was no room to maneuver the generators inside the hatch).

 

 

Problem was caused by (what should have been) routine maintenance (but wasn't, because of bad design).

 

 

 

I'm not sure what the implications are of a larger hatch.  It's a pressure vessel.  The bigger it gets the stronger it has to be.  Hatches have seams.  The longer the seam the stronger it has to be.  The decision to require disassembly and reconstruction would be a design tradeoff.  Applying too much pressure in maintenance often leads to problems.  Ask anybody too cheap to buy a decent torque wrench.



#27 benwynn

benwynn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,016 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 04:59 AM

 

 

a great quote.  It's the money.

 

From Florida and the Carolinas to Texas and on to California, the underlying issue driving the demise of nuclear power is the same: bad and unsustainable economics. In Florida, a ratepayer rebellion in the face of rapidly rising reactor costs shared the same roots as Duke's abandonment of two reactors in North Carolina that were projected to have doubled in cost. InTexas, only foreign government-backed entities could afford the soaring costs of the STP reactors near San Antonio. InCalifornia, Southern California Edison is seeking to sidestep hundreds of millions of dollars in costs for damaged reactors that may simply be too expensive to repair. The story of nuclear power from coast to coast is one of bad economics."

 

And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology.

 

Would you prefer the nuclear industry be free of regulation?

No, did I say that?  A lot of the regulation in the industry is fear and panic driven.  As are the NIMBY lawsuits that need to be dealt with.

 

Most of this falls under 'we'll fuck with you 'til you give up and give money to your competitors'.

 

Which regulations are fear and panic driven?   I'll buy your argument that the nuclear industry is over-regulated if you can give me some examples that you obviously have.



#28 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 02:30 PM

a great quote.  It's the money.

 

From Florida and the Carolinas to Texas and on to California, the underlying issue driving the demise of nuclear power is the same: bad and unsustainable economics. In Florida, a ratepayer rebellion in the face of rapidly rising reactor costs shared the same roots as Duke's abandonment of two reactors in North Carolina that were projected to have doubled in cost. InTexas, only foreign government-backed entities could afford the soaring costs of the STP reactors near San Antonio. InCalifornia, Southern California Edison is seeking to sidestep hundreds of millions of dollars in costs for damaged reactors that may simply be too expensive to repair. The story of nuclear power from coast to coast is one of bad economics."

 

And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology.

Wrong.

 

The unfavorable economics of nukes arise primarily from the fundamentals of other technologies.  Like fracking.

 

Find yourself some news on the announced shutdowns of the Kewanuee and Vermont Yankee plants.  The first thing the owners cite is low prices due to competition from gas.  Those plants do not have the same operating issues found at SONGS or Crystal River.



#29 Chuck D.

Chuck D.

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,627 posts
  • Location:Harrison Twp.

Posted 06 September 2013 - 02:33 PM


The world seems to be saying no nukes is good nukes.  Happy Jack not included.

I remember those days that Happy Jack was promoting nukes.  Those were good times eh?


Seems like it was just a few weeks ago. BTW, has that tool cut and run yet again?

#30 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 02:35 PM

Actually, Fat Point Jack picked the plant, but why get bogged down in details.  

 

So, folks will trade safety for jobs, eh?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  

 

I wonder how many of those folks actually worked at the plant.  That increase in population within 10 miles equals nearly 7,000 people.  That plant must have been crowded, eh?

 

I remember them selling the Calvert Cliffs plant as a boon to fishermen, as the Bay in front of it didn't freeze during those really cold years in the 70s.  They, too, were laughed at for that "selling point".

Nukes employ a shit-ton of people, which is part of the reason they have such a hard time competing.

 

Vermont Yankee, one of the plants closing because it can't compete, employs 630 people: http://www.bostonglo...0bVM/story.html

 

A comparably sized (620 MW) combined cycle natural gas plant might have 30 guys at the plant at most.



#31 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,907 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 02:56 PM

 

a great quote.  It's the money.

 

From Florida and the Carolinas to Texas and on to California, the underlying issue driving the demise of nuclear power is the same: bad and unsustainable economics. In Florida, a ratepayer rebellion in the face of rapidly rising reactor costs shared the same roots as Duke's abandonment of two reactors in North Carolina that were projected to have doubled in cost. InTexas, only foreign government-backed entities could afford the soaring costs of the STP reactors near San Antonio. InCalifornia, Southern California Edison is seeking to sidestep hundreds of millions of dollars in costs for damaged reactors that may simply be too expensive to repair. The story of nuclear power from coast to coast is one of bad economics."

 

And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology.

Wrong.

 

The unfavorable economics of nukes arise primarily from the fundamentals of other technologies.  Like fracking.

 

Find yourself some news on the announced shutdowns of the Kewanuee and Vermont Yankee plants.  The first thing the owners cite is low prices due to competition from gas.

 

Sure, that's true in recent years.  Of course, prior to fracking folks were trying to open new nukes and a lot of the older ones were likely coming close to expensive rehab and recycle phases that are not economicly justified in light of current NG prices.  I note that it isn't claimed because of the tremendous increase in alternative energy replacing steam driven plants.



#32 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,907 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 03:00 PM

Actually, Fat Point Jack picked the plant, but why get bogged down in details.  

 

So, folks will trade safety for jobs, eh?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  

 

I wonder how many of those folks actually worked at the plant.  That increase in population within 10 miles equals nearly 7,000 people.  That plant must have been crowded, eh?

 

I remember them selling the Calvert Cliffs plant as a boon to fishermen, as the Bay in front of it didn't freeze during those really cold years in the 70s.  They, too, were laughed at for that "selling point".

Nukes employ a shit-ton of people, which is part of the reason they have such a hard time competing.

 

A comparably sized (620 MW) combined cycle natural gas plant might have 30 guys at the plant at most.

 

Good point.  How many of those are NRC employees paid for by the plant and how many of the others are mandated positions writing reports to the Resident NRC inspector and staff?  Are there equivalents in the NG plant?



#33 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 03:11 PM

 

 

a great quote.  It's the money.

 

From Florida and the Carolinas to Texas and on to California, the underlying issue driving the demise of nuclear power is the same: bad and unsustainable economics. In Florida, a ratepayer rebellion in the face of rapidly rising reactor costs shared the same roots as Duke's abandonment of two reactors in North Carolina that were projected to have doubled in cost. InTexas, only foreign government-backed entities could afford the soaring costs of the STP reactors near San Antonio. InCalifornia, Southern California Edison is seeking to sidestep hundreds of millions of dollars in costs for damaged reactors that may simply be too expensive to repair. The story of nuclear power from coast to coast is one of bad economics."

 

And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology.

Wrong.

 

The unfavorable economics of nukes arise primarily from the fundamentals of other technologies.  Like fracking.

 

Find yourself some news on the announced shutdowns of the Kewanuee and Vermont Yankee plants.  The first thing the owners cite is low prices due to competition from gas.

 

Sure, that's true in recent years.  Of course, prior to fracking folks were trying to open new nukes and a lot of the older ones were likely coming close to expensive rehab and recycle phases that are not economicly justified in light of current NG prices.  I note that it isn't claimed because of the tremendous increase in alternative energy replacing steam driven plants.

Not sure why the "in recent years" thing matters.  Until the Model T came along people were still trying to open new buggy whip factories.



#34 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 03:27 PM

 

Actually, Fat Point Jack picked the plant, but why get bogged down in details.  

 

So, folks will trade safety for jobs, eh?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  

 

I wonder how many of those folks actually worked at the plant.  That increase in population within 10 miles equals nearly 7,000 people.  That plant must have been crowded, eh?

 

I remember them selling the Calvert Cliffs plant as a boon to fishermen, as the Bay in front of it didn't freeze during those really cold years in the 70s.  They, too, were laughed at for that "selling point".

Nukes employ a shit-ton of people, which is part of the reason they have such a hard time competing.

 

A comparably sized (620 MW) combined cycle natural gas plant might have 30 guys at the plant at most.

 

Good point.  How many of those are NRC employees paid for by the plant and how many of the others are mandated positions writing reports to the Resident NRC inspector and staff?  Are there equivalents in the NG plant?

I would guess less than 10 NRC people.

 

Security is the biggest driver of bodies.  I don't see a way around that.



#35 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,276 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 06 September 2013 - 03:58 PM

that and highly trained nuke engineers vs. those that are needed at a simple boiler.



#36 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,907 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 04:44 PM

 

 

 

a great quote.  It's the money.

 

From Florida and the Carolinas to Texas and on to California, the underlying issue driving the demise of nuclear power is the same: bad and unsustainable economics. In Florida, a ratepayer rebellion in the face of rapidly rising reactor costs shared the same roots as Duke's abandonment of two reactors in North Carolina that were projected to have doubled in cost. InTexas, only foreign government-backed entities could afford the soaring costs of the STP reactors near San Antonio. InCalifornia, Southern California Edison is seeking to sidestep hundreds of millions of dollars in costs for damaged reactors that may simply be too expensive to repair. The story of nuclear power from coast to coast is one of bad economics."

 

And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology.

Wrong.

 

The unfavorable economics of nukes arise primarily from the fundamentals of other technologies.  Like fracking.

 

Find yourself some news on the announced shutdowns of the Kewanuee and Vermont Yankee plants.  The first thing the owners cite is low prices due to competition from gas.

 

Sure, that's true in recent years.  Of course, prior to fracking folks were trying to open new nukes and a lot of the older ones were likely coming close to expensive rehab and recycle phases that are not economicly justified in light of current NG prices.  I note that it isn't claimed because of the tremendous increase in alternative energy replacing steam driven plants.

Not sure why the "in recent years" thing matters.  Until the Model T came along people were still trying to open new buggy whip factories.

 

Well, NG wasn't making the inroads that it has in recent years.



#37 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 08:45 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology.

Wrong.

 

The unfavorable economics of nukes arise primarily from the fundamentals of other technologies.  Like fracking.

 

Find yourself some news on the announced shutdowns of the Kewanuee and Vermont Yankee plants.  The first thing the owners cite is low prices due to competition from gas.

 

Sure, that's true in recent years.  Of course, prior to fracking folks were trying to open new nukes and a lot of the older ones were likely coming close to expensive rehab and recycle phases that are not economicly justified in light of current NG prices.  I note that it isn't claimed because of the tremendous increase in alternative energy replacing steam driven plants.

Not sure why the "in recent years" thing matters.  Until the Model T came along people were still trying to open new buggy whip factories.

 

Well, NG wasn't making the inroads that it has in recent years.

Yes, I know.

 

That's why I said that the thing causing nuclear to be not so competitive is natural gas, not "And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology" as you stated.



