Navitron Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum

Announcements & News => Media Watch => Topic started by: dan_b on April 26, 2019, 10:28:53 AM



Title: Global nuclear power fleet
Post by: dan_b on April 26, 2019, 10:28:53 AM
Interesting website

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/reactor-database.aspx

There are now 449 commercially operating nuclear power reactors globally, generating 10% of global electricity supply, with the most recently commissioned being an APR-1400 in South Korea, which went live last week.
What seems to have snuck in below the radar is that the first of the Chinese EPRs (same design as Hinkley C/ Flammaville etc) - Taishan 1 - is according to this running commercially since last December?


Title: Re: Global nuclear power fleet
Post by: dimengineer on April 26, 2019, 02:28:40 PM
10% is a pretty impressive figure still. But the new build is barely at replacement level - on a back of fag packet calculation.


Title: Re: Global nuclear power fleet
Post by: Philip R on April 26, 2019, 04:19:10 PM
I look at the following: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org              It is mor news worthy imo.

The Taishan start of operation has been mentioned on the forum already, several months ago.

But mention anything good about nuclear energy and you get slagged off or just ignorred!

Philip R 


Title: Re: Global nuclear power fleet
Post by: linesrg on April 26, 2019, 04:39:33 PM
Philip R,

I consider myself to be realistic and can see the arguments for such as nuclear providing base load.

I am not opposed to nuclear but what I am opposed to is what can only be called lies. The lies commence from the outset of every nuclear power station project. They are never delivered on time or on budget and the costs of de-commissioning seem to get lost (or seriously and probably deliberately underestimated) in the original projections.

We don't read endless articles about wind farms or solar parks being seriously over budget or late being delivered.

I can also live with a wind turbine going on fire, similarly a solar park but such as Windscale, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima tend to have a somewhat more significant impact on the environment when things go wrong.

These are incontrovertible facts and the nuclear industry cannot get away from them. It is somewhat akin to those articles that suggest if you took all the money put into nuclear and oil and invested it research/ development we might have solved the energy crisis some time ago.

Regards

Richard


Title: Re: Global nuclear power fleet
Post by: Philip R on April 26, 2019, 06:25:57 PM
Hi Richard,
I used to work in the industry so am a "little" biassed. Having worked inside it, I understand why it has self harmed. Unfortunately you can't take the politics out of it and that is in a nutshell what did the damage. Too much political interference, leading to the wrong decisions being made has indirectly caused to industry to jump in all directions and get nowhere fast, especially in the UK. Rowland Pococks Book, Nuclear power in the UK explains it in great detail.

You are right about the disasters. Each one was unnecessary.
Windscale fire, Rush to beat the test ban treaty. and using air cooling on graphite core needing wigner energy release. (lack of early knowledge)
TMI new station, inexperienced operations team and sloppy culture.
Chernobyl. Undertaking run down tests with reactor not shutdown. Loss of cooling feed water supply due to reducing mains supply frequency and badly conceived reactor tripping mechanism coupled with interlock defeats applied to protection system and reactor with undesirable reactivity characteristics).
Fukushima. Arrogance of TEPCO senior company management overrulling Recomendations from OEM and other utilities operating identical reactor plant, not installing Hydrogen vents to reactor pressure loop and not situating backup diesel generators at high level away from tsunami risk.This one was the least excusable of them all imo, because it was the easiest fix.
Philip R

Every disaster was essily avoidable. some n

After privatatisation, we could generate electricity cheaper than coal but not as cheap as gas. That was then. Gas has become relatively expensive, so the legacy AGR fleet generates cheap units and good profits for its owner. HMG chose to flog off all the assets in the UK so the public now pays a high price for foreign funded nuclear power, trains public transport utilities etc. It was a way of dealing with militant union bosses. who ruled nationalised corperations and in part contributed to the demise of manufacturing industries in the UK.

Renewable energy items benefit from mass factory production, not bespoke items and erectected on site in small numbers whic by and large is nuclears problem.

Nuclear fission still has a future but not in the form it is currently being built. They have to be small and provide heat for connurbations.     

 


Title: Re: Global nuclear power fleet
Post by: billi on April 26, 2019, 09:44:54 PM
Well  ,   it has been only a short fraction  of time , the Nuclear industry did something to our planet ,  short enough to do so much harm !!

Goodby now   CostlyEvil  ;)



Title: Re: Global nuclear power fleet
Post by: djs63 on April 27, 2019, 08:58:39 AM
Nuclear power generation is beset with enormous problems, some created by human greed eg extracting as much money in subsidies as possible, and others by the need for a long term way of dealing with the radioactive waste. In the UK we have had half a century at least to plan for radioactive waste and we still do not have a strategy! sh*tfan:

Plans have been mooted for reactors which use and neutralize the most radioactive waste and, separately, for less dangerous reactors using thorium. When will they ever see the light of day?

Bring on bigger and better battery, hydro etc storage. Hey ho.  bike:
David


Title: Re: Global nuclear power fleet
Post by: Countrypaul on April 27, 2019, 09:26:39 AM
Nuclear waste disposal is a little like Brexit, no-one can agree on what to do even though there are several options.  I can't see the problem being solved until the politicians can get a proper grip on things which seems very unlikely at the moment.


Title: Re: Global nuclear power fleet
Post by: Philip R on May 01, 2019, 07:49:53 PM
Carlo Rubbia's proton accelerator driven sub critical reactor seems like a way forward for actinide conversion.
Totally beyond the wit of any Western government to understand!

