|
Post by Nuclear on Apr 12, 2013 15:00:20 GMT 9.5
Why did GE-Hitachi apply for a Generic Design Assessment of the ABWR for the UK market, when on the long run, the ESBWR would be the more attractive option, as it is a Generation III+ rather than "only" a Generation III design? www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-ABWR_set_for_UK_assessment-1501134.htmlIs it because any UK ESBWR would be a first-of-a-kind project and thus more prone to schedule and cost overruns?
|
|
|
Post by quokka on Apr 12, 2013 19:37:11 GMT 9.5
There is a version of the ABWR called the EU-ABWR that conforms to European requirements. But that's Toshiba, I think. Not sure about the relationship to Hitachi's intentions.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Apr 13, 2013 8:26:58 GMT 9.5
ESBWR is stuck in the last phase of the approvals process.
ABWR has already been approved in the US and can thus be expected to be fast tracked through the British process.
Additionally the cost of power that the Nuclear operators have been able to extort from the Government is so high that reducing the cost of electricity is unimportant.
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on Apr 13, 2013 14:59:09 GMT 9.5
Evaluation is a small part of effort though long in time. It should ideally be done in advance to save time in taking decisions. UK has 100 or more tons of reactor grade plutonium in stocks. It could be used for its original purpose of power production if the Prism reactor offered had been already evaluated. The UK could still go for IFR via the Prism route. The UK is closing down the aqueous reprocessing and could replace it with dry pyroprocessing of the IFR system.
|
|
|
Post by Nuclear on Apr 13, 2013 15:10:21 GMT 9.5
If I were a UK ratepayer, I would be furious that a supposedly safer and more economical design fails because of delays in the approval process.
Ok, granted, it is probably less risky to just build an ABWR than a first-of-a-kind ESBWR, but since they're planning to build several anyway it shouldn't be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Apr 13, 2013 19:26:00 GMT 9.5
They are planning two or four.
Everyone else is building EPRs.
The whole thing is a mess, we forget the lesson the French taught us and go for an American style reactor zoo that doesn't deliver cost savings.
|
|
|
Post by Nuclear on Apr 13, 2013 19:42:07 GMT 9.5
Yeah, I also think the most affordable way to expand nuclear capacity may very well be through a public works programme built around one reactor type. As opposed to the EPR or ABWR, a more forward looking programme would have focussed on a true Generation III+ reactor with passive safety features like the AP1000 or ESBWR and sticked to the design, building several plants in a row.
But on the other hand, if we institute a strong carbon price and provide cheap credit to utilities, costs should also come down.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Apr 13, 2013 23:12:52 GMT 9.5
EDF (building EPRs) has apparently managed to obtain a price of around 20 US cents/kWh.
It has managed this since that is the price of offshore wind, the next cheapest renewable source that is practical for large scale deployment. It has nothing to do with the price of the electricity.
A public works programme building 30 or even more of the same reactor is the way to go. Once we kill natural gas anad so on we could be looking at 60 or so reactors (in the UK) if we have some decent industrial sinks for excess juice.
|
|
|
Post by Nuclear on Apr 14, 2013 0:01:43 GMT 9.5
The French programme wasn't spared from cost escalations, but their approach of sticking to one design certainly helped compared to the US with its wild escalation of construction costs at the same time.
The problem with present-day nuclear is that it is too cumbersome a technology for private utilities to invest in on their own. I hope that small modular reactors will make nuclear fully competitive on a liberalized electricity market.
At the moment, natural gas is not the enemy. The shale gas revolution in the US contributed more to emission reductions in the US than any subsidy. The coal to gas switch buys us some time to come up with real solutions to the carbon dioxide problem (such as small modular reactors and more efficient electricity storage). If I were in charge of my country's energy policy, I would wind down all direct subsidies to electricity generators and institute a carbon floor price (€30 immediately, rising steadily to levels required to achieve a full decarbonisation of the electricity sector by 2060 or so) and instruct public banks to offer very cheap loans to those companies willing to invest in low-carbon technologies. Such a policy would most likely cause a dash to gas in the short run, with CCS / Nuclear / Renewables in turn replacing gas further down the road.
