[HN Gopher] Several US utilities back out of deal to build novel...
___________________________________________________________________
Several US utilities back out of deal to build novel nuclear power
plant (2020)
Author : zeristor
Score : 46 points
Date : 2021-04-24 07:36 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.sciencemag.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.sciencemag.org)
| pjc50 wrote:
| > It also estimates the cost would climb from $4.2 billion to
| $6.1 billion.
|
| The history of every new nuclear project includes promises of
| cost reduction followed by massive 50% overruns, sometimes
| multiple times.
|
| > The deal protects UAMPS customers by specifying a maximum cost
| for electricity from the plant of $55 per MWh
|
| This is good, though. Cheaper than Hinkley Point C.
|
| > Bradford questions how reliable that reassurance can be. He
| notes that in the 1980s, Washington Public Power Supply System
| agreed to build several nuclear reactors in Washington that ran
| far overbudget and were never completed, leading to the biggest
| default on municipal bonds in U.S. history.
|
| Possibly the only nuclear reactor to have caused a city-wrecking
| disaster without even being built.
| kjrose wrote:
| Why can't we just use candu reactors and pebble bed reactors.
| They are proven technology made by American allies and work
| really well.
|
| The cost overruns always come from demanding we have to come up
| with a novel way to do it.
| pfdietz wrote:
| Ontario put out for bids for new nuclear plants a decade ago.
| The newest CANDU reactor came in 3x what they were looking
| for. It's simply not competitive.
|
| https://www.thestar.com/business/2009/07/14/26b_cost_killed_.
| ..
|
| Going forward, Canada will likely go with some combination of
| wind and hydro. There is enormous hydro capacity in Canada,
| and it pairs very naturally with wind. There are good wind
| resources in many places east of the Rockies in Canada,
| especially Quebec (near large hydro resources) and around
| Hudson Bay.
|
| https://aws-dewi.ul.com/assets/Wind-Resource-Map-
| CANADA-11x1...
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| We could if Canada would build them at the border and sell
| the power to US grids. The Northeast US already imports clean
| hydro and nuclear from Ontario, for example, and Canada could
| use the revenue to replace the oil and gas revenue from tar
| sands wind downs.
|
| Most of the US south has enough wind and solar potential to
| avoid needing such a solution. Texas could be a net exporter
| to other US grids and Mexico if ERCOT gets its act together
| and upgrades the interconnectors between other grids, not to
| mention the vast solar potential of the US Southwest.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _The Northeast US already imports clean hydro and nuclear
| from Ontario_
|
| Hydro probably more from Quebec, but Ontario exports as
| well. (Source: I live in Ontario.)
| kjrose wrote:
| 60% of Ontario capacity is already nuclear and they sell it
| to the US. So in a way they are already doing this. Just
| not to the degree they probably should.
| throw0101a wrote:
| If anyone is curious about the actual (real-time)
| numbers, go to this page+ and click on the "Supply" tab:
|
| * https://www.ieso.ca/power-data
|
| Nuclear chugs along with the base load at 9000 to 9500
| MW, next biggest is hydro with between 3000 and 5000MW
| (with some deep troughs at 2500). Wind is the third-
| biggest, but is very variable: it tends to peak where
| hydro troughs (2500). Natgas comes along every so often
|
| Ontario retired all of its coal plants several years ago.
|
| If I had a magic want in Ontario I'd say we should build
| another 2000-2500 nuclear plant, which would take care of
| some of the base load that hydro is handling. Then hydro
| would be more free to handle the variable load, and we
| could reduce/remove natgas.
|
| Various CSV and XML files available with historical data:
|
| * https://www.ieso.ca/en/Power-Data/Data-Directory
|
| +Site run by the Independent Electricity System Operator
| (Ontario's grid).
| throw0101a wrote:
| If anyone _really_ wants to get into the numbers, you can
| see the output on a per generator basis:
|
| * https://www.sygration.com/gendata/today.html
| kjrose wrote:
| Yeah I found out about these numbers when I was reviewing
| the policy book for the Alberta chamber of commerce.
| [deleted]
| silvestrov wrote:
| From linked-linked article [1]: "For now, NuScale's reactors
| exist mostly as computer models [...] the company has built a
| full-size mock-up of the upper portion of a reactor"
|
| I'd place the bet: never going to happend. Reductions in price
| for wind and solar power is going to kill any black bottom line
| for this project.
|
| 1: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/02/smaller-safer-
| cheape...
| wmiel wrote:
| Wind and solar do not work on demand. It's a huge difference.
| It's not always sunny nor windy. Only coal, natural gas or
| hydro in some cases can be a viable baseline energy sources.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Nuclear can be on demand, but if you are turning nuclear
| on/off, you have huge capex but less and less electricity.
