UK plans ambitious expansion of nuclear power

[FBaggins]

The UK has embarked on one of the most ambitious programmes for a new generation of nuclear power stations in Europe, with plans for up to 12 new reactors by 2025.

The planned new reactors are part of a wholesale restructuring taking place of Britain’s electricity market that is aimed at helping the country meet tough carbon reduction targets, as well as keep the lights on.

However, concerns remain, such as about the level of expertise in the supply chain given that the industry has not built a new reactor for more than 20 years.


http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d41f4070-0eab-11e1-9dbb-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1dmngiSb2

[LAGC]

1. Uh oh...

:popcorn:

[buddysmellgood]

2. Strange decision given the advances in solar and the countries wind resources.

[kristopher]

3. Not really, their "Republicans" are in control.

Their Republicans hate renewables as much as ours do.

It isn't likely they will have much success at this though, there is simply no way the numbers work without massive subsidies extending for the full 60 year life of the plants PLUS destruction of energy efficiency programs.

[RC]

4. It is not that their "Republicans" hate renewables

Renewable have their place.
It is that nuclear is much more reliable and efficient over the long run.

[bananas]

8. Nuclear reliably creates $10 trillion dollar disasters on a regular basis

I pointed out that a disaster was statistically expected - and it happened!
Science - it's real!

[FBaggins]

10. On a regular basis?

When shall we expect the first?

[bananas]

11. Already happened, I expect the next within 10-20 years. nt

[FBaggins]

12. And they kept it a secret?

That should be front-page news!

And here I thought Fukushima was going to be expensive. This mystery accident of yours cost many times as much!

Maybe it's the event that took out Atlantis? It wasn't really a natural disaster... they had a nuclear accident that bankrupted them and the bankers foreclosed on the property!

[kristopher]

17. So like the coal industry you don't count externalized costs?

If you can shift the damages to the backs of the citizens you figure they go away, right?

[FBaggins]

19. Of course I count them.

I just don't count imaginary ones.

[bananas]

20. Apparently they kept it a secret from you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x317083

Fukushima: a $10 trillion dollar accident

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/will-fukushima-bankrupt-japan.html

Will Fukushima Bankrupt Japan?
Posted on November 10, 2011 by WashingtonsBlog

Nuclear Accident May Bankrupt Japan

I noted in April that a nuclear catastrophe could cost ten trillion dollars or more (many times more than the insurance which nuclear power operators are required to carry) … and could even bankrupt a country.

Taipei Times notes today that, according to a Japanese author:

A professor from the University of Tokyo has even estimated that it would cost up to ￥800 trillion (U.S. $10 trillion dollars), amounting to approximately 10 years of the national budget, if the soil and road surface of radiation-affected areas are to be cleaned up.

The damage is so much that the Japanese government would go well beyond bankruptcy, Liu said.

<snip>

Indeed, Fukushima, the financial crisis and other major disasters like the BP Gulf oil spill were all caused by the 1%: (1) making insane bets that nothing would blow up, and (2) cutting every possible safety measure to make more money.

And exactly like the toxic financial assets that the big banks dumped onto the national balance sheets of Greece, Italy, America and elsewhere – and ultimately the people – the Japanese government and Tepco are dumping the cost of the Fukushima disaster on the backs of the Japanese people in decreased health, vigor and prosperity.

<snip>

[FBaggins]

24. That's not a "secret"... it's a fantasy world

Why do you present it as established fact? That it is not only possible, but something that "reliably happens" ?

What you have is one anonymous blogger making a claim that a nuclear disaster could cost 10 trillion supporting his claim by citing an activist in Japan claiming that an unnamed professor at the University of Tokyo said that if they imported French maids to hand-dust each blade of grass until all traced of radiation were gone... that could cost 10 Trillion.

What's the "cost" for the BP oil spill? It's clearly incredibly high... but if some unnamed blogger decides that the true cost is whatever it would take to filter the entire Gulf of Mexico, remove the sand from thousands of miles of coastline and replace it with virgin sand from the Sahara, and account for the economic impact of never getting oil from the Gulf again... well that guesstimate would be entirely irrelevant, wouldn't it?

Inflating the cost 10-100 fold does nothing to help your position. It merely implies that the real figures aren't high enough even in your mind to justify ending nuclear power. As an interesting aside, even your "source" (who claimed that he was right about the $10 trillion) doesn't believe that even that incredible figure is enough to justify getting rid of nuclear power.