To get back on topic:
What's holding back the ESBWR review? In India, they're already working on site preparations for several ESBWR units.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Apr 14, 2013 2:44:43 GMT 9.5
There are problems with the simulations of the steam driers apparently.
They are not enough to kill the project but running new numerical simulations of steam dryer behavior over the entire operating range takes a looong time.
With regards to your earlier comments: I myself I don't think the "liberalised" electricity market really exists anywhere. As you say, power plants are incredibly capital intensive and most are not built without state backing of one type or another. As low carbon technologies are capital intensive even by power station standards it is unlikely they would be built without enormous subsidies such as those being lavished on wind power and PV now.
The only solution in my opinion is state ownership, and this ties in with my belief that electricity is one of the essential goods in our civilisation that should be available to all at the lowest feasible fixed rate, in the largest possible quantities.
|
|
|
Post by Nuclear on Apr 14, 2013 4:46:54 GMT 9.5
Is it a problem with the design or with the simulation used by the regulator?
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Apr 14, 2013 8:48:21 GMT 9.5
Is it a problem with the design or with the simulation used by the regulator? As I understand it it was with the simulation used by GE to prove that the design conformed with the requisite standards. Its not a safety critical part as I understand it, and the expectation is that the permissions will be granted some time this year, and the first US ESBWR project is still moving forward.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Apr 14, 2013 9:11:07 GMT 9.5
At the moment, natural gas is not the enemy. The main enemy is renewable energy (which can't do the job but diverts resources from that which can) and renewable energy requires natural gas so I very much would call natural gas an enemy. The shale gas revolution in the US contributed more to emission reductions in the US than any subsidy. The coal to gas switch buys us some time to come up with real solutions to the carbon dioxide problem (such as small modular reactors and more efficient electricity storage). Does that account for methane leakage? With the figures I've seen natural gas is about as bad as coal (and possibly) from a global warming point of view once you factor in all emissions.
|
|
|
Post by Nuclear on Apr 14, 2013 20:43:46 GMT 9.5
The main enemy is renewable energy (which can't do the job but diverts resources from that which can) and renewable energy requires natural gas so I very much would call natural gas an enemy. Nonsense. The enemy is coal. If nuclear is off the table for political reasons, then I'd rather see gas and renewables being developed than more coal. While I agree that nuclear is the most economical low-carbon electricity source after hydro, we shouldn't discount wind in areas with good wind resources. The projected LCOE for new nuclear projects in the US is 80 to 120 $/MWh of electricity produced. A Wind/CAES installation with a capacity factor of 90% could produce baseload power for around 105 $/MWh in the wind-rich US Midwest, so it should be able to compete with at least some of the new nuclear projects. With the figures I've seen natural gas is about as bad as coal (and possibly) from a global warming point of view once you factor in all emissions. Fugitive emissions can be minimized (see IEA Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas paper). Instead of venting or flaring it, excess gas should be captured and sold. If gas producers stick to rules and best practice, gas is about half as emission intensive as coal. Being dogmatic about something (pro or anti-nuclear, for example) won't do us any good if we want to fight climate change. Ideally, all technologies should compete on a liberalised electricity market with a strong carbon price.