#38 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,907 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 09:03 PM

 

 

 

 

Wrong.


 

 

 

And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology.

 

The unfavorable economics of nukes arise primarily from the fundamentals of other technologies.  Like fracking.

 

Find yourself some news on the announced shutdowns of the Kewanuee and Vermont Yankee plants.  The first thing the owners cite is low prices due to competition from gas.

 

Sure, that's true in recent years.  Of course, prior to fracking folks were trying to open new nukes and a lot of the older ones were likely coming close to expensive rehab and recycle phases that are not economicly justified in light of current NG prices.  I note that it isn't claimed because of the tremendous increase in alternative energy replacing steam driven plants.

Not sure why the "in recent years" thing matters.  Until the Model T came along people were still trying to open new buggy whip factories.

 

Well, NG wasn't making the inroads that it has in recent years.

Yes, I know.

 

That's why I said that the thing causing nuclear to be not so competitive is natural gas, not "And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology" as you stated.

 

Uhhh, there weren't that many new nukes coming on line though in the US, were there?



#39 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,831 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 06 September 2013 - 09:18 PM

 

 

 

Sure, that's true in recent years.  Of course, prior to fracking folks were trying to open new nukes and a lot of the older ones were likely coming close to expensive rehab and recycle phases that are not economicly justified in light of current NG prices.  I note that it isn't claimed because of the tremendous increase in alternative energy replacing steam driven plants.

Not sure why the "in recent years" thing matters.  Until the Model T came along people were still trying to open new buggy whip factories.

 

Well, NG wasn't making the inroads that it has in recent years.

Yes, I know.

 

That's why I said that the thing causing nuclear to be not so competitive is natural gas, not "And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology" as you stated.

 

Uhhh, there weren't that many new nukes coming on line though in the US, were there?

 

Probably because they heard the nasty regulators say "we'll fuck with you 'til you give up and give money to your competitors".



#40 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 09:20 PM

 

 

 

 

Well, NG wasn't making the inroads that it has in recent years.

Yes, I know.

 

That's why I said that the thing causing nuclear to be not so competitive is natural gas, not "And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology" as you stated.

 

Uhhh, there weren't that many new nukes coming on line though in the US, were there?

Perhaps you'd be better served looking at natural gas price rather than production?  Natural gas fired power plants weren't invented 5 years ago.  Coal goes back aways too.



#41 zzrider

zzrider

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,762 posts
  • Location:New England
  • Interests:Sailing, motorcycling

Posted 06 September 2013 - 09:28 PM

Nukes are dead because we originally chose a fission technology based on a priority being compatibility with a nuclear weapons program.  That's how we wound up with these inherently dangerous nuke plants that require highly pressurized containment vessels.

 

Had we instead focused R&D on a different fission technology -  molten salt Thorium reactors - we wouldn't be having this discussion, nor the problems of TMI, Chernobyl, or Fukushima.  Sure, it's not perfect and still uses uranium to get the thorium cycle started, but LFTR's completely solve the major problem of catastrophic failure - they simply cannot melt down or explode and create disaster like what Japan is dealing with.  Decommissioning and waste disposal would still be there, but regulatory requirements for plant operation could be dramatically simplified because the reactor design is inherently safe.

 

If we haven't figured out how to make fusion work for power generation by the time our ancient sequestered hydrocarbons run out, LFTR's are where we'll turn for power.



#42 benwynn

benwynn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,016 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 10:36 PM

 

 

 

a great quote.  It's the money.

 

From Florida and the Carolinas to Texas and on to California, the underlying issue driving the demise of nuclear power is the same: bad and unsustainable economics. In Florida, a ratepayer rebellion in the face of rapidly rising reactor costs shared the same roots as Duke's abandonment of two reactors in North Carolina that were projected to have doubled in cost. InTexas, only foreign government-backed entities could afford the soaring costs of the STP reactors near San Antonio. InCalifornia, Southern California Edison is seeking to sidestep hundreds of millions of dollars in costs for damaged reactors that may simply be too expensive to repair. The story of nuclear power from coast to coast is one of bad economics."

 

And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology.

 

Would you prefer the nuclear industry be free of regulation?

No, did I say that?  A lot of the regulation in the industry is fear and panic driven.  As are the NIMBY lawsuits that need to be dealt with.

 

Most of this falls under 'we'll fuck with you 'til you give up and give money to your competitors'.

 

Which regulations are fear and panic driven?   I'll buy your argument that the nuclear industry is over-regulated if you can give me some examples that you obviously have.

 

This is what I hate about the "too much regulation" canard.  People just bark it out without knowing what they are talking about.



#43 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,907 posts

Posted 06 September 2013 - 11:09 PM

 

 

 


 

And those economics arise from regulation not the fundamentals of the technology.

 

Would you prefer the nuclear industry be free of regulation?

No, did I say that?  A lot of the regulation in the industry is fear and panic driven.  As are the NIMBY lawsuits that need to be dealt with.

 

Most of this falls under 'we'll fuck with you 'til you give up and give money to your competitors'.

 

Which regulations are fear and panic driven?   I'll buy your argument that the nuclear industry is over-regulated if you can give me some examples that you obviously have.

 

This is what I hate about the "too much regulation" canard.  People just bark it out without knowing what they are talking about.

There are several thousand pages of regulations.  I'm certainly not going to go through them for you.

 

However, they are steam turbines and are virtually identical to those used in combustion powerplants.  If you are really interested, take a look at the differences in inspection and reporting requirements for them. 

 

BTW, how many non nuclear plants are required to have a minimum of two federal inspectors assigned to them with their supporting staff?

 

Incidentally, pre-construction permitting for a nuke plant is estimated at 50 to 100 million dollars.  As of about 2011 the NRC hadn't issued too many of them because spending that much just to get approval to start is kinda like a regulatory cost.



#44 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 12:41 AM

This is what I hate about the "too much regulation" canard.  People just bark it out without knowing what they are talking about.

Well now we know.  There number of pages is "several thousand," thus, there are clearly too many pages.

 

In order for Saorsa to be happy with the amount of regulation all that needs to happen is to have the regs printed double sided and switch from Comic Sans to good ol' Times New Roman.



#45 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 12:50 AM

However, they are steam turbines and are virtually identical to those used in combustion powerplants.  If you are really interested, take a look at the differences in inspection and reporting requirements for them. 
 
BTW, how many non nuclear plants are required to have a minimum of two federal inspectors assigned to them with their supporting staff?

That's not even good sophistry.

Incidentally, pre-construction permitting for a nuke plant is estimated at 50 to 100 million dollars.  As of about 2011 the NRC hadn't issued too many of them because spending that much just to get approval to start is kinda like a regulatory cost.

Cite?

Presuming those figures are correct, you do realize that new nukes cost $10B-$20B, right? Is it your contention that it's the 0.3%-1% of total project cost spent on permitting that is the major impediment?

#46 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,907 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 01:50 AM

This is what I hate about the "too much regulation" canard.  People just bark it out without knowing what they are talking about.

Well now we know.  There number of pages is "several thousand," thus, there are clearly too many pages.

 

In order for Saorsa to be happy with the amount of regulation all that needs to happen is to have the regs printed double sided and switch from Comic Sans to good ol' Times New Roman.

 

Yeah, Uh huh, I guess $50 to 100 $million in permits is par for the course on any new power plant.  All of them have to pay for a DOE staff to keep an eye on them and a bureacracy who, in spite of a stellar safety record, just need to do a little more each year.  And all that is before the permits are issued and the NIMBY lawsuits start.

 

How many permits have been pursued or issued since 1980?



#47 frenchie

frenchie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,403 posts
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY

Posted 07 September 2013 - 01:55 AM

 


The plant had a problem which was discovered during routine maintenance

 

Problem was caused by (what should have been) routine maintenance (but wasn't, because of bad design).


 

I'm not sure what the implications are of a larger hatch.  It's a pressure vessel.  The bigger it gets the stronger it has to be.  Hatches have seams.  The longer the seam the stronger it has to be.  The decision to require disassembly and reconstruction would be a design tradeoff.

 

Sorry, but as someone who works with his hands, I recognize bad/stupid design when I see it. 

 

Some pasty fucker who's never worked with his hands, sitting in front of a computer, made the hatch big enough to fit the generator, and it just didn't occur to him to leave room to manoeuver it. 

 

I deal with shit like this all the time.  Kitchen cabinets that can't be installed because the designer worked off rough framing measurements, forget to allow for the thickness of sheetrock?  Bathrooms where two walls have to be completely removed before you can swap out the bathtub?  And so on, ad nauseum.

 

Applying too much pressure in maintenance often leads to problems.  Ask anybody too cheap to buy a decent torque wrench.

 

Too much pressure while cutting; but why were they cutting in the first place?  Because some twit forgot to leave room for manoeuvering.



#48 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,907 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 02:05 AM

 

 


The plant had a problem which was discovered during routine maintenance

 

Problem was caused by (what should have been) routine maintenance (but wasn't, because of bad design).


 

I'm not sure what the implications are of a larger hatch.  It's a pressure vessel.  The bigger it gets the stronger it has to be.  Hatches have seams.  The longer the seam the stronger it has to be.  The decision to require disassembly and reconstruction would be a design tradeoff.  Applying too much pressure in maintenance often leads to problems.  Ask anybody too cheap to buy a decent torque wrench.

 

Sorry, but as someone who works with his hands, I recognize bad/stupid design when I see it. 

 

Some pasty fucker who's never worked with his hands, sitting in front of a computer, made the hatch big enough to fit the generator, and it just didn't occur to him to leave room to manoeuver it. 

 

I deal with shit like this all the time.  Kitchen cabinets that can't be installed because the designer worked off rough framing measurements, forget to allow for the thickness of sheetrock?  Bathrooms where two walls have to be completely removed before you can swap out the bathtub?  And so on, ad nauseum.

 

A submarine is a pressure vessel.  Everything that goes in has to fit through a relatively small hatch because any hatch is a weak point.

 

Those must be damn big bathtubs, I redid one of my baths with a steel tub that fit through a normal doorway.



#49 frenchie

frenchie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,403 posts
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY

Posted 07 September 2013 - 03:01 AM

Those must be damn big bathtubs, I redid one of my baths with a steel tub that fit through a normal doorway.

 

Small bathrooms (NYC).  Which is fine, when it's well-thought-out; but really fucking sucks, when it's not.



#50 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 03:10 AM



This is what I hate about the "too much regulation" canard.  People just bark it out without knowing what they are talking about.

Well now we know.  There number of pages is "several thousand," thus, there are clearly too many pages.
 
