Renewables are never gonna work. We need

[DW4_2016]

Nuclear. That’s the answer but those goddamn liberals won’t let it happen.

Georgia nuclear rebirth arrives 7 years late, $17B over cost

The first new U.S. nuclear reactor built from scratch in decades has begun generating electricity. The Georgia reactor is supposed to reach full power output in coming days, with a second reactor scheduled for completion in 2024. Lead owner Georgia Power Co. says the reactors are a success. But...

apnews.com

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

I am advocating for MNR units and plants with Dominion Energy in our service area for nuclear

Solar and windmills are just not cutting it

Costs have risen due-to the renewables

Not gotten cheaper

We need to shut down renewables and use oil based until we can make the leap to nuclear

 

[hopefultiger13]

Not buying what you are selling here. I have no problem with Nuclear energy, but when the projections are 17billion over budget and almost a decade later than promised, that's a problem. Also, you are producing waste that is dangerous for literally thousands of years. While I'll agree that this can be worked around, that's not nothing either. It's amazing that the folks that don't trust the government on COVID and elections totally believe them when they say that it's NO PROBLEM to store radioactive waste in caves.

There's going to be problems with renewables, it's fairly new technology... recycling the rare earth metals in batteries... dealing with the huge blades of windmills that need replacing (and not just tossing them in landfills)... constant power draw from sources that are variable... and simply building the infrastructure for renewables (think electric cars) is an enormous task.

We are really good at fossil fuel based technology... We've been doing it for 100+ years and it's a mature technology that's well understood. But when it comes right down to it, we are digging and pumping stuff out of the ground and setting it on fire for our energy needs. That's not going to work forever and it's hard on the planet.

 

[WapPride]

Damn, what's that poster's handle that works in the nuclear/power plant industry that posts on here? I always like these threads bc he always comes in and provides interesting info that i'm not familiar with.

@southerncaltiger i think?

 

[hopefultiger13]

Damn, what's that poster's handle that works in the nuclear/power plant industry that posts on here? I always like these threads bc he always comes in and provides interesting info that i'm not familiar with.

@southerncaltiger i think?

Yep... I like his takes for sure. I think there are a couple of guys that do actually. Like I said, I'm not against Nuclear at all... In fact IMHO the holy grail of energy production is fusion. It powers the whole Universe after all.

But I'm not down with Renewable don't work either.

 

[southerncaltiger]

Hi guys! I’m on; getting the Tundra washed on the way to picking up my two Anderson sisters. I’ve got my Clemson car flag out, so they can see me outside of baggage claim. Placer County may never be the same by the time I take them back to Sacramento A’port on Saturday 🤣

 

[Dungeon09]

Not buying what you are selling here. I have no problem with Nuclear energy, but when the projections are 17billion over budget and almost a decade later than promised, that's a problem. Also, you are producing waste that is dangerous for literally thousands of years. While I'll agree that this can be worked around, that's not nothing either. It's amazing that the folks that don't trust the government on COVID and elections totally believe them when they say that it's NO PROBLEM to store radioactive waste in caves.

There's going to be problems with renewables, it's fairly new technology... recycling the rare earth metals in batteries... dealing with the huge blades of windmills that need replacing (and not just tossing them in landfills)... constant power draw from sources that are variable... and simply building the infrastructure for renewables (think electric cars) is an enormous task.

We are really good at fossil fuel based technology... We've been doing it for 100+ years and it's a mature technology that's well understood. But when it comes right down to it, we are digging and pumping stuff out of the ground and setting it on fire for our energy needs. That's not going to work forever and it's hard on the planet.

I worked for one of the primary contractors at Voegtle at another large project nearby so we had an up close view of the problems there. The delays and overruns with Voegtle were mostly the result of:

1) No nuclear supply chain. The widgets used in nuclear plants may look visually identical to commercially available counterparts but the required documentation and quality assurance processes mean that it’s expensive for vendors to even produce. Without the benefit of economies of scale, components are hard to buy and expensive when they can be found.

2) Limited nuclear workforce. Since the early 80’s, only two new reactors have gone critical. There’s a huge amount of OJT and valuable experience that’s been lost since the domestic nuke injury got throttled and that takes time and effort to rebuild.

3) New designs with limited to no debugging within the US’s strict nuclear regulatory environment. The first AP1000’s are a learning experience. Westinghouse overrepresented the maturity of their design in this regard and the learning curve was too steep to handle. The 5th and 10th will go faster and easier if they ever happen.

Add to all of this that the original construction contractor had zero nuclear experience when they won the bid (they were pipe fabricators from Baton Rouge!) and Fluor/Bechtel were the ones who got it back on the tracks.

