WOGNEWS

WOGNEWS, Global Energy Market News is a publicly available information portal about the global energy market and industry. The portal contains information in text, video and photo formats since January, 2014.

Post

NUCLEAR POWER - 2050: UPDOWN

Posted to WOGNEWS

image credit: NUCLEAR POWER - 2050: UPDOWN

IAEA wrote.

The IAEA has released its latest projections for energy, electricity and nuclear power trends through 2050. The annual report offers a mixed estimate of nuclear power's future contribution to global electricity generation, depending in part on whether significant new capacity can be added to offset potential reactor retirements.

The 39th edition of Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period up to 2050 provides detailed global trends in nuclear power by region. Its projections1 for nuclear electrical generating capacity are presented as low and high estimates, reflecting different driving factors that have an impact on the worldwide deployment of this low carbon energy source.

The new projections to 2030 see generating capacity declining by some 8% in the low case and increasing by 25% in the high estimate. By 2050, it's seen falling by 6% in the low scenario and rising by 80% in the high case. Compared with last year, the new estimates to 2050 are down by 33 GW(e) in the high case and up by 15 GW(e) in the low case.

The 2019 projections contain fewer uncertainties compared with previous years due to recent announcements on the future of the existing fleet in some regions and long term plans for expansion. Significant new capacity may be needed to offset possible reactor retirements due to age, competitiveness or other factors.

"Global electricity demand is expected to rise sharply in coming years as countries need more power for development," said IAEA Deputy Director General Mikhail Chudakov, Head of the Department of Nuclear Energy. "Without a significant increase in the deployment of nuclear power, it will be difficult for the world to secure sufficient energy to achieve sustainable development and to mitigate climate change."

In 2018, nuclear power produced about 10% of the world's electricity, accounting for around one third of all low carbon electricity. As of today, the world's 450 operating nuclear power reactors have a near record level of 399.7 GW(e) total net installed capacity.

In some regions, over the short term the low price of natural gas and the impact of subsidized renewable energy sources are expected to continue to affect nuclear power's growth prospects. Still, interest in nuclear power remains strong in several regions, particularly in the developing world, and commitments agreed under the Paris Agreement and other initiatives have the potential to support its development.

__________

1 The projections consist of both available capacity (currently supplying electricity to the grid) and installed nominal capacity (available, but not currently supplying electricity to the grid).

Vladimir Vinogradov's picture

Thank Vladimir for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.

WOGNEWS
WOGNEWS, Global Energy Market News is a publicly available information portal about the global energy market and industry. The portal contains information in text, video and photo formats since January, 2014.

Discussions

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Oct 2, 2019 1:51 pm GMT

In 2018, nuclear power produced about 10% of the world's electricity, accounting for around one third of all low carbon electricity. As of today, the world's 450 operating nuclear power reactors have a near record level of 399.7 GW(e) total net installed capacity.

I believe this number has been fairly steady as a % of generation in recent years. How do you see it moving in the coming years, Vladimir?

Vladimir Vinogradov's picture
Vladimir Vinogradov on Oct 3, 2019 5:26 am GMT

Matt, nuclear power is the best alternative to hydrocarbon power, I think. Investment and political will are needed to realize it. 

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Oct 3, 2019 11:44 am GMT

investment and political will, indeed. It's an uphill climb, but one that's worth climbing.

David Svarrer's picture
David Svarrer on Oct 14, 2019 6:45 pm GMT

But, Vladimir - what is the argument? I have mentioned to Gary the dangers of Nuclear Power - what is your take on these? 

Vladimir Vinogradov's picture
Vladimir Vinogradov on Oct 15, 2019 6:57 am GMT

David, safety is very important. A completely safe nuclear fuel is needed.

Gary Hilberg's picture
Gary Hilberg on Oct 3, 2019 9:35 pm GMT

Vladimir - the UN's IPCC recent report agrees with you - to meet their climate change goals, the world will need nuclear power.  Pretty much a statement of the obvious for any group with climate change goals.  Since many take these reports as gospel, I would hope that some of the anti-nuclear parties evaluate their positions.   