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on Apr 14, 2013 21:31:46 GMT 9.5
It is a pity that plutonium stocks and nuclear power are not being considered together. The nuclear fuel was reprocessed to have fuel for future reactors. The offer of GE for Prism fast reactors should be taken seriously and if it can be successfully built, it should be taken as the next reactor design for the UK. Dry, less polluting pyro-processing should replace the plants now under the process of closure. The UK will not have fuel worries for nuclear power plants for foreseeable future. It is time to bite the bullet and continue with a closed nuclear fuel cycle. Australia and France could follow giving the rest of the world something to chew on.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Apr 14, 2013 21:39:49 GMT 9.5
Nonsense. The enemy is coal. If nuclear is off the table for political reasons, then I'd rather see gas and renewables being developed than more coal. The enemy is everything that can't provide the power we need at minimal environmental impact, the list of technologies that can't do what we need includes natural gas (half as bad as coal is still unacceptable) and it includes the unreliables (if they need gas backup then they aren't low emission). If gas and renewables are seen as workable solutions to global warming then nuclear is a lot less likely to be on the table than if people have an accurate assessment of them (reducing emissions by one half isn't going to be enough, we need ≈90% reductions and we need them yesterday). While I agree that nuclear is the most economical low-carbon electricity source after hydro, we shouldn't discount wind in areas with good wind resources. The projected LCOE for new nuclear projects in the US is 80 to 120 $/MWh of electricity produced. A Wind/CAES installation with a capacity factor of 90% could produce baseload power for around 105 $/MWh in the wind-rich US Midwest, so it should be able to compete with at least some of the new nuclear projects. Compressed air, not going to happen on a large scale (compressed air where it is used is the most expensive form of energy, it has useful properties for running machine tools which make it worth it, but it's a dead end for energy storage). Being dogmatic about something (pro or anti-nuclear, for example) won't do us any good if we want to fight climate change. Ideally, all technologies should compete on a liberalised electricity market with a strong carbon price. I would much rather we ban the construction of new power plants that emit too much CO 2 equivalent per MWh instead of mucking about with carbon taxes. That would provide a very good incentive for new production to be carbon neutral.
|
|
|
Post by Nuclear on Apr 14, 2013 22:01:09 GMT 9.5
If gas and renewables are seen as workable solutions to global warming then nuclear is a lot less likely to be on the table than if people have an accurate assessment of them (reducing emissions by one half isn't going to be enough, we need ≈90% reductions and we need them yesterday). We need a 80%-90% reduction by 2050 in order to keep warming below 2°C with a high degree of confidence. Supplanting coal with low-cost gas in the near term and more high cost nuclear / renewables / CCS in the longer term is consistent with such a trajectory. The most important thing is to displace coal as soon as possible. Compressed air, not going to happen on a large scale (compressed air where it is used is the most expensive form of energy, it has useful properties for running machine tools which make it worth it, but it's a dead end for energy storage). Compressed air is currently used for grid electricity storage in the US and Germany. While less economical than pumped-hydro, the theoretical potential is significantly larger. Did you read the paper I linked? An integrated Wind/CAES plant in the US Midwest could produce electricity with a capacity factor similar to that of a large coal or gas plant (90%) at a price of 105$/MWh, assuming no carbon price. That's competitive with new nuclear in the US and at around 60g of CO2 / kWh, it is also low-carbon. What I want to say is that there are no "one size fits all" solutions to transforming the energy system. I'm not saying that Wind/CAES could supply 100% of the electricity in the Midwest, but going by the numbers, it could find its place among other low-carbon technologies in the electricity mix. I would much rather we ban the construction of new power plants that emit too much CO 2 equivalent per MWh instead of mucking about with carbon taxes. That would provide a very good incentive for new production to be carbon neutral. The rationale behind the carbon tax is to allow for a gradual transition, which would be more economical. The tax (or cap-and-trade) would need to rise to a level high enough to achieve the desired emission reduction trajectory. Also, your proposal ignores emitters in other sectors, which would be dealt with by a carbon tax levied at the source (according to the carbon content of fossil fuels).