In order for Saorsa to be happy with the amount of regulation all that needs to happen is to have the regs printed double sided and switch from Comic Sans to good ol' Times New Roman.


 
Yeah, Uh huh, I guess $50 to 100 $million in permits is par for the course on any new power plant.  All of them have to pay for a DOE staff to keep an eye on them and a bureacracy who, in spite of a stellar safety record, just need to do a little more each year.  And all that is before the permits are issued and the NIMBY lawsuits start.
 
How many permits have been pursued or issued since 1980?


Those sure are big numbers.

What were they in percent again?

#51 frenchie

frenchie

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,403 posts
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY

Posted 07 September 2013 - 03:34 AM

 

 

 


The plant had a problem which was discovered during routine maintenance

 

Problem was caused by (what should have been) routine maintenance (but wasn't, because of bad design).


 

I'm not sure what the implications are of a larger hatch.  It's a pressure vessel.  The bigger it gets the stronger it has to be.  Hatches have seams.  The longer the seam the stronger it has to be.  The decision to require disassembly and reconstruction would be a design tradeoff.  Applying too much pressure in maintenance often leads to problems.  Ask anybody too cheap to buy a decent torque wrench.

 

Sorry, but as someone who works with his hands, I recognize bad/stupid design when I see it. 

 

Some pasty fucker who's never worked with his hands, sitting in front of a computer, made the hatch big enough to fit the generator, and it just didn't occur to him to leave room to manoeuver it. 

 

I deal with shit like this all the time.  Kitchen cabinets that can't be installed because the designer worked off rough framing measurements, forget to allow for the thickness of sheetrock?  Bathrooms where two walls have to be completely removed before you can swap out the bathtub?  And so on, ad nauseum.

 

A submarine is a pressure vessel.  Everything that goes in has to fit through a relatively small hatch because any hatch is a weak point.

 

Those must be damn big bathtubs, I redid one of my baths with a steel tub that fit through a normal doorway.

 

Okay, read up on it a bit...

 

I'd misunderstood  -  thought these was a part that fit (measurement-wise) but couldn't be manoeuvered.  Turns out it's a huge assembly, way too big for any hatch (but then how come you refered to it as "routine maintenance"?) 

 

Also  -  the damage wasn't caused by too much pressure while cutting  -  it was caused by de-tensioning and retensioning the tendons, before and after cutting.

 

Which re-opens the same can of worms:  why would you spec post-tensioned concrete, when you know (or should have known) there will one day need to be access? 



#52 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,907 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 03:54 AM

However, they are steam turbines and are virtually identical to those used in combustion powerplants.  If you are really interested, take a look at the differences in inspection and reporting requirements for them. 
 
BTW, how many non nuclear plants are required to have a minimum of two federal inspectors assigned to them with their supporting staff?

That's not even good sophistry.

>Incidentally, pre-construction permitting for a nuke plant is estimated at 50 to 100 million dollars.  As of about 2011 the NRC hadn't issued too many of them because spending that much just to get approval to start is kinda like a regulatory cost.

Cite?

Presuming those figures are correct, you do realize that new nukes cost $10B-$20B, right? Is it your contention that it's the 0.3%-1% of total project cost spent on permitting that is the major impediment?

 

 

That's really interesting because the cost of the Gerald Ford,our latest nuclear carrier, is built to mil-spec, and has it's own airport and comes in under that.  The cost includes two nuclear reactors and all the infrastructure support for about 4000 people.



#53 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 04:01 AM



However, they are steam turbines and are virtually identical to those used in combustion powerplants.  If you are really interested, take a look at the differences in inspection and reporting requirements for them. 
 
BTW, how many non nuclear plants are required to have a minimum of two federal inspectors assigned to them with their supporting staff?

That's not even good sophistry.

>Incidentally, pre-construction permitting for a nuke plant is estimated at 50 to 100 million dollars.  As of about 2011 the NRC hadn't issued too many of them because spending that much just to get approval to start is kinda like a regulatory cost.

Cite?

Presuming those figures are correct, you do realize that new nukes cost $10B-$20B, right? Is it your contention that it's the 0.3%-1% of total project cost spent on permitting that is the major impediment?


 
That's really interesting because the cost of the Gerald Ford,our latest nuclear carrier, is built to mil-spec, and has it's own airport and comes in under that.  The cost includes two nuclear reactors and all the infrastructure support for about 4000 people.


How many MW of power does it generate?

#54 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,796 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 06:29 AM



However, they are steam turbines and are virtually identical to those used in combustion powerplants.  If you are really interested, take a look at the differences in inspection and reporting requirements for them. 
 
BTW, how many non nuclear plants are required to have a minimum of two federal inspectors assigned to them with their supporting staff?

That's not even good sophistry.

>Incidentally, pre-construction permitting for a nuke plant is estimated at 50 to 100 million dollars.  As of about 2011 the NRC hadn't issued too many of them because spending that much just to get approval to start is kinda like a regulatory cost.

Cite?

Presuming those figures are correct, you do realize that new nukes cost $10B-$20B, right? Is it your contention that it's the 0.3%-1% of total project cost spent on permitting that is the major impediment?


 
That's really interesting because the cost of the Gerald Ford,our latest nuclear carrier, is built to mil-spec, and has it's own airport and comes in under that.  The cost includes two nuclear reactors and all the infrastructure support for about 4000 people.


Lessee ... it can produce 485 MW.

The cost of the three carriers in the class is supposedly about $18 billion, so they have an average cost of about $6 billion each. http://www.military....er-program.html

Assuming the powerplants of the system are 20% of the cost of the ships, around $1.2 billion for each powerplant, and we give a 25 year lifespan to each powerplant before incremental replacement. That doesn't include the cost of the nuclear fuel. For land-based powerplants, the fuel costs are about 30% of the cost of lifetime cost, so not including the labor to operate those nuclear systems, we're looking at about $1.6 billion each.

Doesn't seem too bad. Let's compare the same metric to out-of-the-box wind turbines. Apologies to JMD if I mangle this, it's just a back-of-the-envelope thing. http://www.windustry...d-turbines-cost

The cost of a typical 2 MW wind turbine is around $4 million installed, so apples-to-apples, the wind turbines would require about $500 million for the same installed capacity at around the same incremental lifespan. Now, the wind farm would need some cheapish land somewhere windy, while Saorsa's hypothetical regulation-free Naval nuke generator would require very little land. BUT, it evens out considerably when the maintenance is considered ... the wind turbines need a small crew of relatively-fast trained technicians, while the nuclear plant needs a full-time crew of high-end nuclear technicians, either with the very high government overhead and lower pay, or the lower private overhead and higher pay. We'll call that a wash, also because the used wind-turbines have a salvage value, while the used nuclear powerplant containments are nuclear waste that are going to have a certain cost of contain indefinitely.


So ... it looks like your hypothetical regulation-free nuclear is about 5 to 8 times more expensive than wind. If the Navy made thirty of those nuclear carriers rather than a handful, the cost could fall to 1 to 2 times as expensive. Still not quite the magical source you seem to claim.

#55 benwynn

benwynn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,016 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 07:58 AM

 

 

Which regulations are fear and panic driven?   I'll buy your argument that the nuclear industry is over-regulated if you can give me some examples that you obviously have.

 

This is what I hate about the "too much regulation" canard.  People just bark it out without knowing what they are talking about.

There are several thousand pages of regulations.  I'm certainly not going to go through them for you.

 

So the number of pages constitutes over-regulation?   Here I am asking about content, where I suppose a more relevant question would be "Are the pages double or single spaced?"

 

 

However, they are steam turbines and are virtually identical to those used in combustion powerplants. 

 

I understand the bathrooms are the same as combustions powerplants too.  As are the cafeterias.  And the photocopying machines.  What is your point?   Did you think the problem at Fukushima has jack fuck to do with the steam turbines?

 
 


#56 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,907 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 01:57 PM

 

 

 

Which regulations are fear and panic driven?   I'll buy your argument that the nuclear industry is over-regulated if you can give me some examples that you obviously have.

 

This is what I hate about the "too much regulation" canard.  People just bark it out without knowing what they are talking about.

There are several thousand pages of regulations.  I'm certainly not going to go through them for you.

 

So the number of pages constitutes over-regulation?   Here I am asking about content, where I suppose a more relevant question would be "Are the pages double or single spaced?"

 

 

>However, they are steam turbines and are virtually identical to those used in combustion powerplants. 

 

I understand the bathrooms are the same as combustions powerplants too.  As are the cafeterias.  And the photocopying machines.  What is your point?   Did you think the problem at Fukushima has jack fuck to do with the steam turbines?

 
 

 

No, the number of pages is the reason I'm not going to go through them for you.

 

The point of sameness is that for some reason, installing a ground based nuclear power plant requires 50 to 100 million in permitting.  That's just getting government approval before you actually start digging the foundation and long, long before you actually get any nasty nuclear material there.  Except for the reactor, the majority of the plant is no different than any other power plant.

 

There, I made a statement.  You can ask for proof which I may, or may not provide dependent on whether I see any value in doing so.  Or, you can simply disbelieve it.  Or, you might take to opportunity to wonder why they are so damned expensive compared to other engineering.

 

The comparison to the Ford Class carrier is to show that you can actually get a nuclear power plant up and running for a lot less money than the private sector.  Most folks would really find it difficult to see how the US military with $400 hammers can possibly do that.



#57 squirel

squirel

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,692 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 02:34 PM

Can you just IMAGINE what the military nuclear guys like Jimmy Carter could do instead of Westinghouse and Bechtel?

 

Why it reminds me of the heady days of the late 1950's when another military guy named Eisenhower said something to the effect that electricity from nukes will be so inexpensive there would be no need to meter it. IMAGINE. Free electricity! And what makes me so angry sometimes about the whole clusterfuck created by Republican corporations and Democratic regulators is what a nuclear electric powered America could be like.



#58 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,796 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 04:15 PM

The point of sameness is that for some reason, installing a ground based nuclear power plant requires 50 to 100 million in permitting.  That's just getting government approval before you actually start digging the foundation and long, long before you actually get any nasty nuclear material there.  Except for the reactor, the majority of the plant is no different than any other power plant.
 
There, I made a statement.  You can ask for proof which I may, or may not provide dependent on whether I see any value in doing so.  Or, you can simply disbelieve it.  Or, you might take to opportunity to wonder why they are so damned expensive compared to other engineering.
 
The comparison to the Ford Class carrier is to show that you can actually get a nuclear power plant up and running for a lot less money than the private sector.  Most folks would really find it difficult to see how the US military with $400 hammers can possibly do that.

