Nuclear energy too slow, too expensive to save climate: report

[Nanfeishen]

If the world hadn't gone all ape *h%t over nuclear being dangerous we'd be a lot further along with it and coal would probably be the backup power supply. But noooooo misconceptions on nuclear won out and ended up causing this issue.

Yep , without a doubt. One just has to look at the f-up around our own home grown design to see that.

Pebble bed modular reactor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

PBMR - History

SA’s nuclear pebble bed reactor could get second chance | Business

A private South African team has been working on its own version of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, which it could export overseas, says nuclear expert Dr Kelvin Kemm.

www.fin24.com

 

[Nicodeamus]

Agreed. I like Nuclear. But it is the damn cost and time that makes it problematic. Get energy bosses to be forthright and straight up say it will take 10 years and cost £30 Billion, then there will be no disappointing press releases and slow drips of project and budget slippages.

At the end of the day it comes down to cost per MWH and I suspect that is where natural gas beats everyone hands down.

 

[Gordon_R]

At the end of the day it comes down to cost per MWH and I suspect that is where natural gas beats everyone hands down.

I mostly agree. IMO the predictability of the cost, and the deliverable timeframe, is actually more important than the final cost.

Borrowing money for 10 years to build something that is likely to run over budget, and over schedule, is a form of madness! Witness Eskom's Medupi and Kusile projects...

 

[Nicodeamus]

I mostly agree. IMO the predictability of the cost, and the deliverable timeframe, is actually more important than the final cost.

Borrowing money for 10 years to build something that is likely to run over budget, and over schedule, is a form of madness! Witness Eskom's Medupi and Kusile projects...

I agree, however Eskom is a clear cut case of theft. ITER and HPC has more to do with engineers over-complicating the project. They two aren't exactly comparable.

 

[Gordon_R]

I agree, however Eskom is a clear cut case of theft. ITER and HPC has more to do with engineers over-complicating the project. They two aren't exactly comparable.

I can't think of a big nuclear project that has been delivered on-time and at budget. Expect maybe China, but they are neither transparent nor human rights oriented.

 

[Mila]

I can't think of a big nuclear project that has been delivered on-time and at budget. Expect maybe China, but they are neither transparent nor human rights oriented.

A cup of rice for you

 

[Gordon_R]

According to this article the Koreans are the only other ones (in addition to the Chinese) who can deliver on-time and at-budget: https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/building-nuclear-time-and-budget-it-possible-and-essential

The key seems to be avoiding one-of-a-kind designs, and controlling supply chain management. The first factor seems unlikely, and IMO the second factor is impossible in the SA context.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

The key point is that renewables are now cheaper than nuclear, but were not when nuclear was first introduced. IMO existing nuclear power plants should be kept running provided they meet the requirements, not shut down abruptly like they were in Germany.

New plants should not be the default choice, except for cases where load balancing is needed, and renewables are not adequate. None of these criteria apply to new nuclear in South Africa.

Yeah, exactly.

Pretty handy piece looking at it:

The simple argument for keeping nuclear power plants open

We need more carbon-free power, not less.

www.vox.com

On the other hand Nuclear power plants can last many decades, but the renewables need constant maintenance and replacement. The renewables would have to be replaced many times over before it can match the output of the nuclear. Wish people would give up on that pipe dream and realise long term nuclear is the only way to go.

solar farm damaged - Google Search

Not sure why you think nuclear plants don't require constant maintenance?

But anyway, what kind of maintenance and replacement timeframes are you talking about re. renewables?

For solar, they last many decades, too:

You are being redirected...

IIRC, wind turbines also last decades.

 

[Unhappy438]

On the other hand Nuclear power plants can last many decades, but the renewables need constant maintenance and replacement. The renewables would have to be replaced many times over before it can match the output of the nuclear. Wish people would give up on that pipe dream and realise long term nuclear is the only way to go.

solar farm damaged - Google Search

Not sure what you think your link is supposed to prove. I too can type in "nuclear power station damaged" and come to irrational conclusions.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Yeah, exactly.

Pretty handy piece looking at it:

The simple argument for keeping nuclear power plants open

We need more carbon-free power, not less.

www.vox.com

Not sure why you think nuclear plants don't require constant maintenance?

But anyway, what kind of maintenance and replacement timeframes are you talking about re. renewables?

For solar, they last many decades, too:

You are being redirected...

IIRC, wind turbines also last decades.

the german experience makes me even more sceptical of renewables.
Carbon capture technology might also be a thing to look into.

For now whether we like it or not. The world runs on hydrocarbons.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

the german experience makes me even more sceptical of renewables.
Carbon capture technology might also be a thing to look into.

For now whether we like it or not. The world runs on hydrocarbons.

Carbon capture is an interesting idea. I don't know all that much about it, but this is a pretty comprehensive article about it. David Roberts is one of the best writers on climate change out there.

Pulling CO2 out of the air and using it could be a trillion-dollar business

Meet "carbon capture and utilization," which puts CO2 to work making valuable products.

www.vox.com

 

[Gordon_R]

Carbon capture is an interesting idea. I don't know all that much about it, but this is a pretty comprehensive article about it. David Roberts is one of the best writers on climate change out there.

From the thermodynamics and energy efficiency point of view, carbon capture is like drinking your own urine: not a very pleasant process, and doesn't actually make the problem go away.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Carbon capture is an interesting idea. I don't know all that much about it, but this is a pretty comprehensive article about it. David Roberts is one of the best writers on climate change out there.