 

[hopefultiger13]

I worked for one of the primary contractors at Voegtle at another large project nearby so we had an up close view of the problems there. The delays and overruns with Voegtle were mostly the result of:

1) No nuclear supply chain. The widgets used in nuclear plants may look visually identical to commercially available counterparts but the required documentation and quality assurance processes mean that it’s expensive for vendors to even produce. Without the benefit of economies of scale, components are hard to buy and expensive when they can be found.

2) Limited nuclear workforce. Since the early 80’s, only two new reactors have gone critical. There’s a huge amount of OJT and valuable experience that’s been lost since the domestic nuke injury got throttled and that takes time and effort to rebuild.

3) New designs with limited to no debugging within the US’s strict nuclear regulatory environment. The first AP1000’s are a learning experience. Westinghouse overrepresented the maturity of their design in this regard and the learning curve was too steep to handle. The 5th and 10th will go faster and easier if they ever happen.

Add to all of this that the original construction contractor had zero nuclear experience when they won the bid (they were pipe fabricators from Baton Rouge!) and Fluor/Bechtel were the ones who got it back on the tracks.

Thanks for this... It's good to know. This is one of those cases where it is what it is... The problem is not only the cost, it's the time to construct and the knowledge that the estimates of those aren't even close to reality.

I looked it up and the 1st 2 reactors were started in 1976 and didn't start producing electricity on the grid until 1987 and 1989. The last two were started in 2009 and #3 came on in April of this year and #4 is scheduled for late this year. So 14 years instead of the 7 estimated and > 30 billion instead of the estimated 14 billion. That's just harsh.

I also read that the lifetime of these plants is 30 years, but I've also seen that newer plants can last 40-60 years. That's also harsh considering that they took 15 years just to build.

Again, I'm OK with nuclear power and think the waste problems can be worked with (and certainly even renewables have issues with waste and resources). These plants are absolute workhorses as energy producers and have no carbon problems. But the costs leave a BAD taste.

 

[Dungeon09]

Thanks for this... It's good to know. This is one of those cases where it is what it is... The problem is not only the cost, it's the time to construct and the knowledge that the estimates of those aren't even close to reality.

I looked it up and the 1st 2 reactors were started in 1976 and didn't start producing electricity on the grid until 1987 and 1989. The last two were started in 2009 and #3 came on in April of this year and #4 is scheduled for late this year. So 14 years instead of the 7 estimated and > 30 billion instead of the estimated 14 billion. That's just harsh.

I also read that the lifetime of these plants is 30 years, but I've also seen that newer plants can last 40-60 years. That's also harsh considering that they took 15 years just to build.

Again, I'm OK with nuclear power and think the waste problems can be worked with (and certainly even renewables have issues with waste and resources). These plants are absolute workhorses as energy producers and have no carbon problems. But the costs leave a BAD taste.

When you make everything as first and last of its kind then costs are always going to be prohibitive. Units 3 and 4 at AWV changed contractors in 2017 due to the same turmoil that brought the new VCS reactor projects and ultimate Westinghouse itself down. Huge amounts of rework and terribly mismanaged until Fluor and Bechtel got involved.

 

[hopefultiger13]

Hopefully, some of these smaller reactors can be built w/o the crazy problems.

 

[flotiger]

I was a Senior Reactor Operator, and I'm an Engineering manager for a wholesale generation company, natural gas only.
The problem with nuclear, or big coal for that matter, is that it's base loaded. Doesn't like to cycle on and off. We have pretty much enough base loaded dispatched power. We need more cycling plants to meet today's demand profile of users. Can these small reactors do that? Maybe, one day. But cost per KW is huge.

 

[flotiger]

Not buying what you are selling here. I have no problem with Nuclear energy, but when the projections are 17billion over budget and almost a decade later than promised, that's a problem. Also, you are producing waste that is dangerous for literally thousands of years. While I'll agree that this can be worked around, that's not nothing either. It's amazing that the folks that don't trust the government on COVID and elections totally believe them when they say that it's NO PROBLEM to store radioactive waste in caves.

There's going to be problems with renewables, it's fairly new technology... recycling the rare earth metals in batteries... dealing with the huge blades of windmills that need replacing (and not just tossing them in landfills)... constant power draw from sources that are variable... and simply building the infrastructure for renewables (think electric cars) is an enormous task.

We are really good at fossil fuel based technology... We've been doing it for 100+ years and it's a mature technology that's well understood. But when it comes right down to it, we are digging and pumping stuff out of the ground and setting it on fire for our energy needs. That's not going to work forever and it's hard on the planet.

Well put. Another thing I think is kind of funny is here in the Southeast, conservative region for the most part, electricity is regulated. You have publicly traded companies guaranteed a profit by the states, pretty much guaranteed no competition, and can pass on some costs to public. While in Texas, West Coast and Northeast, not known for voting red, you have a competitive market that generators have to bid into, and customers can choose their providers. Providers who are competing to get your residential business, thus the free market is driving prices.