 

That's not that much money for permitting though. You don't seem to recognize that nuclear energy is somewhat subsidized in the permitting costs (i.e. the cost to run the assessments are paid in part by the taxpayers.)

Take your top permitting cost of $100 million for a large nuclear plant, say the Palo Verde Plant at about 4,000 megawatts. That's a per MW permitting cost of about $25,000 per MW.

Now compare that to the permitting cost of wind, which is cheaper than permitting hydro. The cost to permit a single 2 MW wind turbine varies from $100,000 to $400,000, https://www.wind-wat...ng-permit-fee/. Divide by two, and even at the cheapest, the cost to permit wind is TWICE the cost of nuclear.

I'm trying to understand where you're coming from on this. If I build a new garage in my backyard I have to pay for permitting costs. Why do you think that nuclear plants should have their permitting assessments 100% subsidized by the taxpayers? Nuclear is dying because we now have cheaper ways to make power.



#59 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,796 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 04:24 PM

Nukes are dead because we originally chose a fission technology based on a priority being compatibility with a nuclear weapons program.  That's how we wound up with these inherently dangerous nuke plants that require highly pressurized containment vessels.
 
Had we instead focused R&D on a different fission technology -  molten salt Thorium reactors - we wouldn't be having this discussion, nor the problems of TMI, Chernobyl, or Fukushima.  Sure, it's not perfect and still uses uranium to get the thorium cycle started, but LFTR's completely solve the major problem of catastrophic failure - they simply cannot melt down or explode and create disaster like what Japan is dealing with.  Decommissioning and waste disposal would still be there, but regulatory requirements for plant operation could be dramatically simplified because the reactor design is inherently safe.
 
If we haven't figured out how to make fusion work for power generation by the time our ancient sequestered hydrocarbons run out, LFTR's are where we'll turn for power

 

Thorium again?
 

Even with the nuclear industry pushing thorium as our next energy savior, the LFTRs still aren't being built. Why? Because the safety precautions with the fuel are more expensive even when you discount the possibility of meltdowns, bomb-quality material is needed to jumpstart the process, and the fuel-cycle is more expensive than our current methods, which themselves are showing to be too expensive to compete with hydro, wind and natural gas.

 

http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=3101



#60 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,204 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 01:07 AM

  It's not as simple as it looks. There are economic reasons that seem quite counter-intuitive when a nations balance of trade is considered. For instance, the Saudi's build nukes because every drop of the precious they burn instead of sell is a bit less foreign exchange cash. Every drop we don't import is a bit more cash not sent out of the country.  

 

 Also, from a purely Wall Street paper-shufflers perspective, the Hoover Dam would look like a terrible investment. Take half a century to get out of the red, at best, and that's assuming there isn't a big or even insurmountable problem developing during construction.  



#61 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,893 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 08 September 2013 - 08:46 AM

Nukes are dead because we originally chose a fission technology based on a priority being compatibility with a nuclear weapons program.  That's how we wound up with these inherently dangerous nuke plants that require highly pressurized containment vessels.

 

Had we instead focused R&D on a different fission technology -  molten salt Thorium reactors - we wouldn't be having this discussion, nor the problems of TMI, Chernobyl, or Fukushima. 

 

I'm not completely sure I buy your Nuke weapons alignment theory completely.  While it might have been true for some reactors in the US, not all US reactors can produce weapons grade material without significant reprocessing.

 

But that makes the Fukushima nuke plant even harder to explain when the japanese explicitely ban nuke weapons and their plants would have no need to be able to produce weapons grade fuel.  So why would they and some of the smaller euro nuke countries care about weapons grade material byproducts when they have no intention of having a nuke weapons program?



#62 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,796 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 05:12 PM

Nukes are dead because we originally chose a fission technology based on a priority being compatibility with a nuclear weapons program.  That's how we wound up with these inherently dangerous nuke plants that require highly pressurized containment vessels.

 

Had we instead focused R&D on a different fission technology -  molten salt Thorium reactors - we wouldn't be having this discussion, nor the problems of TMI, Chernobyl, or Fukushima. 

 

I'm not completely sure I buy your Nuke weapons alignment theory completely.  While it might have been true for some reactors in the US, not all US reactors can produce weapons grade material without significant reprocessing.

 

But that makes the Fukushima nuke plant even harder to explain when the japanese explicitely ban nuke weapons and their plants would have no need to be able to produce weapons grade fuel.  So why would they and some of the smaller euro nuke countries care about weapons grade material byproducts when they have no intention of having a nuke weapons program?

 

The original nuclear energy program was most definitely tied into the production of weapons material. The energy was a byproduct of the core production.

 

As nuclear energy technology developed, the smaller energy-mainly reactors were able to piggyback on the original weapons program reactors, so that the incremental cost of mining the uranium and enriching the fuel was manageable because the system was already in place for the big reactors.

 

As for Japan, they didn't and don't make weapons, but they definitely had/have a need for their own enrichment program. They needed the isotopes for the medical industry and research. Also, along with European countries, just because they are signatory to the NPT, they are still allowed to stockpile the enriched material in case they start a nuclear program later. This is not unlike the way the U.S., China and Russia stockpile functioning nuclear weapons within the confines of the NPT, even though they have no intention to use them short of a significant threat. These countries need that enriched material in case someone figures out a new method to get fusion to break-even, or to make alpha-emitters for ion-propulsion systems on spacecraft, etc..

 

It's a matter of their own national security too, they need to know that they can make their own medical isotopes and possibly even their own weapons-grade material if they decided they have to do it. That Japan was able to product so much affordable nuclear energy has more to do with the cheapness of their fuel from an established global nuclear industry, more than the economics of the process itself.



#63 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,276 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 09 September 2013 - 03:38 PM

Some would say that the Japanese have now found the true cost of nuke power, and it ain't affordable.  You have to make an assumption for Black Swan events.  So far, it seems we have 1 Black Swan per decade, with countless small events, like the early closure of San Onofre.  Add these costs to the cost of power generation and you might see real numbers.

 

Similarly, you should add some of the cost of the global defense industry to the cost of oil.



#64 jetboy

jetboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 04:42 PM

 

 

However, they are steam turbines and are virtually identical to those used in combustion powerplants.  If you are really interested, take a look at the differences in inspection and reporting requirements for them. 
 
BTW, how many non nuclear plants are required to have a minimum of two federal inspectors assigned to them with their supporting staff?

That's not even good sophistry.

>Incidentally, pre-construction permitting for a nuke plant is estimated at 50 to 100 million dollars.  As of about 2011 the NRC hadn't issued too many of them because spending that much just to get approval to start is kinda like a regulatory

cost.
Cite?

Presuming those figures are correct, you do realize that new nukes cost $10B-$20B, right? Is it your contention that it's the 0.3%-1% of total project cost spent on permitting that is the major impediment?

 

 
That's really interesting because the cost of the Gerald Ford,our latest nuclear carrier, is built to mil-spec, and has it's own airport and comes in under that.  The cost includes two nuclear reactors and all the infrastructure support for about 4000 people.
Lessee ... it can produce 485 MW.

The cost of the three carriers in the class is supposedly about $18 billion, so they have an average cost of about $6 billion each. http://www.military....er-program.html

Assuming the powerplants of the system are 20% of the cost of the ships, around $1.2 billion for each powerplant, and we give a 25 year lifespan to each powerplant before incremental replacement. That doesn't include the cost of the nuclear fuel. For land-based powerplants, the fuel costs are about 30% of the cost of lifetime cost, so not including the labor to operate those nuclear systems, we're looking at about $1.6 billion each.

Doesn't seem too bad. Let's compare the same metric to out-of-the-box wind turbines. Apologies to JMD if I mangle this, it's just a back-of-the-envelope thing. http://www.windustry...d-turbines-cost

The cost of a typical 2 MW wind turbine is around $4 million installed, so apples-to-apples, the wind turbines would require about $500 million for the same installed capacity at around the same incremental lifespan. Now, the wind farm would need some cheapish land somewhere windy, while Saorsa's hypothetical regulation-free Naval nuke generator would require very little land. BUT, it evens out considerably when the maintenance is considered ... the wind turbines need a small crew of relatively-fast trained technicians, while the nuclear plant needs a full-time crew of high-end nuclear technicians, either with the very high government overhead and lower pay, or the lower private overhead and higher pay. We'll call that a wash, also because the used wind-turbines have a salvage value, while the used nuclear powerplant containments are nuclear waste that are going to have a certain cost of contain indefinitely.


So ... it looks like your hypothetical regulation-free nuclear is about 5 to 8 times more expensive than wind. If the Navy made thirty of those nuclear carriers rather than a handful, the cost could fall to 1 to 2 times as expensive. Still not quite the magical source you seem to claim.

 

What percentage of the time can that wind farm produce 100% of name plate capacity at the same time as peak demand?



#65 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 04:47 PM


Nukes are dead because we originally chose a fission technology based on a priority being compatibility with a nuclear weapons program.  That's how we wound up with these inherently dangerous nuke plants that require highly pressurized containment vessels.
 
Had we instead focused R&D on a different fission technology -  molten salt Thorium reactors - we wouldn't be having this discussion, nor the problems of TMI, Chernobyl, or Fukushima.  Sure, it's not perfect and still uses uranium to get the thorium cycle started, but LFTR's completely solve the major problem of catastrophic failure - they simply cannot melt down or explode and create disaster like what Japan is dealing with.  Decommissioning and waste disposal would still be there, but regulatory requirements for plant operation could be dramatically simplified because the reactor design is inherently safe.
 
If we haven't figured out how to make fusion work for power generation by the time our ancient sequestered hydrocarbons run out, LFTR's are where we'll turn for power

 
Thorium again?
 
Even with the nuclear industry pushing thorium as our next energy savior, the LFTRs still aren't being built. Why? Because the safety precautions with the fuel are more expensive even when you discount the possibility of meltdowns, bomb-quality material is needed to jumpstart the process, and the fuel-cycle is more expensive than our current methods, which themselves are showing to be too expensive to compete with hydro, wind and natural gas.
 
http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=3101


 
Again and again and again it's the same story.
 

Some people just won't admit that new nukes won't work without a carbon tax with expected natural gas prices at least through the medium term so you get:
 
"We just need to use whiz-bang technology ______  that is technically possible but virtually ignored by those in the US with billions of dollars worth of capital to deploy."
 
The blank can be filled with the following:
Small Modular Reactor
thorium plutonium
deuterium uranium
pebble bed
liquid fluoride thorium (LFTR)
flux capacitating strontium
fulminating di-hydrogen monoxide



#66 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 04:49 PM

Some would say that the Japanese have now found the true cost of nuke power, and it ain't affordable.  You have to make an assumption for Black Swan events.  So far, it seems we have 1 Black Swan per decade, with countless small events, like the early closure of San Onofre.  Add these costs to the cost of power generation and you might see real numbers.
 