Vladimir Vinogradov's picture
Vladimir Vinogradov on Oct 6, 2019 3:45 pm GMT

Gary -  the world will need nuclear power - I agree. Nuclear power is a necessity.

David Svarrer's picture
David Svarrer on Oct 14, 2019 6:44 pm GMT

Imagine, Gary - I do - as one - not have any anti-nuclear sentiments or attitudes or even thoughts. Anti-nuclear would - in my view - be non-serious, and non-scientific. 

What I do have, Gary, is an attitude against any intrusion into human life of anything which is not proven safe.

Therefore, I am against herbicides, pesticides and other "-cides" - and I am against nuclear due to that it has not been proven safe. There may be a hair straw difference between what I stand for, and those who based on non-serious reasons are anti-nuclear. However, that hair-straw means everything. This due to that when a nuclear power station has been proven safe, I would likely be the first to join in and backup such ways of producing power. 

This due to that if you for instance take the residual power in a kilogram of Uranium-235 - it is 24,000,000 kWh - and if you therefore compare it to pricing, we are discussing a price per kWh which is lower than most of other systems (with exception of these new solar concentrator plants based on these new long-duration plain-material constructions). 

However - if the dangers of nuclear power are being removed - some of them being the danger of being handled by human beings - others being the dangers of the waste - others being the dependency of future governments handling this waste properly - IFF these dangers are being removed - then Nuclear Energy is by far - by factors - so much more efficient than anything else one can think of.

As an example - Uranium ore contains 0.7% U235 - and it is only necessary to enrich it up to some 5% - which is currently yet a dangerous process - but - if we can get rid of these dangers - then it must be obvious or anyone, that Nuclear power indeed is the best...

So - Gary - where does the IPCC say that we must (MUST!) go for nuclear power? I have read pretty much most of the report(s), but may fail to having perused it word by word - so - where did you see that the IPCC report vouches for Nuclear power as "a solution" or "a must" ?

Please provide us all here with which report it is, and page number.

Sincerely

David Svarrer

David Svarrer's picture
David Svarrer on Oct 15, 2019 6:40 am GMT

Gary, sometimes when one has a discussion, we are in the scenario of the old riddle of the two soldiers, where one is lying and the other is telling the truth, and one is standing in front of the gate to Heaven, the other is standing in front of the gate to Hell - they both know where they are standing, and the rule to pass either gate is that you have one question - only one - and if you ask this question smartly, you will get an answer back which you can use to deduct which gate is which.

I will now use that same logic, in that you have questioned my honesty, dignity and integrity - which is fair enough - you don't know me - so - maybe you are right, that I may be dishonest, have no honour and maybe I operate without integrity. 

The only way to for instance now prove you outright wrong in your glorification of Nuclear power and its blessings is not to tell you what we say on the "nay-side", but - to give to you links to what these sites (ie. Hanford etc.) are, themselves, publishing. I will leave it to you and to all other professional readers to make their own conclusions.

If now the very Twitter-feed itself, from Hanford itself, simply and in very neutral and professional - but naturally a bit glorified - tells about the cleanup process, the cost of it, the projections - and if it - itself - gives you all necessary references to the disaster unfolding there - then what would you now say, Gary? 

Here are links for anyone to follow. Hundreds of other links can be dug up - where you will be reading what people who are involved - and who do NOT like to reveal too much - are saying. When they, themselves, tell about the critical situation, there - then I think I can rest my case on the current state of safety with Nuclear power. 

When - at the same time - I can document, black on white - and if you deem it fit - you can travel to where I work and see with your own eyes - that there are solar energy alternatives with NO environmental footprint - which are cheap - and 50+ years durable - and - with a stone storage - able to create base-load - (which is one of the otherwise most heavy arguments for Nuclear Power) - then I would still like to hear your comments on this.

