Nuclear Not dead yet but Florida finds it is sunny

[georgepds]

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/vogtle-nuclear-construction-to-continue-southern-co-says/503977/

So whenever I read about the Vogtle plant I can't help thinking about Vogans, the particularly noxious aliens in life the universe an everything in it.


Fortunately, such articles rarely include Vogan poetry

"Southern Co. subsidiary Georgia Power filed its recommendation to complete work on two new nuclear reactors on the Vogtle facility despite spiraling costs and delays in the projected in-service date.


...Southern is also banking on loan extensions from the DOE and nuclear production tax credits. The House Ways and Means Committee at the U.S. House of Representatives cleared a bill that would extend a 2020 deadline for a nuclear energy tax credit under development."

Anyone here from the great state of Georgia...I'd like your take..



Meanwhile in Florida:

Duke Energy, along with state consumer advocates and clean energy groups, revised a settlement aimed at boosting solar, storage and EV charging while pulling the plug on yet another nuclear project
"


http://www.utilitydive.com/news/duk...f-storage-in-revised-florida-settleme/503775/

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

"Southern Co. subsidiary Georgia Power filed its recommendation to complete work on two new nuclear reactors on the Vogtle facility despite spiraling costs and delays in the projected in-service date.


...Southern is also banking on loan extensions from the DOE and nuclear production tax credits. The House Ways and Means Committee at the U.S. House of Representatives cleared a bill that would extend a 2020 deadline for a nuclear energy tax credit under development."

Anyone here from the great state of Georgia...I'd like your take..

The manner in which the nuclear industry feeds at the federal watering hole is sickening! A real boondoggle! Yet you rarely hear about how nuclear wouldn't be viable if it were not so heavily subsidized by hardworking taxpayers (while profits flow to investors and insiders). All you hear about is how solar get's federal subsidies!

Meanwhile in Florida:

Duke Energy, along with state consumer advocates and clean energy groups, revised a settlement aimed at boosting solar, storage and EV charging while pulling the plug on yet another nuclear project
"


http://www.utilitydive.com/news/duk...f-storage-in-revised-florida-settleme/503775/

Unsubsidized solar electricity (w/ battery storage) is cheaper in Florida than nuclear from new reactors once all lifecycle costs are figured. And it's still getting cheaper. Japan will be dealing with Fukushima for many decades. It costs a lot. Putting nuclear reactors near active fault zones is the definition of stupidity. Don't worry, we have safeguards against that...

And yes, I know Florida is not big earthquake country, just commenting on what passes for safety in the nuclear industry.

 

[iamlucky13]

The manner in which the nuclear industry feeds at the federal watering hole is sickening! A real boondoggle! Yet you rarely hear about how nuclear wouldn't be viable if it were not so heavily subsidized by hardworking taxpayers (while profits flow to investors and insiders). All you hear about is how solar get's federal subsidies!

You're involved in different conversations than I am. I hear about it all of the time, and most of the time, the speaker is misidentifying specific costs as subsidized.

I, for one, would like to see a nuclear policy thorough enough and clearly articulated enough to survive multiple administrations before trying to set subsidy policies, with an emphasis on bringing improved technologies into service rather than credits for status quo technologies. Loan guarantees, on the other hand, have become the norm for almost all energy projects and should be considered more broadly than just focusing on nuclear.

If we're going to be as incoherent as we have been for the last several decades, we need to just give up, let the industry dwindle, and switch back to coal.

Unsubsidized solar electricity (w/ battery storage) is cheaper in Florida than nuclear from new reactors once all lifecycle costs are figured.

No, it's not. Not even close. Remove the battery storage claim and you would be correct, but not addressing the full energy requirements situation.

Putting nuclear reactors near active fault zones is the definition of stupidity.

I'm just going to say you're discussing a matter that relates to site-specific engineering criteria without invoking either engineering or the site-specific factors.

There is absolutely no reason why nuclear reactors can't be built in seismically active areas if properly designed for that location.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

There is absolutely no reason why nuclear reactors can't be built in seismically active areas if properly designed for that location.

Hehe! Just like Fukushima!

Oh, I see your trick, "properly designed". Are you saying the companies behind Fukushima knew it wasn't "properly designed" to deal with extreme events? But built it anyway?

 

[georgepds]

Re relative cost of nuclear vs solar plus batteries

.....
No, it's not. Not even close. Remove the battery storage claim and you would be correct, but not addressing the full ....

Got a reference for that assertion?

Are you including waste storage for 100,000+ years in the nuclear life cycle costs?

 

[iamlucky13]

Hehe! Just like Fukushima!