There happen to be actual estimates for legitimate sources for how much fukushima has cost and how much it is expected to cost over the coming decades. Those estimates are in the low tens of billions of dollars for direct costs and the high tens of billions for the impact so far on their economy (though that's difficult to divorce from the damage of the earthquake/tsunami).

[txlibdem]

25. The blogger may have included the cost of rebuilding after the earthquake/tsunami as well

Perhaps the blogger started with the idea that all the simple dwellings destroyed in the earthquake and the tsunami will be rebuilt into Trump Towers-style golden skyscrapers and casinos???

[FBaggins]

6. Never one to let reality influence your spin, eh?

If their "republicans" are in control and they "hate renewables"... then one would rationally expect them to be cutting future renewables plans.

They aren't.

http://www.bwea.com/media/news/articles/pr20111026.html

[txlibdem]

23. And who else is *really* good at spinning BS into gold? The fossil fuels industry.

I'll bet you thought I was going to say the TeaPublicons... Is there any difference? Both are deadly to the future survival of the planet and of the human species.

[FBaggins]

5. Not at all

And not at all for the reasons that kris would try to spin.

They are correctly targeting carbon, rather than trying to favor a specific option. This accelerates the retirement of fossil generation. There's every indication that they will continue to press for additional wind/solar generation at the same time.

[kristopher]

7. Bullpuckey

In the time it takes to plan and build one nuclear plant, the turbines produced and installed from one wind turbine factory will have produced 54 reactor-years worth of electricity. Their aggregate annual output will equal that of 10 nuclear reactors.

A plant manufacturing wind turbines just upgraded their manufacturing process and can put out 2.5GWe of wind turbines per year.

At the end of ten years this single plant should be responsible for manufacturing about 25 GWe of wind turbines.

I estimated the total amount of electricity produced as the turbines come online over time and at the end of that 10 years, operating at 33% capacity, they would have provided a cumulative total of approximately 389.7 TWh.

I selected 10 years because this is the time it would take to build complete one nuclear plant project if it doesn't suffer delays - and they almost always do.

One nuclear plant actually produces about 7 TWh each year.

So devoting approximately the same resources to each technology gives us, at the end of 10 years:
wind turbines producing 72 TWhs of electricity per year plus the 54 years worth of production from the nuclear plant that the wind turbines have already cranked out.
OR
One nuclear plant that might be ready to begin to producing 7TWh per year.

Given the standard 20 year life span for the turbines and assuming the plant continued production of the same product, this factory will max out it's contribution to growth of wind power at 50GWe when it hits the 20 year mark and starts to build replacements for those wearing out.

That 50GW of turbines should actually produce approximately 144 TWh of electricity every year.

50GW faceplate capacity X .33 capacity factor = 16.5GW of production

That 16.5GW equals approximately twenty (20) 1GW nuclear reactors operating at the international average capacity factor of about 80%.

That's one factory making what is now a rather small 2.5MW wind turbine...

[FBaggins]

9. Thanks for the label... but I could tell that by reading it.

Bullpucky as well as spam.

You've been called on this type of nonsensse fantasy before (as if the manufacturing plant is the only - or even the largest - component in the cost/timing of renewable energy). At what point do you return to reality?

[kristopher]

15. That is how fast they can and are being produced and deployed.

Once all factors like interest charges (such as 60 years for nuclear vs rolling increments of 20 years for the plant and turbines) the costs for renewables is actually less.

The Economics of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance or Relapse?
by Mark Cooper

...estimates of the cost of nuclear power from a new generation of reactors have ranged from a low of 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) to a high of 30 cents. This paper tackles the debate over the cost of building new nuclear reactors. The most recent cost projections for new nuclear reactors are, on average, over four times as high as the initial “nuclear renaissance” projections. The additional cost of building 100 new nuclear reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.4 trillion over the life the reactors.

Full open access paper available for download at http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

[TheWraith]

13. Okay, it's official. You fail math forever.

Starting with the fact that a nuclear plant produces around 17 terawatt-hours a year, not 7. And the rest of your math is equally bad.

[kristopher]

16. You are big on claims but short of evidence...

1 GW reactor

International norm 80% capacity factor = 800MW of averaged annual production

800MW X 8760 hour in the year = 7,009000 MWh = 7,009 GWh = 7 TWh

[NickB79]

21. You need to differentiate between "nuclear plants" and "nuclear reactors"

Most nuclear plants consist of multiple reactors which are often built at the same time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinin_Nuclear_Power_Plant

"In 2005 the nuclear power station fed 17.3 TWh (62,000 TJ) into the grid."

snip

"The Kalinin Nuclear Power Plant has four units"

[kristopher]

28. Going with wind we get 54 reactor years worth of electricity BEFORE the nuke plant comes online...

...and that is the only effing thing you have to say?

