Advanced Nuclear Reactors

[ahhell]

I notice a couple of people saying that solar can't replace all power generation so that we need nuclear.

Obvious false equivalence.

Solar, plus hydro, plus wind, plus tidal, plus geothermal, plus batteries (or other storage mediums) has no problems that nuclear is needed so solve.

Cover your ears to protect yourself from the chorus of lame whining:

The sun doesn't shine during the daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.
The wind does blow at niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Tides don't run if the moon goes awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.
Geothermal doesn't work when the mantle goes cooooooooooooooooooooooooold.
Water doesn't run downhill in summeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer.

etc. etc. etc.

Funnily enough, the deployment of solar and wind generation in my country is causing coal power plants to close, not open. (We already had hydro).

I guess that doesn't follow the nuke-booster narrative.

Solar, geographic limits and intermittent.
Wind, geographic limits and intermittent.
Tidal, geophraphic limits and intermittent

Batteries and other storage, absurd to think that's been solved. Sure, at some point in the future it will be, it ain't yet.

Nuclear is definitely needed as part of the mix if we want to get off of fossil fuels. Its absolutely letting the perfect be the enemy of the good to push for a no nuke energy infrastructure currently.

ETA, and of course your country is exemplary of all locations.

 

[Ziggurat]

Solar, geographic limits and intermittent.
Wind, geographic limits and intermittent.
Tidal, geophraphic limits and intermittent

I would put tidal in a somewhat different category. It is intermittent, but unlike solar and wind, it's a perfectly predictable and regular intermittent. It follows a dependable schedule, which neither solar or wind do. Geographic limitations are even more severe than for wind and solar, so you're never going to scale it up very far, but the ability to reliably plan for its output are major advantages that the other two don't have. If you have battery capacity for half a day's output, you can time shift the load however you want. Solar and wind potentially need a lot more than one day's battery capacity to cover variations in their output.

Batteries and other storage, absurd to think that's been solved. Sure, at some point in the future it will be, it ain't yet.

And even when it's "solved" it won't be free.

Nuclear is definitely needed as part of the mix if we want to get off of fossil fuels. Its absolutely letting the perfect be the enemy of the good to push for a no nuke energy infrastructure currently.

Definitely.

 

[Ziggurat]

Solyndara is a fairy tale Libertarians have to tell themselves.

A fairy tale? Yeah, no. It actually happened.

But when Musk burns many tens of billions on Twitter, that doesn't count because it's not a government doing it.

Well, YES. I don't care if Musk burns $10 billion of his own money. It's no skin off my back, that's entirely HIS problem. But government money is my money. When the government wastes $500 million, I'm on the hook for that along with every other taxpayer. There's supposed to be a public benefit to public expenditures. When there isn't, that's a problem.

Why isn't that obvious to you?

 

[Ziggurat]

The sun doesn't shine during the daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

Output also drops when it's cloudy.

The wind does blow at niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

It doesn't always blow during the day either.

Tides don't run if the moon goes awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

Tides are reliable, but tidal energy is going to have a serious problem scaling to large capacities. As in, it won't. People don't even want it to.

Geothermal doesn't work when the mantle goes cooooooooooooooooooooooooold.

Geothermal is pretty reliable but also can't really scale because it's only suitable in certain locations.

Water doesn't run downhill in summeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer.

Hydro is great. But do you know where the biggest opposition to hydroelectricity comes from?

Environmentalists. Not nuclear power advocates, not the fossil fuel guys. They're all fine with hydro. No, opposition to hydro plants comes from environmentalists.

Because of the fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiish.

Funnily enough, the deployment of solar and wind generation in my country is causing coal power plants to close, not open. (We already had hydro).

Yes, you already had hydro. And you haven't increase the capacity of your hydro (the best renewable source) in literally decades.

I guess that doesn't follow the nuke-booster narrative.

You still get about 50% of your electricity from coal, and another 20 % from gas. Nuclear doesn't have to be instead of solar. It could be instead of coal.

Your opposition to nuclear hasn't increased the adoption of solar and wind. Your opposition to nuclear has slowed down the phasing out of coal. Congratulations.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Batteries are solved.
UK just built a House -sized Gravity storage system like Hydro, but using a more dense liquid, resulting in more efficiency in a smaller space.
Germany and others use former mineshafts for gravity storage.
Germany is also experimenting with using groundwater for cooling/heat storage.

It's a Cambrian explosion of technologies.

Compared to that, nuclear Power hasn't progressed in the past 50+ years

 

[Ziggurat]

Batteries are solved.