Oh, I see your trick, "properly designed". Are you saying the companies behind Fukushima knew it wasn't "properly designed" to deal with extreme events? But built it anyway?

Fukushima Daiichi was properly designed to handle seveve earthquakes, and it did so. It was properly designed to what was thought to be the tsunami potential in the 1960's, but later studies demonstrated the potential for higher waves due to the way they would interact with the local geography. The shortfalls of the design basis for the tsunami protection were already under discussion before the tsunami even happened. The next stage would have been modifying the plant for the new design basis, but the tsunami, unfortunately, happened first.

Such changes are common in the engineering world as new concerns are demonstrated. Two examples are the replacement of the Cypress Street Viaduct in Oakland after it killed 42 people in the Loma Prieta earthquake (as a matter of fact, in an earthquake smaller than what was known to be common in the region), and the ongoing replacement of the Alaska Way Viaduct in Seattle preemptively to prevent a similar tragedy.

Fortunately, the other layers of protection factored into nuclear plant design and response plans helped prevent any casualties and keep the exposure to the surrounding population low even despite the failure of the steam-powered cooling system. Unfortunately, the end result was extremely expensive, but still a small part of the overall financial impact of the tsunami. 16,000 people were killed by the tsunami and roughly 1 million families were displaced from their homes, and for some reason almost all of the focus ends up on the ~70,000 households displaced by Fukushima contamination specifically.

Got a reference for that assertion?

Are you including waste storage for 100,000+ years in the nuclear life cycle costs?

Yes, the reference is here:
(broken link removed to http://www.sandia.gov/ess/publications/SAND2015-1002.pdf)

Or you can price battery systems yourself and arrive at similar numbers.

The price of nuclear energy includes waste storage for a bare minimum of 10,000 and estimated over 1 million years via the nuclear waste tax that has been collected from the industry for the last 30+ years, but not including the costs that will result from the prior administration's reckless decision to abandon the billions of dollars already spent preparing that storage in favor of a temporary strategy and no long term plan.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

The shortfalls of the design basis for the tsunami protection were already under discussion before the tsunami even happened. The next stage would have been modifying the plant for the new design basis, but the tsunami, unfortunately, happened first.

Well I hope you are not one of the brainwashed people who think modifying a plant to deal with design shortfalls doesn't push the true cost of nuclear energy into the stratosphere. And this assumes the shortfall is identified before it causes a disaster.

Such changes are common in the engineering world as new concerns are demonstrated. Two examples are the replacement of the Cypress Street Viaduct in Oakland after it killed 42 people in the Loma Prieta earthquake (as a matter of fact, in an earthquake smaller than what was known to be common in the region), and the ongoing replacement of the Alaska Way Viaduct in Seattle preemptively to prevent a similar tragedy.

So what you're saying is, even when a project is designed to be completely safe, using the latest technology, the best known hazard maps and redundant and "fail-safe" systems, the project can still have unforeseen hazards, problems with the technology or even human error that could lead to catastrophe regardless of the original design intent for it to be fool-proof? Yes, that is my understanding as well. I can see rolling the dice and taking on this kind of risk if nuclear power was essential. But the fact that it costs far more than solar (and has been subsidized by governments around the world far more than solar ever was) shows that it's just part of the swamp that needs to be drained. Greedy little people pushing their own agenda for a profit at the expense of everyone else.

Unfortunately, the end result was extremely expensive, but still a small part of the overall financial impact of the tsunami.

The expense of Fukushima hasn't even reached the mid-point yet. It is the gift that keeps on giving (taking). Multiple future generations will bear the cost.

16,000 people were killed by the tsunami and roughly 1 million families were displaced from their homes, and for some reason almost all of the focus ends up on the ~70,000 households displaced by Fukushima contamination specifically.

For some reason?

If you can't figure out why people focus on preventable tragedies (nuclear) instead of dwelling on unpreventable tragedies like tsunamis, then I don't know what to tell you. When you say nonsensical things like that you come across as an apologist for the nuclear power industry. Face it, with prices for solar plus storage so low (and falling every year), nuclear is a dead industry. Tsunamis are going to happen no matter what, we don't know when or where they will happen nor is there anyway to prevent them. Nuclear tragedies are 100% preventable because we don't need nuclear and it costs too much regardless. Nuclear is a fools game.

 

[iamlucky13]

Well I hope you are not one of the brainwashed people who think modifying a plant to deal with design shortfalls doesn't push the true cost of nuclear energy into the stratosphere.