 

[CUT93]

I think renewables will be valuable at some point - just not yet. Effectively storing captured energy is a problem on top of just being able to produce it. For now we need to be all in on domestic oil production for the immediate future. We surely don't need to be at the mercy of enemy counties for resources we rely on for power generation.

I am a limited govt person to say the least. However, if there is an industry where I would support govt subsidies in both R&D as well as construction it would be something like in power generation since it is a critical component and falls somewhat in line with national security, imo. Also, it is not a place where I want companies screwing around cutting corners to save a few bucks. Considering the hundreds of billions of $$$$ we throw away every year, I would be on board with the govt funding regional nuke plants with some of the $$$ they take from me.

 

[southerncaltiger]

Well put. Another thing I think is kind of funny is here in the Southeast, conservative region for the most part, electricity is regulated. You have publicly traded companies guaranteed a profit by the states, pretty much guaranteed no competition, and can pass on some costs to public. While in Texas, West Coast and Northeast, not known for voting red, you have a competitive market that generators have to bid into, and customers can choose their providers. Providers who are competing to get your residential business, thus the free market is driving prices. franchise area.

I appreciate the points you’re making, but that’s an oversimplification. Electricity is highly regulated. IPP’s (independent power producers) aren’t anywhere near the same as Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, Arizona Public Service, or any other traditional electric utility with a defined, franchised service territory and legal obligation to provide essential public services.


And let’s be clear here; “…Guaranteed a profit…” is, in fact, a fully regulated and capped return on equity (ROE) by the appropriate Public Utilities Commission. Anything above that is required to be refunded to the rate payers.

You let me know if you feel you’re getting that from BP or ExxonMobil.

 

[flotiger]

I appreciate the points you’re making, but that’s an oversimplification. Electricity is highly regulated. IPP’s (independent power producers) aren’t anywhere near the same as Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, Arizona Public Service, or any other traditional electric utility with a defined, franchised service territory and legal obligation to provide essential public services.


And let’s be clear here; “…Guaranteed a profit…” is, in fact, a fully regulated and capped return on equity (ROE) by the appropriate Public Utilities Commission. Anything above that is required to be refunded to the rate payers.

You let me know if you feel you’re getting that from BP or ExxonMobil.

Agreed. It was over simplification. Texas market is much different than the NE and West Coast. But an IPP can, as we do, successfully compete and profit in California, which we, for the most part, cannot do it in the Southeast. Maybe it's just me, but I see some broad level irony in that.

 

[southerncaltiger]

Thanks for this... It's good to know. This is one of those cases where it is what it is... The problem is not only the cost, it's the time to construct and the knowledge that the estimates of those aren't even close to reality.

I looked it up and the 1st 2 reactors were started in 1976 and didn't start producing electricity on the grid until 1987 and 1989. The last two were started in 2009 and #3 came on in April of this year and #4 is scheduled for late this year. So 14 years instead of the 7 estimated and > 30 billion instead of the estimated 14 billion. That's just harsh.

I also read that the lifetime of these plants is 30 years, but I've also seen that newer plants can last 40-60 years. That's also harsh considering that they took 15 years just to build.

Again, I'm OK with nuclear power and think the waste problems can be worked with (and certainly even renewables have issues with waste and resources). These plants are absolute workhorses as energy producers and have no carbon problems. But the costs leave a BAD taste.

The initial NRC Licensing term is 40 years, with the renewal process granting an additional 20 years. They are designed for longer usable lifetimes than 30 years, but you're right...when it takes you so long to build them...and if you're using sea water to cool them, that's another whole set of issues. People seem to forget how corrosive sea water is ("I didn't know stainless steel could rust!").

Nukes are water hogs, too, so they need to have access to lots of it--the cooler the better. There's a lot of "waste heat" you have to dissipate and that typically involves water for either once-through cooling (a non-consumptive use) or wet cooling towers (a consumptive use). Dry cooling towers can work, but as you might guess, you don't have the same level of efficiency.

You mention the spent nuclear fuel, but I wouldn't equate spent fuel pellets with the waste streams from renewables; true, it's all waste, but if you think siting a landfill is fun, you should see how much the public enjoys you trying to site a spent nuclear fuel repository. NIMBY at its finest.

 

[hopefultiger13]

I think renewables will be valuable at some point - just not yet. Effectively storing captured energy is a problem on top of just being able to produce it. For now we need to be all in on domestic oil production for the immediate future. We surely don't need to be at the mercy of enemy counties for resources we rely on for power generation.