No, they are not. Rechargeable batteries all wear out way too soon.

UK just built a House -sized Gravity storage system like Hydro, but using a more dense liquid, resulting in more efficiency in a smaller space.

Did they use mercury? I bet they didn't. I bet they used salt water or something like that. Which, yeah, it's denser and thus more efficient. But probably not by a whole lot. And you need to go a whole lot denser if you want to be able to scale those things. Seriously, do you have any idea of the mass needed to make gravity storage scale to have a significant impact on the grid? I don't think you do.

Gravity storage in general is really hard to scale, and capacities aren't going to be nearly high as you seem to imagine.

Compared to that, nuclear Power hasn't progressed in the past 50+ years

Yes, it has.

 

[ahhell]

Rechargeable batteries whereout and what's the largest capacity battery yet built? Gravity systems have a lot of promise but again, location location location matters. Easy enough if you have a hill or abandoned mine, what if you don't and you live in the great plans? Also, scale.

 

[crescent]

....what's the largest capacity battery yet built?

Most of the newer battery systems for grid storage use the same sorts of batteries as used by electric cars. So something a bit bigger than a AA battery.

But then they can use millions or billions of them interconnected. China seems to have now about maybe 40 GW hours of battery capacity, the U.S. about half that. But it is expanding fast.

Some of them use batteries taken from EVs - a battery that can't hold a full charge is less of a problem when it can just sit in one spot all the time and isn't adding dead weight to a moving vehicle.

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/03/06/battery-prices-collapsing-grid-tied-energy-storage-expanding/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=linkedin

 

[arthwollipot]

Batteries and other storage, absurd to think that's been solved. Sure, at some point in the future it will be, it ain't yet.

Rubbish. Batteries are a mature technology. We know how to make batteries - they're not hard. This facility in South Australia (the "Big Battery") has been on the grid for years now, operating continuously and reliably.

The problem is not technological, it's financial and political.

 

[arthwollipot]

Hydro is great. But do you know where the biggest opposition to hydroelectricity comes from?

Environmentalists. Not nuclear power advocates, not the fossil fuel guys. They're all fine with hydro. No, opposition to hydro plants comes from environmentalists.

Because of the fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiish.

No, it's not because of the fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiish. It's because hydroelectric dams flood large amounts of wilderness or displace large numbers of people.

The Franklin Dam Project that spawned the Australian Greens was protested because it would have destroyed large swaths of pristine temperate rainforest and wilderness habitat.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Hydro is great. But do you know where the biggest opposition to hydroelectricity comes from?

Environmentalists.

Hydro isn't necessarily great. It can have a huge environmental impact, and I'm not just talking about a few fish. A large dam can create significant amounts of CO₂ and methane, particularly in warmer climates or where there is fertilizer runoff from farmland. A poorly planned hydro project could end up producing more GHG than a gas power plant with the same output. There are other environmental issues too, such as decreased water flow rates in rivers causing increased temperature and nutrient concentrations that affect water quality. Just slapping dams in wherever you can is not a good idea.

As for fish, things can be done to make dams more friendly for them, so they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But if these things are not done the impact could be severe - and it's not just tree-hugging greenies who are concerned about it.

Hydropower dams threaten fish habitats worldwide

"Because fisheries based on migratory species support tens of millions of people, understanding where hydropower development could negatively impact river basin connectivity – and therefore fish – is an important step in identifying solutions that deliver needed electricity while minimizing the loss of essential natural resources,” said Jeff Opperman, Global Lead Freshwater Scientist for World Wildlife Fund...

“These dams pose a real danger to the survival of species and associated human livelihoods,” said Schmitt. “Salmonids in North America were mostly wiped out by dams, and with them the livelihoods of people depending on their annual migration. Now, similar impacts become evident in other geographies. Recently, we’ve seen how dams on the Yangtze contributed to the extinction of the Chinese paddlefish, a source of food and cultural reverence for communities along the river. If we aren’t more strategic about where and how we develop future hydropower, we can expect to see more and more examples like this one.”

Effects that Hydroelectric Dams have on Fish Populations in Vietnam

“40–70% fish catch in the Mekong depends on species that migrate long distances along the Mekong … and … its tributaries”. With the Mekong being the largest river in Vietnam... “it supports the world’s largest inland fishery with approximately 2.6 million tonnes annual harvest”...

The dams along the Mekong act as roadblocks and they substantially affect the migration patterns of the fish in the river. As a result, the lack of fish affects farmers because there are less fish upstream for them to catch, which decreases the amount of fish that they can decide to sell on the market. By the year 2030, Vietnam is adding 88 new dams which will increase their energy production by 900%. This number may sound like a great thing because they are reducing the reliance on fossil fuels. But with the dams... the fish population is anticipated to decline about “495,000–792,000 tons” per year.