My position that I already stated is we need a clear policy on what role we want nuclear energy to play, and how much we're willing to subsidize or not subsidize based on that policy, and then let the economic chips fall where they will. If that means we shift back to coal or that we ultimately figure out inexpensive energy storage to replace it in the long term with wind and solar or other sources, at least we had arrived there via a series of deliberately considered decisions.

I am opposed to making poorly informed decisions to arbitrarily exclude nuclear power from our generation mix, especially based on exaggerated fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

But the fact that it costs far more than solar

It can cost more than solar in some regions, during the daytime. You don't seem to have a very thoroughly developed understanding of how our energy portfolio and the way it is diversified relates to supply from different sources and demand at different times of the day and different seasons, especially in different regions.

Iif you can't figure out why people focus on preventable tragedies (nuclear) instead of dwelling on unpreventable tragedies like tsunamis, then I don't know what to tell you. When you say nonsensical things like that you come across as an apologist for the nuclear power industry.

We're talking about the same ultimate cause in both cases here. You're being disingenuous.

Between that and the overtly snarky attitude you're directing at me , I'm getting rather tired of discussing this with you.

Face it, with prices for solar plus storage so low

And since you're ignoring previous points I've made, I don't see much point in attempting to continue the conversation.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

My position that I already stated is we need a clear policy on what role we want nuclear energy to play, and how much we're willing to subsidize or not subsidize based on that policy, and then let the economic chips fall where they will.

Why should we subsidize nuclear at all? If we stop subsidizing it, it wont be able to compete unless there are major breakthroughs that make it more cost effective than nuclear plants currently under construction and experiencing monstrous cost overruns that get paid for by all electrical consumers. The only people who want more nuclear are those with financial interest in the nuclear industry (and those who have been fooled by their slick propaganda designed to obscure the true costs and boost their financial fortunes). People are getting rich while the ratepayers are left with the tab.

I am opposed to making poorly informed decisions to arbitrarily exclude nuclear power from our generation mix, especially based on exaggerated fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

My lack of support for new nuclear plants is based on facts, not FUD. They cost too much (compared to viable alternatives) and leave an expensive legacy for our great grandchildren to pay for. The fact that a disaster is possible, regardless of how much the boosters try to convince us that they have everything figured out, is a very good reason that is not even necessary to make a strong case that new nuclear plants are uneconomical.

It can cost more than solar in some regions, during the daytime. You don't seem to have a very thoroughly developed understanding of how our energy portfolio and the way it is diversified relates to supply from different sources and demand at different times of the day and different seasons, especially in different regions.

It costs a LOT more than solar in most areas of the US. The reasons you seem unaware of this are:

1) All the costs are never tallied by nuclear boosters. They know once the reactors are built (and they are ALWAYS way over budget) that the rate payers will be stuck footing the bill. It's a great scam with no financial risk.
2) After all the planning and regulatory approvals are in place, it takes from 5-8 years to build a nuclear reactor. And the rate payers start paying for it years before they see their first kW. This is like a hidden subsidy (do you know anything about the time value of money?). Investors love to invest in nuclear reactors because it's about as close to a sure thing as you will find. Because it's "insured" by the ratepayers.
3) Solar and storage will be considerably cheaper (than even now) in the 5-8 years (after reactor planning and approval so really more like 8-14 years) that it takes to build a new reactor. Huge utility grade solar (plus storage) can be installed in a few months. This falling price curve makes utility grade solar a bargain for rate payers.
4) Nuclear costs the taxpayers huge amounts. There are millions of man hours that go into the safety, regulation and oversight of nuclear reactors. These costs are ALWAYS ignored (not included in the per kW price) of nuclear.

Any logical way you slice it, nuclear is the most expensive electrical generation of the usual options. It's only cheaper if a lobbyist does the numbers. And the nuclear industry has far too many lobbyists.

We're talking about the same ultimate cause in both cases here. You're being disingenuous.

Between that and the overtly snarky attitude you're directing at me , I'm getting rather tired of discussing this with you.

You are not being logical. The tsunami would have happened whether there were reactors at Fukushima or not. But if there were no reactors, the nuclear portion of the disaster would not have happened. I also don't think you understand how close Fukushima came to a full on, uncontrolled, nuclear meltdown that could have fatally sickened people thousands of miles distant. But I bet you think that everything was under complete control, don't you? It will be billions of dollars and many decades before that toxic mess is even halfway cleaned up.

And since you're ignoring previous points I've made, I don't see much point in attempting to continue the conversation.

I'm not sure what you think I'm ignoring but, fair enough, it's never that enjoyable to have a discussion with someone who prefers "alternative facts".