Similarly, you should add some of the cost of the global defense industry to the cost of oil.

The US uses virtually no oil for electric generation. Too expensive.

#67 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,276 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 09 September 2013 - 05:05 PM

wasn't showing that they did, more an example of another fuel source where true costs aren't recognized.



#68 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 05:11 PM

wasn't showing that they did, more an example of another fuel source where true costs aren't recognized.

Ah, different topics. Sorry.

#69 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,796 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 08:38 PM

Lessee ... it can produce 485 MW.

The cost of the three carriers in the class is supposedly about $18 billion, so they have an average cost of about $6 billion each. http://www.military....er-program.html

Assuming the powerplants of the system are 20% of the cost of the ships, around $1.2 billion for each powerplant, and we give a 25 year lifespan to each powerplant before incremental replacement. That doesn't include the cost of the nuclear fuel. For land-based powerplants, the fuel costs are about 30% of the cost of lifetime cost, so not including the labor to operate those nuclear systems, we're looking at about $1.6 billion each.

Doesn't seem too bad. Let's compare the same metric to out-of-the-box wind turbines. Apologies to JMD if I mangle this, it's just a back-of-the-envelope thing. http://www.windustry...d-turbines-cost

The cost of a typical 2 MW wind turbine is around $4 million installed, so apples-to-apples, the wind turbines would require about $500 million for the same installed capacity at around the same incremental lifespan. Now, the wind farm would need some cheapish land somewhere windy, while Saorsa's hypothetical regulation-free Naval nuke generator would require very little land. BUT, it evens out considerably when the maintenance is considered ... the wind turbines need a small crew of relatively-fast trained technicians, while the nuclear plant needs a full-time crew of high-end nuclear technicians, either with the very high government overhead and lower pay, or the lower private overhead and higher pay. We'll call that a wash, also because the used wind-turbines have a salvage value, while the used nuclear powerplant containments are nuclear waste that are going to have a certain cost of contain indefinitely.


So ... it looks like your hypothetical regulation-free nuclear is about 5 to 8 times more expensive than wind. If the Navy made thirty of those nuclear carriers rather than a handful, the cost could fall to 1 to 2 times as expensive. Still not quite the magical source you seem to claim.
 

What percentage of the time can that wind farm produce 100% of name plate capacity at the same time as peak demand?

That's a silly question. Utilities buy the power they need to suit their needs.

Your question is as silly as asking "what percentage of the time can that nuclear plant produce 100% of its capacity as needed by peak demand?"

Nuclear is a baseload power source, wind is a transitional power source. If you want to compare nuclear with a renewable baseload power source, compare it with hydro or geothermal.

#70 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,796 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 08:44 PM

wasn't showing that they did, more an example of another fuel source where true costs aren't recognized.

We do use it for power though, it runs all of those transportation generators that could run on electric but haven't been converted yet.

I like that Black Swan example ... once per decade seems to be the current frequency, that's something we can add to the cost. If I can find the time today I want to do that calculation.

#71 jetboy

jetboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 10:47 PM

 

Lessee ... it can produce 485 MW.

The cost of the three carriers in the class is supposedly about $18 billion, so they have an average cost of about $6 billion each. http://www.military....er-program.html

Assuming the powerplants of the system are 20% of the cost of the ships, around $1.2 billion for each powerplant, and we give a 25 year lifespan to each powerplant before incremental replacement. That doesn't include the cost of the nuclear fuel. For land-based powerplants, the fuel costs are about 30% of the cost of lifetime cost, so not including the labor to operate those nuclear systems, we're looking at about $1.6 billion each.

Doesn't seem too bad. Let's compare the same metric to out-of-the-box wind turbines. Apologies to JMD if I mangle this, it's just a back-of-the-envelope thing. http://www.windustry...d-turbines-cost

The cost of a typical 2 MW wind turbine is around $4 million installed, so apples-to-apples, the wind turbines would require about $500 million for the same installed capacity at around the same incremental lifespan. Now, the wind farm would need some cheapish land somewhere windy, while Saorsa's hypothetical regulation-free Naval nuke generator would require very little land. BUT, it evens out considerably when the maintenance is considered ... the wind turbines need a small crew of relatively-fast trained technicians, while the nuclear plant needs a full-time crew of high-end nuclear technicians, either with the very high government overhead and lower pay, or the lower private overhead and higher pay. We'll call that a wash, also because the used wind-turbines have a salvage value, while the used nuclear powerplant containments are nuclear waste that are going to have a certain cost of contain indefinitely.


So ... it looks like your hypothetical regulation-free nuclear is about 5 to 8 times more expensive than wind. If the Navy made thirty of those nuclear carriers rather than a handful, the cost could fall to 1 to 2 times as expensive. Still not quite the magical source you seem to claim.
 

What percentage of the time can that wind farm produce 100% of name plate capacity at the same time as peak demand?

That's a silly question. Utilities buy the power they need to suit their needs.

Your question is as silly as asking "what percentage of the time can that nuclear plant produce 100% of its capacity as needed by peak demand?"

Nuclear is a baseload power source, wind is a transitional power source. If you want to compare nuclear with a renewable baseload power source, compare it with hydro or geothermal.

What's silly is comparing the two on a dollar per watt capacity.



#72 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,796 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 11:03 PM

DOEenergycosts2017b.png



 


Lessee ... it can produce 485 MW.

The cost of the three carriers in the class is supposedly about $18 billion, so they have an average cost of about $6 billion each. http://www.military....er-program.html

Assuming the powerplants of the system are 20% of the cost of the ships, around $1.2 billion for each powerplant, and we give a 25 year lifespan to each powerplant before incremental replacement. That doesn't include the cost of the nuclear fuel. For land-based powerplants, the fuel costs are about 30% of the cost of lifetime cost, so not including the labor to operate those nuclear systems, we're looking at about $1.6 billion each.

Doesn't seem too bad. Let's compare the same metric to out-of-the-box wind turbines. Apologies to JMD if I mangle this, it's just a back-of-the-envelope thing. http://www.windustry...d-turbines-cost

The cost of a typical 2 MW wind turbine is around $4 million installed, so apples-to-apples, the wind turbines would require about $500 million for the same installed capacity at around the same incremental lifespan. Now, the wind farm would need some cheapish land somewhere windy, while Saorsa's hypothetical regulation-free Naval nuke generator would require very little land. BUT, it evens out considerably when the maintenance is considered ... the wind turbines need a small crew of relatively-fast trained technicians, while the nuclear plant needs a full-time crew of high-end nuclear technicians, either with the very high government overhead and lower pay, or the lower private overhead and higher pay. We'll call that a wash, also because the used wind-turbines have a salvage value, while the used nuclear powerplant containments are nuclear waste that are going to have a certain cost of contain indefinitely.


So ... it looks like your hypothetical regulation-free nuclear is about 5 to 8 times more expensive than wind. If the Navy made thirty of those nuclear carriers rather than a handful, the cost could fall to 1 to 2 times as expensive. Still not quite the magical source you seem to claim.
 

What percentage of the time can that wind farm produce 100% of name plate capacity at the same time as peak demand?
That's a silly question. Utilities buy the power they need to suit their needs.

Your question is as silly as asking "what percentage of the time can that nuclear plant produce 100% of its capacity as needed by peak demand?"

Nuclear is a baseload power source, wind is a transitional power source. If you want to compare nuclear with a renewable baseload power source, compare it with hydro or geothermal.
What's silly is comparing the two on a dollar per watt capacity.

It isn't silly at all, because in a properly designed grid, the electrons that the customer receives from the wind turbine are identical to the ones received from the nuclear plant.

I'm amused at your take though ... nuclear can't compete in cost with the greenest of greenie tree hugger power sources, so you cry foul and claim the comparison isn't fair.

What happened to good old fashioned market determinism? Shouldn't the cheaper, safer technologies get the nod? Why do we have to subsidize nuclear? Because it seems oddly futuristic on that retro kind of way?

#73 jetboy

jetboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 08:35 PM

 

 


 


Lessee ... it can produce 485 MW.

The cost of the three carriers in the class is supposedly about $18 billion, so they have an average cost of about $6 billion each. http://www.military....er-program.html

Assuming the powerplants of the system are 20% of the cost of the ships, around $1.2 billion for each powerplant, and we give a 25 year lifespan to each powerplant before incremental replacement. That doesn't include the cost of the nuclear fuel. For land-based powerplants, the fuel costs are about 30% of the cost of lifetime cost, so not including the labor to operate those nuclear systems, we're looking at about $1.6 billion each.

Doesn't seem too bad. Let's compare the same metric to out-of-the-box wind turbines. Apologies to JMD if I mangle this, it's just a back-of-the-envelope thing. http://www.windustry...d-turbines-cost

The cost of a typical 2 MW wind turbine is around $4 million installed, so apples-to-apples, the wind turbines would require about $500 million for the same installed capacity at around the same incremental lifespan. Now, the wind farm would need some cheapish land somewhere windy, while Saorsa's hypothetical regulation-free Naval nuke generator would require very little land. BUT, it evens out considerably when the maintenance is considered ... the wind turbines need a small crew of relatively-fast trained technicians, while the nuclear plant needs a full-time crew of high-end nuclear technicians, either with the very high government overhead and lower pay, or the lower private overhead and higher pay. We'll call that a wash, also because the used wind-turbines have a salvage value, while the used nuclear powerplant containments are nuclear waste that are going to have a certain cost of contain indefinitely.


So ... it looks like your hypothetical regulation-free nuclear is about 5 to 8 times more expensive than wind. If the Navy made thirty of those nuclear carriers rather than a handful, the cost could fall to 1 to 2 times as expensive. Still not quite the magical source you seem to claim.
 

What percentage of the time can that wind farm produce 100% of name plate capacity at the same time as peak demand?
That's a silly question. Utilities buy the power they need to suit their needs.

Your question is as silly as asking "what percentage of the time can that nuclear plant produce 100% of its capacity as needed by peak demand?"

Nuclear is a baseload power source, wind is a transitional power source. If you want to compare nuclear with a renewable baseload power source, compare it with hydro or geothermal.
What's silly is comparing the two on a dollar per watt capacity.

It isn't silly at all, because in a properly designed grid, the electrons that the customer receives from the wind turbine are identical to the ones received from the nuclear plant.

I'm amused at your take though ... nuclear can't compete in cost with the greenest of greenie tree hugger power sources, so you cry foul and claim the comparison isn't fair.