Yes, you already had hydro. And you haven't increase the capacity of your hydro (the best renewable source) in literally decades.

Pumped hydro energy storage projects in New South Wales, Australia, granted ‘critical’ status

The New South Wales (NSW) government has deemed three pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) sites as “critical” given their importance to the economy.

According to a statement released by the NSW government in Australia, the projects have been designated as Critical State Significant Infrastructure (CSSI) for economic, social, and environmental reasons.

Other projects designated as CSSIs include the Pacific Highway Upgrade, the Inland Rail project, and the 2.2GW PHES power station Snowy 2.0. Our sister publication, Energy-Storage.news, reported that the NSW government granted Oven Mountain, a 600MW/7200MWh, billion-dollar energy storage project, CSSI classification in 2020...

Muswellbrook will generate 250MW of hydroelectricity with eight hours of storage capacity for 2GWh of stored energy. This will feed electricity into existing high-voltage power lines nearby. It is being developed by AGL and Idemitsu Australia.

On the other hand, Lake Lyell has a proposed capacity of 335MW and a storage duration of eight hours. It has an operational life of 80 years and is being explored by EnergyAustralia.

Meanwhile New Zealand's conservative government has decided that tax cuts for the rich are more important than a reliable electricity supply...

Lake Onslow pumped hydro scheme scrapped

The Government has axed the $16 billion Lake Onslow pumped hydro scheme championed by the previous government, Energy Minister Simeon Brown says.

“This hugely wasteful project was pouring money down the drain at a time when we need to be reining in spending and focussing on rebuilding the economy and improving the lives of New Zealanders.

“Scrapping this project was identified as a priority of the Government’s 100-day plan and we are delivering.

“After I instructed officials of my expectations, on Friday the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment confirmed all work on the scheme has ceased and decommissioning is set to begin...

Mr Brown says security of the country’s electricity supply is critically important and the Government is committed to cutting red tape to drive investment in renewable electricity generation.

“Demand is forecast to increase by two-thirds by 2050 and we need to build enough generating capacity to meet that demand. To do this, we’re going to need to significantly increase the amount of clean energy we generate from solar, wind and geothermal.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Batteries and other storage, absurd to think that's been solved. Sure, at some point in the future it will be, it ain't yet.

Of course it's not 'solved', and won't be until we reduce fossil fuel usage by 90%. But it's being solved.

Nuclear is definitely needed as part of the mix if we want to get off of fossil fuels. Its absolutely letting the perfect be the enemy of the good to push for a no nuke energy infrastructure currently.

It already is, but nuclear has proven over and over that it isn't competitive. The cost of wind, solar, and battery storage continues to decline as the cost of nuclear increases.

Nuclear proponents like to point the finger at regulations designed to make plants safe, on the basis that it's just an overreaction to sooth an an ignorant public who are scared of anything with the word 'nuclear' in it. But if this was so then US nuclear power plant operators would be able to get enough private insurance to cover the risk, rather than relying on the government to bail them out in the event of an 'accident'.

ETA, and of course your country is exemplary of all locations.

Really? You have a funny idea of what is needed to build and operate a nuclear power plant.

Cracks appear in Dutton’s nuclear plans as more details emerge about cheap power offer

June 20, 2024

Australia has been promised that two government-funded nuclear power stations will be operating by the mid-2030s, under Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s ambitious and uncosted plan to build seven plants by the middle of the century.

But cracks in the proposal have already appeared, as state premiers rejected the idea, some Nationals MPs opposed nuclear power in their seats and conceded it was potentially divisive, while major industry players flagged concerns about huge costs, viability and the timeline for delivery.

Dutton said a future Coalition government would start by building either small modular reactors – which are not yet in commercial production – or a large-scale reactor. He said the small reactors could be operating by 2035, while the larger would produce electricity by 2037.

That contradicts the CSIRO’s timelines, which have previously found the first nuclear reactors could not be built until 2040 and would cost up to $16 billion each to build in Australia. The CSIRO said construction costs could fall to $8.6 billion but noted the first reactor would likely cost double because of the expense of kick-starting the industry from scratch.

2035, 2037 or 2040 - between 10 and 20 years away - all way too late. By that time most Australians will have home solar, and battery storage will provide night-time power. Any costing based on today's electricity prices will be noncompetitive in 10 years time.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

A fairy tale? Yeah, no. It actually happened.