You REALLY need to adjust the focus of your attention.

[NickB79]

31. You're arguing with the wrong guy, Kris

I didn't have anything to say about the discussion you and Wraith were having about wind vs. nuclear. My only input into this discussion is to point out that the phrases "nuclear plant" and "nuclear reactor" were being used interchangeably (which they are not) and that it was adding confusion to the discussion.

If anything, you should be thanking me because the link I provided bolstered your side. The 4 reactors used as an example were operating at far below the 7 TWhr/yr optimum you calculated in your previous post.

I think you are the one who needs to pay a bit more attention here.

[hunter]

14. Unlike Germany, they don't want to be dependent on Russian or Iranian natural gas.

Like the French, I'm sure the British are looking at this as an issue of national security.

[kristopher]

18. So you think they should build enough nuclear for peaking power also?

[txlibdem]

22. You know very well that Natural Gas is for Peaking Power, not nuclear or coal plants

We all know that but thanks for giving us the opportunity to once again point out that wind power without adequate storage equals dependence on fracking natural gas FOREVER.

Americans want to get rid of fossil fuels. That is why they will want nuclear power coupled with massively expanded installations of renewable energy such as solar, wind, geothermal power, tidal power and wave power. That is why they will insist that all renewable energy projects store their excess power in an energy storage of some kind... we don't want no stinking (sink burning) natural gas, thank you.

[FBaggins]

26. He knows it and you and I know it... but the French seem to have some trouble with it.

They've had to use nuclear plants in an odd twist of that role in the past.

It's what you get from having too many eggs in the same basket. And that holds true no matter how wonderful your basket is. The people who dream of 100% solar with massive fields in desserts all around the world and trans-oceanic superconducting cables bringing power to the night side of the planet... are courting disaster too.

Of course this isn't what the UK has been talking about. They're reportedly targeting 40% nuclear, 40% renewables and 20% fossil with some carbon capture. Presumably a high percentage of that fossil generation will be peaking gas plants.

[txlibdem]

29. The UK climate commission's 40% nuclear, 40% renewable, 20% fossil sounds familiar

I've been touting an American energy plan that calls for an initial 40% nuclear and 60% renewable energy mix for years, followed by a 30% nuclear/70% renewable energy mix and then a steady increase in renewable energy while closing down the nuclear power plants starting with the oldest and/or least safe plants first then progressing toward 100% renewable energy as more and more nuclear power plants are phased out.

The only way this will be possible is if all renewable energy sources store excess power in the most efficient way possible and use that power when their resource is no longer available (eg. when the wind isn't blowing). Also, more solar will be needed during the months when wind resources dwindle and additional wind farms will be needed to make up for times when storms decrease solar output beyond their storage reserves.

[kristopher]

27. Yes, natural gas is for peaking power, which is why hunter's remark made no sense at all.

Going with nuclear is not a route to the elimination of either coal or natural gas, it simply re-enforces the nature of the present system built around those resources.

Likewise your post makes no sense to anyone that understands the issue. The economic model for the centralized system is oriented around the concept of pushing expansion of energy consumption. The distributed renewable/efficiency model is not. They do not mix.

You are wrong again.

Your claims about what people want are likewise totally alienated from reality:

If Washington had to choose between fossil fuel/nuclear subsidies and wind/solar subsidies, "clean energy" aid would get support from three times more Americans than fossil fuel /nuclear energy subsidies.

Only a bit more than one in 10 American adults (13 percent) - including just 20 percent of Republicans, 9 percent of Independents, 10 percent of Democrats, and only 24 percent of Tea Party supporters - are in favor of concentrating federal energy subsidies on the coal, nuclear power and natural gas industries.

When it comes to focusing federal subsidies on wind and solar, 38 percent of all Americans are supportive -- about three times the support level for fossil fuel/nuclear subsidies. Only about one in 10 Americans (13 percent) - including just 26 percent of Tea Party supporters -- believes that "no energy source should receive federal subsidies."

http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/110311release.cfm
http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/pdfs/110311%20CSI%202012%20Energy%20Policy%20Survey%20final3.pdf

[txlibdem]

30. You've set up both sides of the argument... something that nobody has writtten here!

"If Washington had to choose between fossil fuel/nuclear subsidies and wind/solar subsidies..."

Where in any post here has anybody proposed that? Nowhere. Nobody. None. Nicht. Nada.

It's easy to "win" an argument when you pretend you're arguing against yourself...