What happened to good old fashioned market determinism? Shouldn't the cheaper, safer technologies get the nod? Why do we have to subsidize nuclear? Because it seems oddly futuristic on that retro kind of way?

The comparison is silly.  There is a huge difference in value of kwh or wind vs kwh of nuclear name plate capacity. If predict 15 peak days in July that I'll need to provide 1.3GW of electricity, I know with high probability that with 3 750mw reactors, I'll be able to meet peak load.  I also know that there's a high probability that 10GW of wind capacity will not actually have the output to meet that load. 

 

If you like having your lights work when you turn them on, the two are quite different in value.

 

Do you think any utility company would build wind if there were no subsidies?  I don't think any major wind farm has ever been built in the united states when there wasn't a production tax credit.



#74 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 08:48 PM

Capacity is measured in kW (MW, really), not kWh.

 

If you want to make people think you have enough familiarity with the subject matter to state things with the level of authoritativeness that you do you should least try to use the correct units.



#75 jetboy

jetboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:01 PM

Capacity is measured in kW (MW, really), not kWh.

 

If you want to make people think you have enough familiarity with the subject matter to state things with the level of authoritativeness that you do you should least try to use the correct units.

You're right. - except it's really just watts.

 

It doesn't really matter what people think of my familiarity.  The reality is as it is.  Wind is not dispatchable and without some method of storing energy, will never be more than a niche industry. It cannot replace thermal generation.  Everyone knows this except apparently a few people on - ironically - a sailing website.



#76 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,276 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:48 PM

ok, using total capacity of nuke at 372 MW, running at 70% capacity for 10 years, and an estimated cost of Fukushima of $250B (although current estimates say it could be $500B, or more)  the Black Swan tax would be on the order of $.011 per KwH assuming I did the math right

 

372GW

365 Days

24 hours

.7 utilization

10 years

multiply all together, and then divide by $250B

 

For the Euros, who are nuke friendly, they find costs in 2010 were about equal across generation methods (and we know what's happened to Nat Gas in the US since then) - that's a 10% tax onto Nuke costs.

 

 

Fuel Cost per kilowatt hour in euro cents. Nuclear Power 10.7 €ct – 12.4 €ct Brown Coal (Lignite) 8.8 €ct – 9.7 €ct Black Coal (Bituminous) 10.4 €ct – 10.7 €ct Natural gas 11.8 €ct – 10.6 €ct.

 

 

A simple proposal for the Nuke industry would be a $.01 tax per KwH for a Nuke Superfund



#77 jetboy

jetboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 10:41 PM

ok, using total capacity of nuke at 372 MW, running at 70% capacity for 10 years, and an estimated cost of Fukushima of $250B (although current estimates say it could be $500B, or more)  the Black Swan tax would be on the order of $.011 per KwH assuming I did the math right

 

372GW

365 Days

24 hours

.7 utilization

10 years

multiply all together, and then divide by $250B

 

For the Euros, who are nuke friendly, they find costs in 2010 were about equal across generation methods (and we know what's happened to Nat Gas in the US since then) - that's a 10% tax onto Nuke costs.

 

 

Fuel Cost per kilowatt hour in euro cents. Nuclear Power 10.7 €ct – 12.4 €ct Brown Coal (Lignite) 8.8 €ct – 9.7 €ct Black Coal (Bituminous) 10.4 €ct – 10.7 €ct Natural gas 11.8 €ct – 10.6 €ct.

 

 

A simple proposal for the Nuke industry would be a $.01 tax per KwH for a Nuke Superfund

 

Seems reasonable.  Very similar to a carbon tax (would likely be between $.01-.02/kwh for coal).  Aligning cost with causation is a common goal in regulation of this sort. 



#78 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 11:52 PM


Capacity is measured in kW (MW, really), not kWh.
 
If you want to make people think you have enough familiarity with the subject matter to state things with the level of authoritativeness that you do you should least try to use the correct units.

You're right. - except it's really just watts.
 
It doesn't really matter what people think of my familiarity.  The reality is as it is.  Wind is not dispatchable and without some method of storing energy, will never be more than a niche industry. It cannot replace thermal generation.  Everyone knows this except apparently a few people on - ironically - a sailing website.


I think your familiarity is tangential at best, and many years outdated at that.

That's why you were insistent that PURPA was still a major factor in renewable development.

#79 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 12:05 AM

ok, using total capacity of nuke at 372 MW, running at 70% capacity for 10 years, and an estimated cost of Fukushima of $250B (although current estimates say it could be $500B, or more)  the Black Swan tax would be on the order of $.011 per KwH assuming I did the math right
 
372GW
365 Days
24 hours
.7 utilization
10 years
multiply all together, and then divide by $250B
 
For the Euros, who are nuke friendly, they find costs in 2010 were about equal across generation methods (and we know what's happened to Nat Gas in the US since then) - that's a 10% tax onto Nuke costs.
 
 
Fuel Cost per kilowatt hour in euro cents. Nuclear Power 10.7 ct 12.4 ct Brown Coal (Lignite) 8.8 ct 9.7 ct Black Coal (Bituminous) 10.4 ct 10.7 ct Natural gas 11.8 ct 10.6 ct.
 
 
A simple proposal for the Nuke industry would be a $.01 tax per KwH for a Nuke Superfund

I don't disagree with the approach, but arguably each plant does not need to pay for its own Black Swan event since not every plant will have one. Having one large fund that each plant contributes to would make sense.

Also, if you did want to do the analysis on a plant by plant basis the average capacity factor of the US nuclear fleet is around 90% and 372 MW is pretty far short of typical size: http://en.wikipedia....ates_of_America

#80 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,796 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 05:18 AM

The comparison is silly.  There is a huge difference in value of kwh or wind vs kwh of nuclear name plate capacity. If predict 15 peak days in July that I'll need to provide 1.3GW of electricity, I know with high probability that with 3 750mw reactors, I'll be able to meet peak load.  I also know that there's a high probability that 10GW of wind capacity will not actually have the output to meet that load.

 

This is wrong Jetboy, read a book.

That nuclear power plant has NO chance to meet peak load demand because nuclear isn't a peak load power source, it's a baseload power source. If we ran nuclear power plants to meet peak load demand they would have to dump around 50% or more of their power in all the times off of peak load.

This is a problem with nuclear, the plant operators have to dial in the amount of power production to their plants so that they can have a reasonable assurance that they can sell as much as possible during baseload, because unlike most other power sources, nuclear can't quickly dial back or dial up power production. If they make too much they end up not able to sell it, and sometimes they even enter negative pricing, where they have to pay the grid operator to remove the excess power from their feed lines. If they don't make enough power then the competitors will jump in to move some quickly dialed up power, sometimes at a premium.

Peak load power is often far more valuable than baseload power, it's like comparing a delivery made by a train versus a rush delivery made by a private jet. The as-needed power can be priced at a premium, because unlike nuclear it can quickly deliver whatever is necessary during peak loads without necessarily having to dump power during transitional and baseload times.

And you're wrong about the wind turbine not being able to meet the demand. The science of predicting wind output for given areas is pretty advanced, when a turbine is installed in a given area, there is a reasonable expectation of output, same with solar and hydro. Now, what happens during a cloudy moment or a suddenly windless moment? The grid operator gets the power from somewhere else (i.e. hydro, gas, geothermal, stored energy, etc.) many times at a premium. But that's the point, they have to pay a premium to make up for the deficiencies of nuclear, so it's unreasonable to expect a perfect power source that can meet all needs all the time. You seem to want that, but it's silly, and nuclear 'aint that perfect source either.

 

Do you think any utility company would build wind if there were no subsidies?  I don't think any major wind farm has ever been built in the united states when there wasn't a production tax credit.

 

That's a silly question, because you're asking if anyone would buy unsubsidized wind in a market that is saturated with subsidized nuclear, subsidized coal, subsidized gas and subsidized hydro.

Here's what you would have asked if you had more than a politically-motivated knowledge of the subject ... "would anyone buy wind in an energy market with no subsidies?"

And the answer is "most definitely." Because if no energy sources had subsidies, then wind, solar, small hydro, and wave would be the cheapest forms of energy because they have the lowest ancillary costs, the lowest public health costs, and the lowest societal costs.

 

I already showed Saorsa that nuclear has some of the lowest permitting costs per MW even though he thought is was high. Who do you think subsidizes the costs of nuclear's homeland security, nuclear's waste disposal, nuclear's black swan events (thanks OR) and nuclear's public health costs? The taxpayers.

 

Do you think anyone would buy nuclear if it wasn't subsidized Jetboy? Obviously not, they're increasingly not buying even with the subsidies!



#81 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,796 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 05:32 AM

Capacity is measured in kW (MW, really), not kWh.
 
If you want to make people think you have enough familiarity with the subject matter to state things with the level of authoritativeness that you do you should least try to use the correct units.

You're right. - except it's really just watts.
 
It doesn't really matter what people think of my familiarity.  The reality is as it is.  Wind is not dispatchable and without some method of storing energy, will never be more than a niche industry.

 

You're wrong again. We have very little energy storage in the current grid and nondispatchable power sources are competitive anyway.

Why?

BECAUSE OF THE F-ING GRID! Because the grid provider is hunky dory in getting a cheap price on nondispatchable power if they know they only need to pay a premium for dispatchable power for a few times a day.

 

It cannot replace thermal generation. Everyone knows this except apparently a few people on - ironically - a sailing website.

 

Uh, Jetski? Hydro isn't thermal generation and it replaces over a 100,000 MW of thermal generation. Gee, how could that possibly be that hydro has the audacity to prove some guy like you wrong on an -- ironically -- site that has to do with boats on water?

Again, the grid operators are funny fellows, they like money for some odd reason, and they're only more than happy to buy cheaper power for their customers when they can do it. Wind is one of those cheaper sources of power and it's apparently getting cheaper. Nuclear is expensive and it's losing popularity, headed to a grave. Deal with it.



#82 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,796 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 05:47 AM

ok, using total capacity of nuke at 372 MW, running at 70% capacity for 10 years, and an estimated cost of Fukushima of $250B (although current estimates say it could be $500B, or more)  the Black Swan tax would be on the order of $.011 per KwH assuming I did the math right
 
372GW
365 Days
24 hours
.7 utilization
10 years
multiply all together, and then divide by $250B
 
For the Euros, who are nuke friendly, they find costs in 2010 were about equal across generation methods (and we know what's happened to Nat Gas in the US since then) - that's a 10% tax onto Nuke costs.
 
 
Fuel Cost per kilowatt hour in euro cents. Nuclear Power 10.7 €ct – 12.4 €ct Brown Coal (Lignite) 8.8 €ct – 9.7 €ct Black Coal (Bituminous) 10.4 €ct – 10.7 €ct Natural gas 11.8 €ct – 10.6 €ct.
 