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Apr 14, 2013 23:30:28 GMT 9.5
We need a 80%-90% reduction by 2050 in order to keep warming below 2°C with a high degree of confidence. Supplanting coal with low-cost gas in the near term and more high cost nuclear / renewables / CCS in the longer term is consistent with such a trajectory. The most important thing is to displace coal as soon as possible. No, the most important thing is to get emissions down as quickly as possible, replacing coal with something that is only half as bad (at best) is not the way to do it when you could instead put the resources into replacing it with something that doesn't even that problem. Compressed air is currently used for grid electricity storage in the US and Germany. At very small scale and heavily subsidised. While less economical than pumped-hydro, the theoretical potential is significantly larger. Any attempt to store energy in the form of compressed air will have terrible efficiency, the laws of physics don't allow it to be very efficient. Did you read the paper I linked? An integrated Wind/CAES plant in the US Midwest could produce electricity with a capacity factor similar to that of a large coal or gas plant (90%) at a price of 105$/MWh, assuming no carbon price. I'd believe that if they actually manage to do it, I have my doubts that it's possible (the laws of physics don't leave much room for optimism about it). The rationale behind the carbon tax is to allow for a gradual transition, which would be more economical. The tax (or cap-and-trade) would need to rise to a level high enough to achieve the desired emission reduction trajectory. A ban on building new high emitting power plants would also be a gradual transition since the old ones would be allowed to remain in operation for sometime longer (at most until they wear out) and likely wouldn't affect plants already under construction. Fact is that if we want to solve global warming we've got to take effective steps and that means that we need to either force renewable energy to live up to the hype, or we need to abandon it and put our resources into nuclear. So long as we allow for the construction of new natural gas power plants we are not doing that. Also, your proposal ignores emitters in other sectors, which would be dealt with by a carbon tax levied at the source (according to the carbon content of fossil fuels). That may turn out to be needed for areas other than electricity and also giving an incentive for the grandfathered CO 2 emitters left to be replaced, but for decarbonising electricity production it is just a way of appearing to do something without actually helping.
|
|
|
Post by Nuclear on Apr 15, 2013 18:10:38 GMT 9.5
No, the most important thing is to get emissions down as quickly as possible, replacing coal with something that is only half as bad (at best) is not the way to do it when you could instead put the resources into replacing it with something that doesn't even that problem. Coal to gas is happening now and it is happening rapidly. A major nuclear expansion would be a comparably slow process. Going from 20% to 80 or 90% nuclear will take decades. Gas can help bridging the gap. At very small scale and heavily subsidised. Any attempt to store energy in the form of compressed air will have terrible efficiency, the laws of physics don't allow it to be very efficient. The CAES plants in Germany and Alabama do not receive subsidies. They were constructed to provide peak electricity. In adiabatic CAES plants, the heat produced when compressing the air is stored for later use, bringing the round-trip efficiency up to 70%. In diabatic CAES plants (all current CAES plants are of this type) the escaping air is heated using a natural gas turbine. You still burn natural gas, but much less per kWh of electricity than in a conventional gas turbine (round trip storage efficiency is 25 to 45%). The plant designed in the report I linked still requires natural gas, but much less than a conventional CCGT plant, bringing to overall emission intensity of the system down to around 60g of CO2 per kWh of electricity produced. This compares favourably to Wind/Gas or natural gas in itself. The LCOE, while high, would still be competitive with some of the nuclear new build in the US. If a market is there I don't see why we should not welcome the installation of low-emission baseload wind systems. I'm not opposed to viable low-carbon solutions for ideological reasons. I'd believe that if they actually manage to do it, I have my doubts that it's possible (the laws of physics don't leave much room for optimism about it). A ban on building new high emitting power plants would also be a gradual transition since the old ones would be allowed to remain in operation for sometime longer (at most until they wear out) and likely wouldn't affect plants already under construction. Fact is that if we want to solve global warming we've got to take effective steps and that means that we need to either force renewable energy to live up to the hype, or we need to abandon it and put our resources into nuclear. So long as we allow for the construction of new natural gas power plants we are not doing that. That may turn out to be needed for areas other than electricity and also giving an incentive for the grandfathered CO 2 emitters left to be replaced, but for decarbonising electricity production it is just a way of appearing to do something without actually helping. A carbon tax is definitely the only way to decarbonise transportation, domestic heat and industry, unless you want to ban fossil fuels there as well, leading to an immediate crash of the economy. A carbon tax would increase gradually, giving the economy time to adjust, lowering total costs. Climate change is not the only concern. Measures which trade economic growth for environmental protection will enver find much acceptance.
|
|