Hanford links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site (As neutral as it can get)

https://twitter.com/HanfordSite (Their own twitter - with super critical news)

https://twitter.com/HanfordNews

https://www.youtube.com/user/HanfordSite (Emmy Award winning documentary)

Solar Links - having nothing to do with my work - but which externally documents the existence of concentrated energy storages (really low technology - but at the top of the agenda for Denmark and its government sponsored research facility RISOE / DTH) : 

Storage of renewable intermittent energy in stones: http://energilager.nu/en/home/

Risø's research programme (March 2019): 

http://geo.au.dk/profil/aktuelt/nyheder/artikel/artikel/nyt-energilager-bruger-sten

The above are in Danish - but if you use Google Browser, it translates almost perfectly into English.

 

David Svarrer's picture
David Svarrer on Oct 7, 2019 3:31 pm GMT

This is a very insightful writeup. I have a question, though. How come, the cost of for instance the C-section of the Hinkley Nuclear Power Station (United Kingdom) which is set to be 3.2 GigaWatt peak production, being built by EDF (France) is budgeted to USD 22.5 Billion - if you do your math, the cost per Peak Watt production is a whopping USD 7 per Watt. 

The argument for Nuclear power is the usual - base load - however - base load can be produced now from solar powered platforms with heat storage, at a cost of the solar energy of USD 0.0028 per kWh (in form of heat!), and transformed into rock solid base load at a cost of (less than..) USD 1.00 per Watt - or - 7 times lower than Nuclear power. 

When comparing notes - the solar powered platforms must cater for the continuous energy production also when the sun doesn't shine, and the storage facility must keep the heat stored (insulated), even for weeks and the more towards the Polar environment (above 30° Northern or 30° Southern latitudes) even for months. This up to quadruples the cost of the solar energy, thus bringing the cost per kWh up from USD 0.0028 to USD 0.0112 per kWh - delivered as DER.

On the Nuclear side, the above pricing did NOT include the nuclear fuel, and did NOT include the (expensive) storage of the nuclear waste - and also did NOT include the distribution of the same.

Therefore, the question really remains - what is the societal value of Nuclear power, when...

1. Solar concentrators can deliver the very same energy at a (much - by factors) lower cost - and can deliver as base load (a very important factor)

2. Solar concentrators do not leave radioactive waste in its trail

3. Solar concentrators do not need to be fuelled

4. The solar concentrators as seen now, are built for 50+ years of operation with little to moderate maintenance (less than 1.1% of equipment cost in annual maintenance cost, as part of TCO calculations)

5. Solar concentrators with local generator delivers its energy on the spot. No need of costly infrastructures with masts, transformers, cables, control stations, staff, ...

My question may not only cover Solar concentrators versus Nuclear power, but these two areas are the ones where I have intense knowledge. 

For politicians and decision makers of mid-scale utilities, I think it begs the question: Which is the argument for chosing a energy source which is much much more expensive, much more dangerous, needs vast distribution nets, needs vast maintenance, where the life span of it is shorter, the "used" nuclear station cannot be "recycled" (while the solar power plant can be 99.5% recycled) and where the full consequence of the aftermath if the nuclear waste is - still - 50+ years after we started with it - not clear?

A typical modern home, driven with all modern facilities, consumes in the vicinity of 15,000 to 40,000 kWh per year, depending largely on the latitude and the need of heating during winter seasons. 

With 1800 hours of solar energy every year, and a realistic efficiency of 1,000 Watt per square meter and a realistic loss of 75% (!) - the need of power for such a domestic power station can be calculated as 40,000 / 1800 / 25% = 88 kiloWatt delivered when the sun is up.

This thereby resembles a surface of 88 square meter of solar concentrator. The cost of this is USD 4,000. The maintenance cost over 50 years amounts to some USD 2,200, leading to a TCO of USD 6,200 - and as this is the only cost for the heat production, it leads to a cost of the 40,000 x 50 = 2,000 MWh delivered over these 50 years of: 6200/2000 = 3.1 USD per MWh, or, 0.0031 USD per kWh. The average is a bit less, as the 40,000 kWh/year is a maximum consideration - thus - the USD 0.0028 USD per kWh. 