 
A simple proposal for the Nuke industry would be a $.01 tax per KwH for a Nuke Superfund

I think you definitely need to go with the $500 billion estimate, because Chernobyl, that was arguably more contained than Fukushima, and without counting a decade's worth of inflation, cost about $250 billion. Maybe double your tax.

But then remember, nuclear seems to be a twilight industry, which is rarely good for safety. Once these long-tooth reactors start seeing the limits and past the limits of their operational lifespan of stress and corrosion, then the Black Swan events can double or triple. It's like the decreased reliability of former U.S. jetliners once they find their way to South America and Africa.

#83 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,893 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 11 September 2013 - 07:33 AM

I like that Black Swan example ... once per decade seems to be the current frequency, 

 

If it happens with that kind of frequency, I don't think it fits the definition of "black swan".



#84 jetboy

jetboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 02:07 PM

The comparison is silly.  There is a huge difference in value of kwh or wind vs kwh of nuclear name plate capacity. If predict 15 peak days in July that I'll need to provide 1.3GW of electricity, I know with high probability that with 3 750mw reactors, I'll be able to meet peak load.  I also know that there's a high probability that 10GW of wind capacity will not actually have the output to meet that load.

 

This is wrong Jetboy, read a book.

That nuclear power plant has NO chance to meet peak load demand because nuclear isn't a peak load power source, it's a baseload power source. If we ran nuclear power plants to meet peak load demand they would have to dump around 50% or more of their power in all the times off of peak load.

This is a problem with nuclear, the plant operators have to dial in the amount of power production to their plants so that they can have a reasonable assurance that they can sell as much as possible during baseload, because unlike most other power sources, nuclear can't quickly dial back or dial up power production. If they make too much they end up not able to sell it, and sometimes they even enter negative pricing, where they have to pay the grid operator to remove the excess power from their feed lines. If they don't make enough power then the competitors will jump in to move some quickly dialed up power, sometimes at a premium.

Peak load power is often far more valuable than baseload power, it's like comparing a delivery made by a train versus a rush delivery made by a private jet. The as-needed power can be priced at a premium, because unlike nuclear it can quickly deliver whatever is necessary during peak loads without necessarily having to dump power during transitional and baseload times.

And you're wrong about the wind turbine not being able to meet the demand. The science of predicting wind output for given areas is pretty advanced, when a turbine is installed in a given area, there is a reasonable expectation of output, same with solar and hydro. Now, what happens during a cloudy moment or a suddenly windless moment? The grid operator gets the power from somewhere else (i.e. hydro, gas, geothermal, stored energy, etc.) many times at a premium. But that's the point, they have to pay a premium to make up for the deficiencies of nuclear, so it's unreasonable to expect a perfect power source that can meet all needs all the time. You seem to want that, but it's silly, and nuclear 'aint that perfect source either.

 

>>>Do you think any utility company would build wind if there were no subsidies?  I don't think any major wind farm has ever been built in the united states when there wasn't a production tax credit.

 

That's a silly question, because you're asking if anyone would buy unsubsidized wind in a market that is saturated with subsidized nuclear, subsidized coal, subsidized gas and subsidized hydro.

Here's what you would have asked if you had more than a politically-motivated knowledge of the subject ... "would anyone buy wind in an energy market with no subsidies?"

And the answer is "most definitely." Because if no energy sources had subsidies, then wind, solar, small hydro, and wave would be the cheapest forms of energy because they have the lowest ancillary costs, the lowest public health costs, and the lowest societal costs.

 

I already showed Saorsa that nuclear has some of the lowest permitting costs per MW even though he thought is was high. Who do you think subsidizes the costs of nuclear's homeland security, nuclear's waste disposal, nuclear's black swan events (thanks OR) and nuclear's public health costs? The taxpayers.

 

Do you think anyone would buy nuclear if it wasn't subsidized Jetboy? Obviously not, they're increasingly not buying even with the subsidies!

 

Read a book?  How about a physics book?  This is pretty simple stuff.

 

If you have excess generation capacity you CAN meet a smaller load.  If you have insufficient generation you cannot.  You would not actually build nuclear capacity to meet peak load, but it absolutely could meet the demand.  And yes you absolutely can ramp up or down output from nuclear to any level under it's max capacity independent of the turbine speed.

 

When the wind's not blowing.... you can't meet demand.  The expectation of output as you say for wind during peak load times is very low in comparison to name plate capacity.  The exact opposite of nuclear where the expectation of output during peak load time is very high.   The probability of wind being available for peak load being so low relative to other sources, comparing the name plate capacity is a silly idea.  Which is back where we started. 



#85 jetboy

jetboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 02:12 PM

 

Capacity is measured in kW (MW, really), not kWh.
 
If you want to make people think you have enough familiarity with the subject matter to state things with the level of authoritativeness that you do you should least try to use the correct units.

You're right. - except it's really just watts.
 
It doesn't really matter what people think of my familiarity.  The reality is as it is.  Wind is not dispatchable and without some method of storing energy, will never be more than a niche industry.

 

You're wrong again. We have very little energy storage in the current grid and nondispatchable power sources are competitive anyway.

Why?

BECAUSE OF THE F-ING GRID! Because the grid provider is hunky dory in getting a cheap price on nondispatchable power if they know they only need to pay a premium for dispatchable power for a few times a day.

 

>>>It cannot replace thermal generation. Everyone knows this except apparently a few people on - ironically - a sailing website.

 

Uh, Jetski? Hydro isn't thermal generation and it replaces over a 100,000 MW of thermal generation. Gee, how could that possibly be that hydro has the audacity to prove some guy like you wrong on an -- ironically -- site that has to do with boats on water?

Again, the grid operators are funny fellows, they like money for some odd reason, and they're only more than happy to buy cheaper power for their customers when they can do it. Wind is one of those cheaper sources of power and it's apparently getting cheaper. Nuclear is expensive and it's losing popularity, headed to a grave. Deal with it.

 

 

You can use intermittent unpredictable wind energy in a grid BECAUSE other generation is quickly dispatchable. Wind can flow nicely into the noise.  When it gets more than that - it gets uneconomical.

 

Wind is not hydro power.  Hydro is pointless to discuss however.  There will never be another major hydro plant built in the USA - at least not in our lifetimes.  You think it's hard to build a nuclear reactor - try building a dam.



#86 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,276 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 11 September 2013 - 02:58 PM

I like that Black Swan example ... once per decade seems to be the current frequency, 

 

If it happens with that kind of frequency, I don't think it fits the definition of "black swan".

Given the author was using the term to describe financial panics, which happen at about that frequency, I'd have to disagree and say that's what the author intended. A large event, outside the statistical norm, that happens in a way that cannot be predicted.



#87 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,796 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 03:30 AM

Read a book?  How about a physics book?  This is pretty simple stuff.
 
If you have excess generation capacity you CAN meet a smaller load.  If you have insufficient generation you cannot.  You would not actually build nuclear capacity to meet peak load, but it absolutely could meet the demand.

 

So now you're changing your approach, but pretending you understood this in the first place.

It would be wasteful to run nuclear for more capacity than is needed because you have to dump that excess power somewhere and you you can only sell the power for which there is demand. Nuclear is already more expensive than other forms of power, doing what you suggest would only make it even more expensive.

 

And yes you absolutely can ramp up or down output from nuclear to any level under it's max capacity independent of the turbine speed.

 

Interesting. And how would you do this within a typical 24-hour demand period?

 

When the wind's not blowing.... you can't meet demand.  The expectation of output as you say for wind during peak load times is very low in comparison to name plate capacity.  The exact opposite of nuclear where the expectation of output during peak load time is very high.   The probability of wind being available for peak load being so low relative to other sources, comparing the name plate capacity is a silly idea.  Which is back where we started.

 

And? Wind is less expensive than nuclear even though it has this supposedly fatal flaw you mention ... how could that be?

 

Could it be that wind is predictable and accountable enough to use it as a functional component of the electrical grid even though you are the one super smart guy who has found its Achilles heel? If the grid operator needs wind, and can't get it for some reason, they can divert some Canadian hydro or call up some gas. What's the big deal? Why would they want to pay more for the same electrons from the nuke plant than the wind turbines?



#88 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,796 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 03:43 AM

You can use intermittent unpredictable wind energy in a grid BECAUSE other generation is quickly dispatchable. Wind can flow nicely into the noise.  When it gets more than that - it gets uneconomical.

 

So wait ... now you're suggesting that the grid operator can get all the nice, cheap wind energy they can, sell it at a good profit, and then if they can't get wind, they can get some more expensive energy like on-demand gas or hydro?

I think you're gradually getting the idea.

 

Wind is not hydro power.  Hydro is pointless to discuss however.  There will never be another major hydro plant built in the USA - at least not in our lifetimes.  You think it's hard to build a nuclear reactor - try building a dam.

 

Hydro is moving to smaller scale because it fits into the energy scheme of the operators, and we're currently looking at an additional 60 GW of new hydropower to come online in the few years with new legislation that raises the small hydro plant exemption from 5 MW to 10 MW. And hydro already generates more than twice as much grid as wind. Small hydro seems poised to significantly drop the cost of hydro because the per MW fixed costs are lower. So now, what's the problem with hydro?

You're kind of like our mascot energy complainer. It seems the only power source you seem to think is worth anything is nuclear.



#89 opa1

opa1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts
  • Location:Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
  • Interests:Golf, Sailing

Posted 12 September 2013 - 10:42 AM

There is one issue concerning nuclear power plants that seems to be swept under the rug.  And that is the nuclear waste.  We keep stockpiling it at the plants but don't have any good options to dispose of or store it.  The Yucca project, which was approved and I think funded, has been put in limbo by Harry Reid in the Senate.  His constituents simply do not want this project in the backyard.  And another situation involving nuclear waste is the plant in Japan.  They do not have a viable way to store the contaminated water that is being used to cool the damaged rods.  These are problems that need immediate attention and it appears that these problems are not going to be solved short of a national or international emergency.



#90 jetboy

jetboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 02:39 PM

You can use intermittent unpredictable wind energy in a grid BECAUSE other generation is quickly dispatchable. Wind can flow nicely into the noise.  When it gets more than that - it gets uneconomical.

 

So wait ... now you're suggesting that the grid operator can get all the nice, cheap wind energy they can, sell it at a good profit, and then if they can't get wind, they can get some more expensive energy like on-demand gas or hydro?

I think you're gradually getting the idea.