|
| Nuclear is so expensive to build, that it doesn't make
| sense to 'turn off' a nuclear plant. We can do it with
| control rods, but the economic fallout of leaving nuclear
| off is bad. (Nuclear will need to be retired after 50
| years. Every minute it is turned off is a minute wasted of
| it's limited lifespan)
|
| -----------
|
| Natural gas is the opposite. High ongoing costs but very
| low capex. So it makes economic sense to cycle natural gas
| on and off.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _We can do it with control rods,_
|
| Also note that there is 'turning off/down' thermally and
| electrically.
|
| Once the steam is created, all of it is usually sent to
| the turbines. But if a nuclear plant need to dial back
| output, it is possible to route the steam to some place
| else where it's dissipated and not used to spin a
| turbine.
|
| You can see this in some of the generator numbers for the
| Ontario grid, specifically for today (2021-04-24),
| DARLINGTON-G1 had reduced output:
|
| * https://www.sygration.com/gendata/today.html
| eloff wrote:
| I believe we have reached the point where solar/wind plus
| storage is cheaper than nuclear, and without the massive
| capital outlay, political problems, or risk. Even solar or
| wind plus a gas turbine is cheaper.
|
| That's a pity because nuclear could be competitive if
| economies of scale and innovation occur in that space.
|
| Edit: I'm getting down voted, maybe because I didn't
| provide a source. But neither do the people who disagree. I
| stand by it.
| olyjohn wrote:
| I honestly don't care if it's cheaper. I just don't want
| to keep running gas and coal plants, and continuing to
| let the planet warm up. The cost when we've burned this
| planet up will be much higher.
|
| We have a solution to end coal, oil and gas fired power
| plants, and end a tremendous amount of pollution. But
| it's somewhat more expensive to run a nuke plant... Is
| money the only thing we are looking at here?
|
| We keep fiddling around with solar and wind, and while
| it's great, we're still running goddamn fossil-fuel based
| plants for a huge percentage of our power. If solar and
| wind are cheaper, and price is what dictates this market,
| then we should have much more transitioned away by now.
| Solar and wind will get better and better, but we need to
| dump all this carbon-based power right now. We should be
| building nukes right now to replace the fossil-fuel based
| plants and then phase them out once wind and solar, and
| other, better tech gets developed.
|
| We have a huge problem solved right now. It's nothing but
| politics and bullshit getting in the way.
| eloff wrote:
| Yes, the money matters when it's private industry putting
| it up.
|
| If the government could do the smart thing and enact a
| carbon tax so the true cost of carbon based fuels could
| be accounted for, this problem would naturally go away
| with no need to convince anybody of anything else.
| Nuclear would maybe be viable, but at the very least
| building new solar and wind would become cheaper than
| just operating existing coal plants.
|
| Maybe it's not politically popular? I don't know. Taxes
| automatically reduce the thing being taxed, but we tax
| good things like income, rather than bad things like
| illegal drugs, gambling, pollution, garbage, etc. It
| makes no sense, but that's why I'm a programmer and not a
| politician.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _I 'd place the bet: never going to happend._
|
| Tend to agree.
|
| Wind and ( _especially_ ) solar were heavily subsidized by
| government over the last few years, but that allowed for
| economies of scale to kick in and the price to drop. There
| would need to be a few governments willing to 'subsidize'
| building nukes to kick-start the industry.
|
| It would also be helpful if there weren't a bajillion
| different designs: if (say) <=3 nuclear designs could be
| fixed upon (to not have a complete monoculture), then that
| would help things as well.
|
| Right now it's basically bespoke construction every time.
| TheAdamAndChe wrote:
| This is why Small Modular Reactors have me excited for the
| future. Small reactors of a single design can be centrally
| manufactured and shipped to what's basically a concrete
| hole in the ground, easing regulation requirements and
| lessening the burden of manufacturing skill onsite.
| virmundi wrote:
| Why do they need to put these containers together? Why not create
| a 30 MW box and drop it in suburbia?
| 7952 wrote:
| Firstly it might be easier. One site, one grid connection, one
| access road for heavy loads, one civil engineering operation,
| one security fence. One construction compound, fewer land
| owners and nimby neighbors. All the same reasons you might
| build larger factories or distribution centers. But more so.
| Pursuading local residents in suburbia is not a fight worth
| having.
|
| Also, a project designed to export 1GW can connect to a
| regional or national grid. Then it can sell power far more
| widely. Connected to a local grid you have the same capacity
| issues as solar. Why bother?
| p_l wrote:
| That's kinda the design behind russian SVBR-150 (from mid
| 1990s, still waiting on money for finishing). Self-contained
| "cells" that can be delivered by railcar ready to use as
| power/heating/cogeneration plant. You literally need to attach
| normal COTS steam turbine or heat exchanger for municipal
| heating, and that's it as far as pure generation is involved.
|
| For refueling you disconnect the pipes and cables, place it on
| the railcar, and send it to manufacturer.
|
| Initial design for such cell was 150MW(e) each, thus the name.