Therefore, Vladimir and Matt - where is the argument for nuclear power? 

You are concluding in your responses dated 2nd and 3rd of October 2019, that due to historical reasons and upcoming reasons, nuclear power is a necessity - but - I have just proven that Nuclear is dangerous - solar is not - and nuclear is extremely - very extremely - more expensive - ... ???

Gary Hilberg's picture
Gary Hilberg on Oct 7, 2019 6:37 pm GMT

David - all long term nuclear fuel storage and decommissioning costs are captured and reserved for nuclear power.  There are law suits against the government for failing to provide the long term storage even while they are collecting billions of $$ to provide this.  Also you will notice that as these nuclear power plants are shutdown, the decommissioning proceeds without an impact on rate payers due their decommissioning cost already in the utility reserves.  As for the volume of waste, the volume of high level nuclear waste is very small, now all safely in dry casks and if the federal government met its obligations, in a mine shaft 2000 ft + under ground.  

You quickly state that nuclear power is dangerous - not proven.  If you include the deaths from mining, etc.. Nuclear is one of the safest industries ever.  To contrast, there is no mandate for the long term re-cycling associated with solar panel and chemical batteries and certainly no financial reserves.  As for safety, due to the distributed aspect of solar I suspect that the transportation deaths for employees will far out strip that of the nuclear industry as this segment grows.  Then you need to include the fall deaths for the installers of commercial/residential solar.  

Also the scale at which solar/storage will need to be added just to replace coal and in later decades natural gas is huge, not sure why we would not want a mix of technologies.  Solar has its place, but certainly not as a baseload technology using batteries for longer duration storage.  

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Oct 8, 2019 11:35 am GMT

not sure why we would not want a mix of technologies

This is the point I see way too often missed as people try to back up and defend 'their' technology at all costs-- in the vast global economy and geography, different energy sources will be most suitable depending on the needs of that specific location and those specific communities. A varied mix of technologies will cover these wide needs, and they will do so in an increasingly clean manner

David Svarrer's picture
David Svarrer on Oct 14, 2019 6:48 pm GMT

Matt, I indeed agree. We ought NOT to defend any technology as "our" or attack it as "their". 

I would rather go for an evaluation of ALL technologies and evaluate ALL the benefits and risks - typical SWOT style - and reach conclusions and priorities from such an evaluation.

It is through this evaluation type I have reached the temporary conclusion for myself, that Nuclear Power is way too dangerous as too many of the problematic areas of Nuclear power has not been sorted out - yet. We are on the way - but until we are there - with small scale (Single Digit Megawatt powerstations for testing) - we ought keeping it small until we have safe technology in place.

 

David Svarrer's picture
David Svarrer on Oct 14, 2019 6:36 pm GMT

Dear Gary, 

With all due respect - are you oblivious about what is happening in the Nuclear Power industry? And I do not mean this in any way as offensive - however - are you on a serious note at all updated with the accidents which has happened? Or do you belong to those who says that when it cannot be proven (strict proof - court style) - then there is no risk? 

I would like your comments on Sellafield, Hanford, and so on? These sites contains a combined more than 100 million cubic meters of highly radioactive and also poisonous radioactive waste. Where is the "the volume of high level nuclear waste is very small" in this case? Where is the "now all safely in dry casks". 

You mention "if the federal government met its obligations" - and you mention "There are law suits against the government for failing to provide the long term storage even while they are collecting billions of $$ to provide this".

Well, Gary, the federal governments do NOT meet their obligations. The Hanford site, as an example, is going to cost tax payers an estimated (budgeted alredy!) 115 billion USD. Billion. Not Million. It is estimated to take more than 50 years to do this. 

Well. Why would there be lawsuits, if the federal government does what it is supposed to do?

We cannot, Gary, rely on that our safety depends on the future governments and their Bonus Pater good behaviour. These governments - Trump's is no exception - has shown that we cannot trust any federal government.

Then you mention solar power as if all solar power consumes rare metals and as if all solar power systems will create litter when "decomissioned". 