Well, YES. I don't care if Musk burns $10 billion of his own money. It's no skin off my back, that's entirely HIS problem. But government money is my money. When the government wastes $500 million, I'm on the hook for that along with every other taxpayer. There's supposed to be a public benefit to public expenditures. When there isn't, that's a problem.

Why isn't that obvious to you?

Because of the obvious double standard.

you demand that anything taxpayer supported must be run perfectly, much much better than anything the private sector could ever achieve.
But everything has risks.
Germany is singlehandedly responsible for the Solar Revolution by spending billions and billions to boost and speed solar technology.
It doesn't reape the benefits like China does except that we might achieve the energy transition because of it.
The US government trying to do the right thing and failing is better and more fiscally responsible than what most companies do all the time.

 

[Roboramma]

No, it's not because of the fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiish. It's because hydroelectric dams flood large amounts of wilderness or displace large numbers of people.

The Franklin Dam Project that spawned the Australian Greens was protested because it would have destroyed large swaths of pristine temperate rainforest and wilderness habitat.

Yes, all forms of power generation have costs. How do the environmental costs of hydro power compare to other forms of power generation on a per joule basis?

I'd be willing to bet that the externalities from coal are significantly higher than from hydro power, and if that is the case anyone who opposes the building of more hydro is responsible for that net cost, because in the world as it is failing to build more hydro power means burning more coal.

And the same is true for nuclear. And solar, which is often opposed not on the basis of the costs being greater than for other power sources on net, but just for having any costs at all.

On the margin building more hydro, solar, and nuclear means burning less coal and overall fewer negative externalities.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes, all forms of power generation have costs. How do the environmental costs of hydro power compare to other forms of power generation on a per joule basis?

I'd be willing to bet that the externalities from coal are significantly higher than from hydro power, and if that is the case anyone who opposes the building of more hydro is responsible for that net cost, because in the world as it is failing to build more hydro power means burning more coal.

Oh yes, don't get me wrong. The environmental costs of coal are far greater. I was countering the claim that it was all about the "fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiish". The environmental arguments are not about that.

And I am a supporter of the Greens, by the way.

 

[wobs]

And the same is true for nuclear. And solar, which is often opposed not on the basis of the costs being greater than for other power sources on net, but just for having any costs at all.

On the margin building more hydro, solar, and nuclear means burning less coal and overall fewer negative externalities.

As I think I said earlier, the Green party in the UK often opposes solar farms, not just nuclear.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh yes, don't get me wrong. The environmental costs of coal are far greater. I was countering the claim that it was all about the "fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiish".

Sure, it's not just the fish. But did you read the post I was responding to? Do you think the drawbacks to solar and wind are only that they don't work at night? No, of course not. That would be a stupid argument, but that's what novaphile put forth as a straw man. And so I parodied his response back to him. If you want to object to oversimplifications, I suggest you turn your attention there.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because of the obvious double standard.

I pointed out YOUR double standard. You complain about corruption with regard to nuclear, while ignoring it with solar and wind.

you demand that anything taxpayer supported must be run perfectly

I made no such demands. But Solyndra isn't an example of something being run imperfectly. It's an example of abject failure. And not a solitary one either.

But everything has risks.

Sure. And that includes nuclear. But that's the one risk you seem unwilling to take.

Germany is singlehandedly responsible for the Solar Revolution by spending billions and billions to boost and speed solar technology.

And then they shut down perfectly good nuclear reactors to appease the greens, which extended their reliance on coal. That was about the stupidest thing they could possibly have done.

The US government trying to do the right thing and failing is better and more fiscally responsible than what most companies do all the time.

Killing nuclear isn't the right thing.

 

[ahhell]

Oh yes, don't get me wrong. The environmental costs of coal are far greater. I was countering the claim that it was all about the "fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiish". The environmental arguments are not about that.

And I am a supporter of the Greens, by the way.

Fish are part of it though, damns in the NW US really screwed up Salmon migrations. But, you are essentially correct, most opposition to damns is more about the destruction of large areas of land.

 

[ahhell]

I pointed out YOUR double standard. You complain about corruption with regard to nuclear, while ignoring it with solar and wind.



I made no such demands. But Solyndra isn't an example of something being run imperfectly. It's an example of abject failure. And not a solitary one either.



Sure. And that includes nuclear. But that's the one risk you seem unwilling to take.



And then they shut down perfectly good nuclear reactors to appease the greens, which extended their reliance on coal. That was about the stupidest thing they could possibly have done.


Killing nuclear isn't the right thing.

Reliance on coal and Russia.