| marchidesyt wrote:
| Let us recall that France is 100% nuclear. If we have 20 years to
| save ourselves from climate change it's hard to understand why
| environmentalists didn't embrace this proven solution decades
| ago.
| burlesona wrote:
| Is the cost overrun due to engineering - we haven't built these
| (NuScale) yet so we don't really know how hard it is - or due to
| politics?
|
| Regarding Nuclear power in general, it's amazing to me that we
| seem to have lost the engineering ability to actually build
| technology that's about 70 years old at this point.
| kragen wrote:
| I explained why in
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26925722. The cost
| increase was due to redesigning the project to be larger.
| m0llusk wrote:
| We have the engineering. In a real sense that is the problem.
| For any particular complication we can come up with designs and
| systems that handle and control that. But each and every one
| such complication whether it is a coating or a backup cooling
| system or whatever adds up. Ideally nuclear power could be
| cheap, and it is conceivable that with enough design effort
| invested we could get there. Unfortunately even the modern
| simplified designs are not cost competitive with solar, wind,
| and hydro.
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| Not to mention zoning laws, neighborhood petitions against
| it, and the myriad of laws and regulations that make it
| impossible to even want to attempt it.
| pfdietz wrote:
| The places it was attempted recently in the US (GA, SC) had
| great local and state support. That didn't stop the efforts
| from becoming expensive fiascos.
| quonn wrote:
| But all the safety measures are not 70 years old. Of course we
| could technically replicate an old plant.
| kragen wrote:
| The planned cost was US$4.2 billion or US$4.3 billion;
| https://www.powermag.com/shakeup-for-720-mw-nuclear-smr-proj...
| says it was originally 600 megawatts, electric. That's US$7.17
| per peak watt. That is not a good price, and the planned
| expansion to 720 MW and US$6.1 billion doesn't rescue it
| (US$8.47/W, somehow resulting in a lower LCOE estimate).
|
| Optimistically, if you finance the original US$7.17 per peak watt
| at 3% per year, that capital is costing you 21.5C/ per year per
| peak watt. If you can run the reactor at an optimistic 95%
| capacity factor, that's 22.6C/ per average watt. There are 8765
| hours in a year, so that's 2.6C/ per kilowatt hour or US$26 per
| megawatt hour. That's just the cost of building the plant;
| operating costs are added on top of that.
|
| https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/05/28/record-low-solar-ppas...
| describes a recent photovoltaic PPA in Texas (not in Utah, but
| not far away) that's selling solar energy for US$15 per megawatt
| hour, and a battery-storage PPA that's selling at US$30/MWh, and
| notes that prices that year at the Palo Verde energy trading hub
| (in Arizona, a bit nearer to Utah) averaged US$26.58/MWh. With
| new generation capacity coming online and selling at $15 in the
| daytime and $30 at night, it's going to be hard to sell nuclear
| energy in the Southwest at $26/MWh plus opex and transmission
| costs. (The LCOE estimate in the POWER article, based on the
| original US$4.3 billion estimate for 600 MW capacity, was
| US$65/MWh). You can't turn your nuclear plant off in the daytime
| just because PV is driving LMPs negative. (And turning it off
| wouldn't reduce your capex even if you could, just your opex--
| maybe.)
|
| Part of the problem is the quote from the former chair of the
| Nuclear Regulatory Commission in
| https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/02/smaller-safer-cheape...:
| "Nuclear does not do anything quickly." And that makes it
| expensive.
|
| As I said three weeks ago, nuclear energy is the Amiga of energy
| sources: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26674832
|
| If this is what "Smaller, safer, cheaper" looks like, it's a
| definition of "cheaper" I'm not familiar with. How did this
| project get off the ground in the first place? Under what
| analysis did it look like a good deal?
| pfdietz wrote:
| Utah has excellent energy storage possibilities. In addition to
| lots of topographical relief for pumped hydro, there is a salt
| formation near Delta that could store enough hydrogen (in
| solution mined caverns) to power the entire US grid for 30 hours.
| It would make more sense for them to go with rapidly cheapening
| renewables + storage than to try one more time to make nuclear
| work.
| eunos wrote:
| Should just paint the development and construction of new nuclear
| plant as a vital part of "Great Power Competition". Congress will
| pour money and resources in no time.
| roenxi wrote:
| There is something to that frame. Based on one unreliable
| Wikipeida article [0] it looks like nuclear power is becoming
| something of an Asian technology.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_stations...
| est31 wrote:
| Asia has 4.6 billion people, of 8 billion in total. If
| technology is distributed equally among all humans, most
| technology will be predominantly used by Asians.
| fakedang wrote:
| Exactly. It's laughable to think that only ~900m people
| have the right to access new technology.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| A much more informative link: https://www.powermag.com/shakeup-
| for-720-mw-nuclear-smr-proj...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-24 23:02 UTC)