 

>Wind is not hydro power.  Hydro is pointless to discuss however.  There will never be another major hydro plant built in the USA - at least not in our lifetimes.  You think it's hard to build a nuclear reactor - try building a dam.

 

Hydro is moving to smaller scale because it fits into the energy scheme of the operators, and we're currently looking at an additional 60 GW of new hydropower to come online in the few years with new legislation that raises the small hydro plant exemption from 5 MW to 10 MW. And hydro already generates more than twice as much grid as wind. Small hydro seems poised to significantly drop the cost of hydro because the per MW fixed costs are lower. So now, what's the problem with hydro?

You're kind of like our mascot energy complainer. It seems the only power source you seem to think is worth anything is nuclear.

 

 Allow me to circle back AGAIN.  What portion of wind name plate capacity can be counted on during the peak 10 hrs per year? (or however many hours you think you're willing to allow the grid to drop voltage)

 

The wind is useful because there is dispatchable backup.  It's not "cheap" when you're also paying for the gas generation to back it up.  Then you'll say something silly like "you're not really paying for both", which is ridiculous of course because of exactly the issue you try so hard to avoid.  This goes directly back to the question above.  Wind is unreliable.  People want stable reliable power.  Wind can offset reliable on-demand generation WHEN it's windy.  When it's not, we still need all of our other generation to provide the energy needed for stable reliable power.  So having wind doesn't actually mean you can skip building that coal or gas plant (unless you're willing to have black outs, which customers don't seem to like).  It just means you can power it down some times and save fuel.  Saving fuel is great.  Everybody loves that.  That doesn't mean that a watt of name plate capacity on a wind turbine is equal in value to a watt of name plate capacity on a dispatchable resource.  That's why it's so silly to compare the two on that basis.

 

The Grid operator has no choice.  They are required to buy the wind energy.  Don't you think it might change the cost calculation for a gas plant if the owner could run whenever they wanted and the grid operator was required to purchase it?

 

While I realize that it makes wind look cheap to someone who might not understand this to say "I can build wind for $x per watt" when you're comparing dissimilar products.  I've said over and over and over and over and over that wind is great when it's within the noise inherent in demand and supply variation.  It's easy to utilize wind in that way.  Once it grows beyond that, it's not.  That's why we have 4% wind and likely will never exceed 15%.  In spite of the 20:1 ratio of direct subsidies, wind still isn't currently a realistic replacement for gas, coal, or nuclear.

 

Hydro is great.  It's still a dying industry. Damming rivers isn't very popular in America. Removing dams is. The Klamath dam removal is taking 170mw of hydro away in the next couple years.  Glen Canyon almost shut down 3 years ago and probably wont last another 15 years.  That's another 1.3GW that goes away.    The sad thing about it is that hydro is the fastest ramping power we have.  It also offers almost ideal storage during non-use.  It goes together with wind like peanut butter and jelly.  We're just allergic to peanut butter.



There is one issue concerning nuclear power plants that seems to be swept under the rug.  And that is the nuclear waste.  We keep stockpiling it at the plants but don't have any good options to dispose of or store it.  The Yucca project, which was approved and I think funded, has been put in limbo by Harry Reid in the Senate.  His constituents simply do not want this project in the backyard.  And another situation involving nuclear waste is the plant in Japan.  They do not have a viable way to store the contaminated water that is being used to cool the damaged rods.  These are problems that need immediate attention and it appears that these problems are not going to be solved short of a national or international emergency.

Harry will not get re-elected.  Problem solved...



#91 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 02:51 PM

The Grid operator has no choice.  They are required to buy the wind energy. 

Whoops: http://www.platts.co...nearly-21265702

 

Just come to the realization that things have changed since you got whatever knowledge you think you have.

 

Tell me more about PURPA.



#92 jetboy

jetboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 03:54 PM

The Grid operator has no choice.  They are required to buy the wind energy. 

Whoops: http://www.platts.co...nearly-21265702

 

Just come to the realization that things have changed since you got whatever knowledge you think you have.

 

Tell me more about PURPA.

 

Things haven't changed.  At all. small volume wind = cost effective.  Large volume wind = expensive. 

http://www.ferc.gov/...092012/E-19.pdf

 

1 watt of wind =/= 1 watt of nuclear capacity.

 

So I'll pose the same question to you: What portion of wind name plate capacity can be counted on during the peak 10 hrs per year? (or however many hours you think you're willing to allow the grid to drop voltage)



#93 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 04:12 PM



The Grid operator has no choice.  They are required to buy the wind energy.

Whoops: http://www.platts.co...nearly-21265702
 
Just come to the realization that things have changed since you got whatever knowledge you think you have.
 
Tell me more about PURPA.


 
Things haven't changed.  At all. small volume wind = cost effective.  Large volume wind = expensive. 
http://www.ferc.gov/...092012/E-19.pdf


Like I said, you're still stuck on this idea that PURPA means anything. It's a shame the search function is broken, because then I could direct you to all the same cites I gave you last time pointing out that through a series of FERC rule-makings PURPA has been effectively defunct for most of the country for many years. Guess it didn't stick.

Regarding your assertion about economies of anti-scale (how can you say this stuff with a straight face?), I direct you to page 46 with its attendant graph: http://www1.eere.ene...rket_report.pdf

"Average installed wind power project costs exhibit economies of scale, especially at the lower end of the project size range. Figure 21 shows that among the sample of projects installed in 2012 there is a steady drop in per-kW average installed costs when moving from projects of 5 MW or less to projects in the 50-100 MW range. As project size increases beyond 100 MW, economies of scale appear to be less prevalent."

You should probably read that report cover to cover. Would prevent you from saying some of these completely bass-ackwards things.

#94 jetboy

jetboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 04:22 PM

 

 

The Grid operator has no choice.  They are required to buy the wind energy.

Whoops: http://www.platts.co...nearly-21265702
 
Just come to the realization that things have changed since you got whatever knowledge you think you have.
 
Tell me more about PURPA.

 

 
Things haven't changed.  At all. small volume wind = cost effective.  Large volume wind = expensive. 
http://www.ferc.gov/...092012/E-19.pdf

 

Like I said, you're still stuck on this idea that PURPA means anything. It's a shame the search function is broken, because then I could direct you to all the same cites I gave you last time pointing out that through a series of FERC rule-makings PURPA has been effectively defunct for most of the country for many years. Guess it didn't stick.

Regarding your assertion about economies of anti-scale (how can you say this stuff with a straight face?), I direct you to page 46 with its attendant graph: http://www1.eere.ene...rket_report.pdf

"Average installed wind power project costs exhibit economies of scale, especially at the lower end of the project size range. Figure 21 shows that among the sample of projects installed in 2012 there is a steady drop in per-kW average installed costs when moving from projects of 5 MW or less to projects in the 50-100 MW range. As project size increases beyond 100 MW, economies of scale appear to be less prevalent."

You should probably read that report cover to cover. Would prevent you from saying some of these completely bass-ackwards things.

I can't figure out how you could possibly be thinking that the economy of scale we're talking about is anything but tangentially related to installed cost per watt. 

 

And answer my question...



#95 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 04:27 PM





The Grid operator has no choice.  They are required to buy the wind energy.

Whoops: http://www.platts.co...nearly-21265702
 
Just come to the realization that things have changed since you got whatever knowledge you think you have.
 
Tell me more about PURPA.


 
Things haven't changed.  At all. small volume wind = cost effective.  Large volume wind = expensive. 
http://www.ferc.gov/...092012/E-19.pdf


Like I said, you're still stuck on this idea that PURPA means anything. It's a shame the search function is broken, because then I could direct you to all the same cites I gave you last time pointing out that through a series of FERC rule-makings PURPA has been effectively defunct for most of the country for many years. Guess it didn't stick.

Regarding your assertion about economies of anti-scale (how can you say this stuff with a straight face?), I direct you to page 46 with its attendant graph: http://www1.eere.ene...rket_report.pdf

"Average installed wind power project costs exhibit economies of scale, especially at the lower end of the project size range. Figure 21 shows that among the sample of projects installed in 2012 there is a steady drop in per-kW average installed costs when moving from projects of 5 MW or less to projects in the 50-100 MW range. As project size increases beyond 100 MW, economies of scale appear to be less prevalent."

You should probably read that report cover to cover. Would prevent you from saying some of these completely bass-ackwards things.


I can't figure out how you could possibly be thinking that the economy of scale we're talking about is anything but tangentially related to installed cost per watt.  I know reading sucks.  Try it for just a few minutes.
 
And answer my question...


With no fuel costs, pretty much the only driver of cost per MWh (what people are buying), is the installed cost. That's how that works.

Here's my article again which you must have overlooked: http://www.platts.co...nearly-21265702 That is a utility purchasing wind for purely economic reasons. What size are those projects?

Edit: What question? "Things haven't changed.  At all. small volume wind = cost effective.  Large volume wind = expensive. " are statements, and completely wrong ones at that.

#96 jetboy

jetboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 04:30 PM

The question is:

What portion of wind name plate capacity can be counted on during the peak 10 hrs per year? (or however many hours you think you're willing to allow the grid to drop voltage).



#97 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 04:36 PM

The question is:
What portion of wind name plate capacity can be counted on during the peak 10 hrs per year? (or however many hours you think you're willing to allow the grid to drop voltage).

Depends on the site and depends on the utility or ISO. In the previous thread, I directed you to links of what assorted reliability planners assume as a percentage for wind. You are welcome to go back and find them, and maybe actually read them this time so you won't have to ask again. What the people that keep the lights on use is the real number, not whatever you, jetboy, think it should be.

You giving up on your PURPA and "smaller is cheaper" thing?

#98 jetboy

jetboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 04:39 PM

I've never said smaller wind farms are cheaper.  If you made any attempt to follow the thread, you'd recognize that we were discussing the "size" in relation to the percentage of generation capacity.  Not the size of a particular wind farm.  Or possibly you're intentionally trying to change the topic?  Not sure.

 

And in the west where our rates are half what yours are, smaller is about all there is.  79mw - 1 miles spacing - 79mw - 1 mile spacing.... Can you guess why?



#99 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,371 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 04:45 PM

I've never said smaller wind farms are cheaper.  If you made any attempt to follow the thread, you'd recognize that we were discussing the "size" in relation to the percentage of generation capacity.  Not the size of a particular wind farm.  Or possibly you're intentionally trying to change the topic?  Not sure.

"Things haven't changed.  At all. small volume wind = cost effective.  Large volume wind = expensive."

I think the word you're looking for is "penetration" instead of "volume." That's generally the term people use.

#100 jetboy

jetboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 04:47 PM

I'm glad we're on the same page now.


So back to my question about the peak 10 hrs.  Care to take a guess?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users