I have written, that I work in one of the currently maybe more than 50+ solar power industry corporates where we produce the entire solar concentrator system without a single rare metal being used - and where the bearing construction is made of stainless steel - 100% reusable - glass - and aluminium. 

There will not be a single part which is not directly reusable. There will not be a single part which need any kind of special care (poision, environment hazards, dependance of any particular future action). Think for instance about Hinkley Point C - which is under construction for a just recently yet another time increased amount of USD 22.5 Billion. It is estimated that it will release some 45 million ton of CO2 to construct this power station (set to deliver some 3.2 GWatt of peak power in UK. Thereby it costs USD 7 per Watt to build, and will be releasing some 13.9 kilogram CO2 per Watt.

while these new solar concentrator systems cost USD 0.055 per Watt to build. 

Compared to these new upcoming solar concentrator solutions - made by plain hardware store materials - at a cost of USD 0.055 per Watt, they are set to release some 0.106 kilogram CO2 per Watt during construction.

Therefore, Gary - you have missed to argue your point, with factual figures. It is not enough that you just sling out assumptions and alleged benefits. 

Let us just take one thing: You claim there is no dangerous radioactive waste - that nuclear is safe. Well, Gary, then I challenge you on telling me WHY either Hanford is totally safe - or - explain to me, why the cleaning up of the 117 tanks with the 56 million cubic meters of nuclear waste will take up to 50 years to clear - at this budget of 115 billion USD - or - explain to me why the federal government is maybe exaggerating the risk? Or explain where these millions of cubic meter came from, as - according to your allegations - there are only small amounts of waste? 

What about the recent revelation (prized journalism) about the Uranium mine deaths in Niger - who has been under siege by the French for decades to maintain Uranium (U308 - Yellow Cake) prices artificially low - Sarkozy and Macron being no exception - and people in the mining area - counting hundreds of square kilometers - are dying of strange diseases - the company - Aviar (Spelling?) - is doing nothing about it. 

Gary - you have some explanation to do - your attitude is by far unacceptable - as you are not documenting your alleged "non-dangerous-ness".

This said with firmness and with absolute respect as you are, naturally, fully entitled to maintain your faith and belief - if you so decide... Because science it is not - until you document your assumptions.

Sincerely

David Svarrer

Gary Hilberg's picture
Gary Hilberg on Oct 17, 2019 2:44 pm GMT

David - you bring up Hanford as a example of a problem with nuclear power waste when in reality most of Hanford's waste is from nuclear weapons.  The reactors, now all shut down, were there to make the materials for the bombs, a different legacy.

You ignore the life cycle costs of solar panels and storage as if they really last 50 years.  I have solar panels at my home and in 6 years, there is a 10-15% reduction in output so that technology does wear out, inverters fail and are replaced.  As we all know from our use of batteries, they lose capacity, as I saw on my first electric car - which went through two battery packs over its 95,000 mile life.  

As for safety - you need to include the lifes lost in mining all those materials used in batteries and panels.  Also the lives lost in solar PV installations - all small numbers thankfully but still greater than nuclear power. 

David Svarrer's picture
David Svarrer on Nov 16, 2019 12:49 pm GMT

Dear Gary, 

Just discovered this response from you. 

I am not advocating for solar panels with batteries. I am not even advocating for any technology in particular. The fact that I, on my own, and via my job, are working with solar concentrators for domestic use, does not mean that I behave like the boy who gets a hammer after which everything in the house become nails :-)...

There are plenty of great technologies which are largely based on steel, stone, glass, aluminium etc. etc. - materials which have been proven throughout either decades or centuries to be pretty harmless to the environment, or close to cradle to cradle, compared to the disastrous mismangement of the nuclear power process - again - from cradle to grave.

And yes, all business takes lives. Unfortunately. And as long as the number of lives is relatively small, this can be accepted while we work on reducing the casualties. 

However - abuse of ignorant, indigenous people for instance as seen and thoroughly documented, several places in Africa (ie. the mines in Niger!) and on Greenland  (Denmark) - borders crime against humanity.