I am a limited govt person to say the least. However, if there is an industry where I would support govt subsidies in both R&D as well as construction it would be something like in power generation since it is a critical component and falls somewhat in line with national security, imo. Also, it is not a place where I want companies screwing around cutting corners to save a few bucks. Considering the hundreds of billions of $$$$ we throw away every year, I would be on board with the govt funding regional nuke plants with some of the $$$ they take from me.

THIS!!! And I wish I could like it more than once.

I read somewhere that enough solar energy strikes the Earth every two minutes to power the entire planet for a year. It's figuratively raining free soup... we just need a bowl and our problems are solved... and that's not even dealing with fusion nuclear energy.

But your point is well taken. We simply aren't at that point yet and like it or not (and I don't) we have to rely on fossil fuels for now. So I'm fine with using our domestic oil and going in on that. You mentioned the government involvement in energy and I completely agree with that. I'd LOVE for the US Government to still allow private companies to do the work, but it's beyond stupid to allow them to sell US oil on the international market. It's US oil and it should stay in the US... ESPECIALLY when we are so dependent on it. We should pay market value to these companies, but selling our finite supply to China and others seems... short sited.

Yep, we have a problem with storing energy, but IMHO that's only an issue b/c it's a new problem. Traditionally, we've stored the fuel to make the energy, not the energy itself, and simply made the energy on demand. That's completely backwards from the way we have to deal with it with renewables (electric cars for example) they need batteries to store the energy instead of a fuel tank to create the energy as needed. I think this is one of those things that we will get a LOT better at as the technology for it matures.

I'd have NO PROBLEM with the government spending some $ on nuclear power plants.

 

[flotiger]

THIS!!! And I wish I could like it more than once.

I read somewhere that enough solar energy strikes the Earth every two minutes to power the entire planet for a year. It's figuratively raining free soup... we just need a bowl and our problems are solved... and that's not even dealing with fusion nuclear energy.

But your point is well taken. We simply aren't at that point yet and like it or not (and I don't) we have to rely on fossil fuels for now. So I'm fine with using our domestic oil and going in on that. You mentioned the government involvement in energy and I completely agree with that. I'd LOVE for the US Government to still allow private companies to do the work, but it's beyond stupid to allow them to sell US oil on the international market. It's US oil and it should stay in the US... ESPECIALLY when we are so dependent on it. We should pay market value to these companies, but selling our finite supply to China and others seems... short sited.

Yep, we have a problem with storing energy, but IMHO that's only an issue b/c it's a new problem. Traditionally, we've stored the fuel to make the energy, not the energy itself, and simply made the energy on demand. That's completely backwards from the way we have to deal with it with renewables (electric cars for example) they need batteries to store the energy instead of a fuel tank to create the energy as needed. I think this is one of those things that we will get a LOT better at as the technology for it matures.

I'd have NO PROBLEM with the government spending some $ on nuclear power plants.

Talking about energy storage, that's the future. Everybody is working on battery storage. My employer included. We have projects underway in California. Eventually energy storage will be a game changer. It might be another decade, but then renewables really become cost efficient.
Also, renewables are competitive in the market now, but if the government hadn't propped up the R&D, we'd not have gotten to this energy competitive point, IMO. No one would have risked development without some incentive. Goes to your point about incentives for Nukes. But again, Nukes aren't cycling dispatch. They don't follow load. Base load only. That would have to change, since nationally we don't need more base loaded generation. To follow load with Nukes, there'd need to be technology changes, and you'd need licensed RO's in dispatch centers, instead of just plant control rooms.

 

[DW4_2016]

Talking about energy storage, that's the future. Everybody is working on battery storage. My employer included. We have projects underway in California. Eventually energy storage will be a game changer. It might be another decade, but then renewables really become cost efficient.
Also, renewables are competitive in the market now, but if the government hadn't propped up the R&D, we'd not have gotten to this energy competitive point, IMO. No one would have risked development without some incentive. Goes to your point about incentives for Nukes. But again, Nukes aren't cycling dispatch. They don't follow load. Base load only. That would have to change, since nationally we don't need more base loaded generation. To follow load with Nukes, there'd need to be technology changes, and you'd need licensed RO's in dispatch centers, instead of just plant control rooms.

dont tell them that shit. now they're gonna stop hating windmills and start hating batteries.

 

[southerncaltiger]

Lithium Valley, baby!

 

[Dungeon09]

Nukes ultimately should replace fossil generation as our base load.

Re: spent waste, the total annual volume of US spent fuel is less than half of an Olympic swimming pool. France had a closed nuclear fuel cycle and recycles spent fuel into mixed oxide fuel that can be reused. Investing in that capability (we tried once under defense programs) would result in even less spent material for disposal.

Again, the technology exists it just needs the desire and investment to scale it into viability.