Pulling CO2 out of the air and using it could be a trillion-dollar business

Meet "carbon capture and utilization," which puts CO2 to work making valuable products.

www.vox.com

I suspect that it would also be expensive, but it is worth throwing a bit of cash on.

 

[Johnatan56]

So I have worked in the construction of 2 Nuclear facilities:
Hinkley Point C in the UK and the ITER project in the South of France. The one is fission and the latter fusion.

Nuclear Energy has enormous benefits and the operations cost is reasonable.
The problem is the initial investment and the international scope of these projects. They are quite bureaucratic, politically complicated and often the Nuclear Safety can hold up the project and increase the production time.

For these reasons I don't see them making a huge percentage of the supply. It can at best be covering a base load operation.

Nuclear energy further complicates the political process in countries like France where they were strategically built in marginal constituencies (very similar to US arms manufacturing in the states). The locations are often chosen for votes over practical considerations and this further escalates the prices.

My view is that the development of SMR that is worth investigating. Roles Royce and some Canadian companies are looking into them, but I don't see them getting of the conceptual phase in the next 10 years.

So where does this leave us?
Personally I do not see Nuclear survive without government subsidies, especially since we lost a lot of skills in recent years due to the innovation in natural gas.
The sector will have enough work in the next 40 years when it comes to waste management alone, but I suspect that massive projects like HPC and ITER is coming to an end.

Another problem is decommissioning, lots of plants don't factor that into the cost, France is in that position right now, Koeberg will be so as well.

I don't see nuclear surviving without subsidies either for any new projects, near no one else has the capital to build projects like these.

On the other hand Nuclear power plants can last many decades, but the renewables need constant maintenance and replacement. The renewables would have to be replaced many times over before it can match the output of the nuclear. Wish people would give up on that pipe dream and realise long term nuclear is the only way to go.

solar farm damaged - Google Search

Thanks for the google link?
If you follow some of the links:

The June 5 incident didn’t damage solar panels at the 250-megawatt power plant, but distribution poles and cables need to be replaced, according a regulatory filing Wednesday from owner Clearway Energy Inc. The company didn't say exactly how the blaze was ignited.

``We are pleased that in the aftermath of the fire at California Valley Solar Ranch, our team and first responders were able to ensure the safety of the surrounding community, our employees, and fire officials,'' the company said by email. ``While fires remain an unfortunate and growing reality in California and across the west, incidents such as these give us continued confidence in our risk prevention and mitigation plans.”

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Then the other links to this: https://www.solarpowerworldonline.c...nding-increasing-intensity-natural-disasters/ where they talk about natural disasters affecting solar panels, which is where most of your images come from. Actually read the damn article.

Wildfires

Huge sections of California felt the increased intensity of wildfires last year, and it feels unrealistic to expect a solar array to make it through the flames when entire homes are destroyed. But what is expected is that solar panels won’t contribute to a fire or be a danger to the surrounding area.
[...]
Hurricanes and tornadoes

While Puerto Rico and other islands saw unbelievable destruction from the 2017 hurricane season, one piece of good news shined through the devastation—a 645-kW array on a medical center roof in San Juan survived and was functioning at 100%. Florida-based contractor Valor Construction installed the system at the VA Caribbean Healthcare System in 2015 using Sollega ballasted mounting systems supported by Anchor Products attachments.
[...]
Hailstorms

It’s also difficult to hide from hail. An April 2016 hailstorm in Texas damaged 4,000 panels at a 4.4-MW site. Baseball-sized hail hit Alamo 2 solar farm near San Antonio, and some panels saw multiple points of impact. The tracking system stowed horizontally when high winds came through, but that left the panels more exposed to falling hail. It was ultimately decided to replace all 18,000 panels in case there were undetected microcracks.

Texas Green Energy was hired to replace the panels, and president Adam Burke said he wanted to prove to solar naysayers that damaged panels only have to be a slight inconvenience.

“I wanted to prove a point that these things happen and there are mechanisms in place to repair this just like anything else,” he said. “It’s minor downtime and the whole plant is renewed and restored.”

Freak accidents aside, hail damage is not a huge concern. NREL analyzed 50,000 solar systems installed between 2009 and 2012 and found the probability of damage from hail was below 0.05%. Solar panels are tested and certified to withstand 25-mm (1-in.) in diameter hailstones flying at 23 m/s (51 mph). And for the most part, hail doesn’t often fall larger or faster than that.
[...]
Blizzards

Earlier this winter, Erie, Pennsylvania, received an astounding 65 in. of snow in 60 hours—34 in. came on Christmas Day alone. While communities in the Great Lakes’ snowbelt are used to heavy snow, this was still a record-breaking event. No one wants 5 ft of snow sitting on top of solar panels.

The weight of that snow will probably not harm a solar array, especially since tilted solar panels help to shed snow blankets (just watch your head below). Buffalo, New York’s CIR Electrical Construction always includes partial snow cover in customer solar production plans, and the installation company tells its customers to just let nature do its thing.

And then floods, where the inverter can be damaged. Same as a nuclear power plant.

You keep posting anti-renewable garbage, but can never back it up.

Some interesting reads:

Report: “Baseload” an Outdated Term for Today’s Changing Electricity Grid

Flexibility key to delivering cost-effective & reliable service

www.nrdc.org

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/baseload-rearview-mirror-todays-electric-grid which is based on: https://brattlefiles.blob.core.wind...st_baseload_to_a_flexible_grid.pdf?1498246224