Sincerely

David Svarrer

 

Vladimir Vinogradov's picture
Vladimir Vinogradov on Oct 8, 2019 6:44 am GMT

David, I agree with you. Technologies for the use of nuclear materials and nuclear waste are needed.

David Svarrer's picture
David Svarrer on Oct 14, 2019 6:59 pm GMT

It would be my take, Vladimir, that we should indeed make huge efforts and maybe sacrifices too - to still pursue nuclear power. It is my guess that we may have cracked the nut to safe nuclear power by 2040 or 2050 (maybe earlier). At that time - lets go all in. 

As it is, right now - it is dangerous beyond any reasonable comparison - and therefore the systematic use of nuclear power should be reduced to an absolute minimum until we have made it safe.

This is maybe also why I am indeed not an "anti-nuclear" person. I just think that we should "tame it" first - properly - then make use of it. 

Nuclear power came as a side effect of perceived military necessity. Let us now take it back to civil use - and take our precautions - and develop it to a level where we can have people play with it, without risk.

Sincerely

David Svarrer

Vladimir Vinogradov's picture
Vladimir Vinogradov on Oct 15, 2019 7:03 am GMT

David, I agree with you. Nuclear energy have to become completely safe. 

Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Oct 8, 2019 9:41 pm GMT

Perhaps you may have not noticed, but the sun does not shine 24 hours a day. Further, the sun's incoming energy varies significantly, depending on where you are. Solar energy's dismal capacity factor is the financial fatal flaw with solar energy. That is why green energy cannot survive without mandates and subsidies.

That being said, nuclear power is too expensive relative to the most cost effective approach. That would be natural gas power plants. Further, if a natural gas power plant screws up, the surrounding country side does not become a radioactive mess.

Nuclear power may become a reasonable energy source for the future, but not in its current form.

David Svarrer's picture
David Svarrer on Oct 14, 2019 6:56 pm GMT

More than 30+ of the 50+ companies world wide, right now working on the "Hardware store style" solar concentrator, are ALSO including heat storage, making these models able to provide strongly distributed base-load. We are - for instance - next year (2021 March) building a 343 cubic metre stone storage for a 400 square meter house in Denmark. They need to be able to store the heat for 6 months - for their use throughout the winter season.

The solar capacity factor is almost irrelevant in this construction, due to the low construction cost of USD 0.055 per Watt (compare with Nuclear power stations ranging between USD 2 per Watt and USD 9 per Watt - most recently Hinkley POint C is being built for some USD 7 per Watt).

Therefore, if you are in the Northern or Southern hemisphere, where the insolation is 35% lower than around Equator - you simply add 50% more reflectors - making the cost go up in these regions to USD 0.083 per Watt - and in these regions where you also have long winter periods - you will need to multiply the stone storage by factors to accommodate for the storage - a fact which again caters for another increase of the construction cost by USD 0.092 per Watt (depends on latitude!!) - leading to a construction cost of USD 0.175 per Watt. 

However - after this - the solar concentrators of this type does not cost anything - they are made in stainless steel, glass and aluminium - throughout. So they are expected to have a durability of 50+ years with little or no maintenance of the construction. Maintenance in terms of cleaning reflectors is naturally needed. 

We will be waiting for Gary to explain how more than 120+ nuclear "episodes" leaving slightly above 1 million of square kilometers uninhabitable, is not an issue. (ref: Radioactive Wastelands - can be bought on Amazon).

Sincerely
David Svarrer

Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Oct 8, 2019 9:43 pm GMT

Nuclear power in its current form is a mature, obsolete technology that is financially too risky as an investment.

Better to concentrate on advanced nuclear technologies that are efficient, cost effective, passively fail-safe and not prone to bankrupt utilities. That essentially eliminates water reactors that have served us well (mostly) but are past their prime.

Are there advanced reactor technologies that can meet our needs? Maybe. That being said, I am not so sure relying on "big government" will lead to the solution. For instance, the U.S. DOE has managed to spend billions with virtually no successes.. Their approach is a pay-to-play, shakedown operation that primarily serves to line the pockets of the DOE and their buddies. Sad but absolutely true.

