Nuclear Power

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/us/ex-regulator-says-nuclear-reactors-in-united-states-are-flawed.html?_r=0

All 104 nuclear power reactors now in operation in the United States have a safety problem that cannot be fixed and they should be replaced with newer technology, the former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said on Monday. Shutting them all down at once is not practical, he said, but he supports phasing them out rather than trying to extend their lives.

And Iran say the earthquake hasn't affected their nuclear plant.

The UK nuclear plant recently agreed may not go ahead now
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9978548/EDF-in-big-trouble-says-French-nuclear-expert.html

Negotiations on a deal between EDF and the Government over the construction of a massive plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset are deadlocked because the two sides have failed to agree on a price for electricity and a range of other guarantees.
...
Mr Schneider said that EDF with debts of €39bn (£33.3bn) might not have the cash to put into Hinkley and added: “It’s not certain it will go ahead.

Tests of 45MW Reactor design went well, but it's still just a mock up so don't get too excited.
http://www.elp.com/articles/2013/04/nuscale-power-conducts-fuel-test-for-small-modular-nuclear-react.html

A full-length, full-power, electrically-heated fuel assembly mock-up with spacer grids was tested for a wide range of natural circulation flow rates with both uniform and cosine shape power profiles. The data, known as critical heat flux (CHF) data, is being used to define the limiting conditions for fuel performance and to validate NuScale's safety analysis computer codes.

Funk It

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This is interesting. Germany is moving to Coal.
But it's nothing to do running out of capacity since they shut down the nukes.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/03/what-do-struggling-gas-fired-plants-mean-for-renewables?cmpid=WNL-Friday-March15-2013

Coal burn is cheap as hell these days, have been basically fired up near full capacity in the UK for the last year or so. A lot of profit is being made by generators at the moment.

Only problem is that through the EU regulation, these coal power stations will have to come off line sooner than expected due to the current high usage. Replacing this capacity is where the problem lies. What was interesting about this is that the EU as a whole had reduced carbon emmissions last year, but the UK had increased, mainly due to the coal.

TheDoc

No

Massively in favour, although it's a silly hypothetical discussion as our nation is too regressive thinking to do anything about it.

What normally doesn't get translated is the actual benefit to the end user. You and me. A Nuclear installation would obviously result in massive benefits in terms of longevity, security of a power source, minimal waste etc. But to me and you it would result in MASSIVELY reduced cost of electricity.

While Ireland probably isn't an ideal candidate for Nuclear energy, a small facility could potentially be viable. The cost of having highly trained staff with a more highly advanced infrastructure is offset by the cost saved in waste and the likes.

But on the flipside, as a small island, we have a real chance to become a global leader in renewable energy via water and wind energy. Unfortunately it is taking us ****ing ages to get anything of the sort going...

Capt'n Midnight

TheDoc wrote: »

What normally doesn't get translated is the actual benefit to the end user. You and me. A Nuclear installation would obviously result in massive benefits in terms of longevity, security of a power source, minimal waste etc. But to me and you it would result in MASSIVELY reduced cost of electricity.

I'd hardly call a 24/7 price of 10p per unit wholesale as a Massive reduction. And that's not including the £160m a year subsidy that other generators in the UK have to pay to provide standby in case nuclear goes down. And that UK plant isn't going to be ready anytime soon.

Compare that to our current wholesale prices are here ( 10c/unit ~ €116/MWh) http://www.sem-o.com/Pages/default.aspx

I've posted in the Wind thread that there is ~ 750 of renewables in the pipeline here. (assuming 75% of the 1GW contracted is completed)

AND 2GW of offshore wind ready to rollout - it's just a matter of economics


One of the big problems with solar that the electricity you produce may not cover what you would save by waiting until they get cheaper. LED lights have the same problem. It's not that solar isn't cost effective (Grid parity in Italy etc.) it's that it will be so much more cost effective in the foreseeable future.

The industry roadmap is this
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/top-chinese-manufacturers-will-produce-solar-panels-for-42-cents-a-wat

Between 2009 and 2012, leading "best-in-class" Chinese c-Si solar manufacturers reduced module costs by more than 50 percent. And in the next three years, those players -- companies like Jinko, Yingli, Trina and Renesola -- are on a path to lower costs by another 30 percent.

And then's stuff like this waiting in the wings
http://gigaom.com/2013/04/08/tiny-wires-could-be-a-breakthrough-for-cheap-solar-panels/

The company turns these nanowires into an ink, which can be layered onto basic solar panels and boost the efficiency of a standard panel by 25 percent.
...
The company says the capital expensive of the ink and machines add 1 to 2 cents per Watt for the panels.

Also peak uranium is a huge problem if when you consider that most of the easy ore has been found. Granite contains uranium but it takes a lot of fossil fuel energy to crush and transport the rocks. Using current technology there are limits beyond which it takes more energy to recover than it contains. In the US for example mining gets huge reductions in excise on fuel. It's not at the state yet where the cheapest way of getting uranium will be from phosphate tailings and coal ash. But expansion of the nuclear industry to back to the position it had before Chernobyl would mean that there would be no economic fuel after the next generation of reactors are build.

Also decommissioning and waste repository and mine clean up would incur a huge energy debt.