Philip R


Title: Re: Global nuclear power fleet
Post by: dan_b on June 11, 2019, 12:44:41 PM
Interesting update on the EPRs
Taishan 1 is in full generation mode, and Taishan 2 has now gone critical, with full commercial generation being ramped up over the next few months.

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Second-Chinese-EPR-achieves-criticality

Also fuel loading is about to commence at Olkiluoto, with grid connection to take place in October, aiming for commercial generation in January 2020.


Title: Re: Global nuclear power fleet
Post by: renewablejohn on June 12, 2019, 03:00:22 PM
I note UK fleet is now generating less than 4GW.


Title: Re: Global nuclear power fleet
Post by: dimengineer on June 12, 2019, 04:02:42 PM
I note UK fleet is now generating less than 4GW.

Yep, me too. AIUI there are 4 of the old reactors (out of 14/16) which may never generate again, due to severe cracking of the graphite. Thats basically 2GW gone.

Inevitable really, given they are 50 years old now.


Title: Re: Global nuclear power fleet
Post by: MR GUS on June 12, 2019, 05:43:26 PM
Mrs Gus here.

 Gus would like to ask (channeling him here) Bearing in mind the cost of sarcophagus 2 in Ukraine (Chernobyl) Construction of the arch, Its cost has been estimated at 1.5 billion euros, with the total cost of the New Safe Confinement Project exceeding 3 billion euros.


 How much wind & hydro investment could  have been achieved over the same time frame of contract & construction to european wide renewables projects not forgetting the new sarcophagus is deemed good for 100 years so will be a re-do in the next few generations in all likelihood, as well as monitoring costs rising this will involve more cap in hand from ukraine, whoever is controlling the country in the future
(based on the loss of 2 GW of late).

We understand the money is a combination of G& nations, world banking, stifling taxes on ukraine populace, & general donor countries wider & further than the EU.  how does that sum compare?

Also, if anyone is interested in a trip to the Ukraine, Chernobyl & Pripyat (and a visit to the famous chernobyl cafe) you can do this utilising Ryan Air for around £144 for a 2+ day trip via Stansted airport based on September  2019 prices. the modern term being dark tourism for this sort of thing.


Title: Re: Global nuclear power fleet
Post by: M on June 13, 2019, 07:12:10 AM
Mrs Gus here.

 Gus would like to ask (channeling him here) Bearing in mind the cost of sarcophagus 2 in Ukraine (Chernobyl) Construction of the arch, Its cost has been estimated at 1.5 billion euros, with the total cost of the New Safe Confinement Project exceeding 3 billion euros.


 How much wind & hydro investment could  have been achieved over the same time frame of contract & construction to european wide renewables projects not forgetting the new sarcophagus is deemed good for 100 years so will be a re-do in the next few generations in all likelihood, as well as monitoring costs rising this will involve more cap in hand from ukraine, whoever is controlling the country in the future
(based on the loss of 2 GW of late).

We understand the money is a combination of G& nations, world banking, stifling taxes on ukraine populace, & general donor countries wider & further than the EU.  how does that sum compare?

Also, if anyone is interested in a trip to the Ukraine, Chernobyl & Pripyat (and a visit to the famous chernobyl cafe) you can do this utilising Ryan Air for around £144 for a 2+ day trip via Stansted airport based on September  2019 prices. the modern term being dark tourism for this sort of thing.

A very loose generalisation, might be 1GW per £1bn. Though Spain has just announced a PV farm at half that cost €300m for 590MW.

And it's not just the cost of the latest part of the cleanup, but all costs. For instance the Fukushima cost estimates have already doubled, and are now at around $200bn, so perhaps 200GW (to 400GW) of RE generation capacity.

PS GUS, do you still want the inverter I put safe for you a year or so back?


Title: Re: Global nuclear power fleet
Post by: azps on June 13, 2019, 10:49:44 AM
Mrs Gus here.

 Gus would like to ask (channeling him here

Thank you, Mrs Gus, for channeling Mr Gus. I was sorry to hear about his head injuries, and the ongoing impact it's had on his health.

I rather suspect that this must have placed quite some burden on you, too. So very best wishes to you both.


Title: Re: Global nuclear power fleet
Post by: oliver90owner on June 13, 2019, 11:01:44 AM
I note UK fleet is now generating less than 4GW.

Yep, me too. AIUI there are 4 of the old reactors (out of 14/16) which may never generate again, due to severe cracking of the graphite. Thats basically 2GW gone.

Inevitable really, given they are 50 years old now.

Except that EDF (french, so not so important to them?) want to move the safety goalposts so they can restart at least two of them?  Nearby residents (around Glasgow, for one) might not feel too good about that?  We might just be starting to find out who is going to pay for the decommissioning of these old ‘bomb grade’ producers, in the near future.  I expect EDF will want to walk away.


Title: Re: Global nuclear power fleet
Post by: Philip R on June 19, 2019, 03:11:09 PM
oliver90owner. The comment about bomb grade producers? How do you work that one out?

The AGR fuel cycle uses enriched uranium for a longer burnup in the reactor. The resultant plutonium isotope mix is not that suitable for weapons proliferaton purposes. A much shorter dwell in the reactor is required for that. The limitations of fuel processing and the fuel route handling rate make that very difficult. Since Thorp at Sellafield is now officially closed, now practically impossible.

Philip R