Fundamentally, innovation comes from small business, not the government or large corporations. The current DOE funding models unquestionably completely shutouts small U.S. businesses. Again, sad but absolutely true. Small businesses can not afford the cost-share requirement, nor the "recommended" use of DOE labs or universities to obtain a grant.

The current DOE approach of providing "hep" is fundamentally corrupt and needs to be replaced by private industry. Simply allow tax write-offs and stop pretending the government is remotely capable of picking marketplace winners and losers.

Vladimir Vinogradov's picture
Vladimir Vinogradov on Oct 10, 2019 6:06 pm GMT

Michael, it's right. It need new nuclear power technologies. Their development and implementation require investment and political will. This is the task of state organizations mainly, I think.

Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Oct 11, 2019 4:36 pm GMT

State organizations are inevitably ponderous, grossly inefficient and inevitably prone to corruption. The DOE illustrates the problem. Billions of dollars have been spent with virtually no commercial successes. 

The current DOE approach is unqustionably the government deciding marketplace winners and losers.

I believe this really boils down to a fundamental philosophy on innovation and bringing products to the marketplace. Big government versus nimble private enterprise.

Vladimir Vinogradov's picture
Vladimir Vinogradov on Oct 14, 2019 4:46 am GMT

About 90% of investments in nuclear energy are state investments. If they are ineffective, then what is the solution to this problem?

Gary Hilberg's picture
Gary Hilberg on Oct 14, 2019 1:59 pm GMT

Michael - some of the DOE funding has supported Small Modular Reactor technologies.  The leader in North America is NuScale - controlled by Fluor.  They are progressing their first deal in Idado, expected to be online in 2024.  The key manufacturing difference is that the complete modules are built in a factory reducing the potential site issues that are delaying Southern Company's current project, now projected to cost almost $20 billion.  These modules are built in factories and trucked to site - 9 ft in diameter,60 ft long - 60 MWe.  All natural circulation, designed to site in a water pool with up to 12 total units.  No AC nor DC power needed for emergency cooling, so safety is built in.  There are also several other new nuclear technologies, another SMR in Europe and a gas cooled technology out of South Africa.  

David Svarrer's picture
David Svarrer on Oct 14, 2019 7:04 pm GMT

Dear Gary, 

You indeed have a point on the new technologies - however - these are not tried for sufficiently long time, compared to their potential hazardous reactions. The NuScale is not proven safe. Well - Fluor is known - but - as you have seen it, human errors is on the top of the list of causes of meltdowns and severe accidents - not wilfully committed errors though. 

Therefore - no matter how many different and new solutions you come up with - these are new - and ought being tested in small scale for decades - in production - prior to releasing it for more public production. 

It is - simply - premature.

Sincerely

David Svarrer

Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Oct 15, 2019 6:50 pm GMT

The NUSCALE design is reasonably safe but just too expensive. The financial risk is too high.

Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Oct 15, 2019 6:53 pm GMT

The NUSCALE design will never be able to compete with natural gas plants. The financials simply do not come close unless the technology is very heavily subsidized.

As amply demonstrated by history, power plants (including renewable energy) become more cost effective by becoming bigger and more efficient. The NUSCALE approach goes in the opposite direction.

The DOE support (to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars) is and has been a self-serving operation to fund the DOE in Idaho. Where is the first NUSCALE plant being built? DOE Idaho. Who do you suppose makes the decisions to fund NUSCALE? DOE Idaho. Massive conflict of interest. Stone-cold corrupt.

David Svarrer's picture
David Svarrer on Nov 7, 2019 5:17 pm GMT

Hi everyone. I have been a bit absent due to the finalization of our solar concentrator system prototype. 

Meanwhile I received the following link which I think is a professional, pretty neutral, description of the fission process, the waste products etc. - Enjoy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVCaUonrbE

Sincerely

David Svarrer

Rational Intuitive 

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Nov 7, 2019 6:16 pm GMT

Thanks for the resource, David

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »