Nuclear Investing?

[NW-Bound]

If climate change is the existential threat of our time, than there are ways to push renewables far and wide very quickly. Federally subsidized residential solar. How about that for infrastructure? Pay for 100% over 10 years with tax credits. Not as much need for large capacity storage.

Have you figured out how much capacity storage is needed? For night use? For a few days with cloud cover and low wind at the same time?

... There could also be opportunities to net metering to supply back to the grid where there are surpluses to sweeten the pot where I could get a credit for when I did need to tap the grid...

When the sun shines, everybody is pumping into the grid. Who needs your electricity?

And when everybody needs to tap the grid, such as at night, who will provide the power? Coal, nat gas, nuclear?

As I often mentioned here, there were times when California had a surplus of solar power, and it had to pay Arizona to use some. Yes. You have to pay people to use the excess power that is pumped into the grid that nobody is using.

This happened in spring, early in the day when the sun shined and it was still cool and people's ACs were not running. And then, in the late afternoon, people got home from work, ACs and stove tops were cranking, and power had to be reimported from other states that ran coal, nat gas, and nuclear plants.

 

[GalaxyBoy]

Chernobyl was the equivalent of a car with the emergency brake connected to the gas pedal with no seat belts. What I mean by the first statement is a positive void coefficient of reactivity, and by the second I mean no primary containment. Both of these have been required by the most basic design criteria of western reactors since the earliest days of nuclear power.

I studied nuclear engineering in college and worked in the field for ten years until I got laid off one time too many. I always considered myself an environmentalist which is why I went into the field in the first place. Alas, I don’t see the new generations of power plants as a good investment as the few that made it to actual construction are either cancelled or on life support.

OTOH, our energy picture needs all pieces of the puzzle to be complete.

 

[Christine]

I want renewables to be successful, but I think it's time to drag out the David MacKay TED talk about reality of replacing fossil fuels. YMMV

I am not a scientist so I have to rely on others. For example this statement by Elon Musk - who is the boss of a company selling solar power and battery equipment - but then his statement was fact checked and found to be reasonable:


https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015...s-blue-square-how-much-solar-to-power-the-us/


Conclusion here was that 10.000 m2 of solar panels and some batteries in a sunny region like Utah can make all the electricity for the US.


Now if I were to try this I would start by putting solar on all the roofs - I wonder how many square metres of roof there is in the US?

 

[aja8888]

I am not a scientist so I have to rely on others. For example this statement by Elon Musk - who is the boss of a company selling solar power and battery equipment - but then his statement was fact checked and found to be reasonable:


https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015...s-blue-square-how-much-solar-to-power-the-us/


Conclusion here was that 10.000 m2 of solar panels and some batteries in a sunny region like Utah can make all the electricity for the US.


Now if I were to try this I would start by putting solar on all the roofs - I wonder how many square metres of roof there is in the US?

These are all good ideas, but who is going to pay for all of this?

 

[NW-Bound]

I am not a scientist so I have to rely on others. For example this statement by Elon Musk - who is the boss of a company selling solar power and battery equipment - but then his statement was fact checked and found to be reasonable:

https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015...s-blue-square-how-much-solar-to-power-the-us/

Conclusion here was that 10.000 m2 of solar panels and some batteries in a sunny region like Utah can make all the electricity for the US.

Now if I were to try this I would start by putting solar on all the roofs - I wonder how many square metres of roof there is in the US?

The above is not wrong. The problem is having enough storage facility to last through the night. And then, how about a day or two of cloud cover?

I often say here on this forum is with my DIY solar+battery system, I soon found out that it is not hard to generate all the electricity that I need using PV panels. But even here in the sunny USA Southwest, I still get a day or two consecutive days of cloud cover.

Here's some concrete data. My annual electricity consumption is 18,000 kWh/year. I can generate that annual amount with just 32 PV panels. The panels themselves can be bought at retail for $150 each. Dirt cheap!

But is it so simple? Nope. In the summer, the 32 panels are not enough because of the AC requirement. And yet in the shoulder season, they produce more than I can use.

If I want to make enough for the peak summer usage, I will need 60 panels. But even these panels are cheap, compared to the cost of the battery that I need, in order to store enough to last through a couple of days with cloud cover.

What Musk said is not wrong. It's just not the whole truth!

 

[NW-Bound]

Here's an analogy.

I can make a claim that the total rainfall in the US is more than enough to meet the water demand of the country, hence we should not have a drought problem.

But that rainfall comes in buckets sometimes, with no place to store it. It causes disastrous flooding in some places, yet is totally lacking in arid regions.

So, why can't we catch all that water and store it, and pump it all around the country? Hah!

See how things in theory do not work out simply and nicely in practice. My earlier statement about the US having sufficient rainfall is totally useless, even if it is true.

 

[mpeirce]

Also in the US there are places where nuclear could work, but those in the risk areas need to be compensated.

Why would they need to be compensated?

I can see a nuclear power station out my window and folks around here are quite comfortable with it.

 

[Chuckanut]

T And then, how about a day or two of cloud cover?

!

A day or two of cloud cover?

How about two or more weeks of cloud cover, and weak southern sunlight when the clouds break up and let some sunshine hit the earth?

Not everybody lives in the Sunshine states.

Then we have to get the electricity from the sunny areas to the less than sunny areas. Right now people in Oregon are fighting against power lines to do just that. And Oregon is a pretty green state overall.


It's going to take a mixture of power sources, what is right for each region.

 

[NW-Bound]

Very informative video. It's not just about how nuclear energy is not as hazardous as commonly feared, but also about how solar and wind power came up short for Germany.

 

[NW-Bound]

A day or two of cloud cover?

How about two or more weeks of cloud cover, and weak southern sunlight when the clouds break up and let some sunshine hit the earth?

Not everybody lives in the Sunshine states.

I know. I am not trying to solve the world's problems like Musk claims to do. I am just trying to figure out how I can survive, where I am.

And as I have learned, the electricity problem is manageable where I am, though a bit costly (but I've got money). It's the water shortage that I don't know what to do about. And food supply problems too.

 

[youbet]

And as I have learned, the electricity problem is manageable where I am, though a bit costly (but I've got money). It's the water shortage that I don't know what to do about. And food supply problems too.

Is it possible, as some are saying, that Earth already has double the population it can sustainably support?

 

[dixonge]

Is it possible, as some are saying, that Earth already has double the population it can sustainably support?

Possible, but unlikely

 

[Closet_Gamer]

[-][/-]

It's going to take a mixture of power sources, what is right for each region.

This.

And personally, I think the best way to achieve this is to unleash competitive forces...through a green house gas tax.

Once you create a pricing mechanism for what we're actually trying to avoid, the rest will likely sort itself out pretty quickly as the wheels of capitalism grind inefficencies into the dust.

So long as pollution is a free externality, everything is going to flail in the face of the economics. We can subsidize the good stuff or we can just tax the bad stuff and get on with it.

Which brings us back to the point of the thread.

Would a carbon tax be a trigger to make nuclear a good investment?

Yes...but even then likely only as a trade because the catastrophic risks (real or perceived) will tie up the industry in regulation that holds it back.

 

[Gumby]

Chernobyl was the equivalent of a car with the emergency brake connected to the gas pedal with no seat belts. What I mean by the first statement is a positive void coefficient of reactivity, and by the second I mean no primary containment. Both of these have been required by the most basic design criteria of western reactors since the earliest days of nuclear power.

I studied nuclear engineering in college and worked in the field for ten years until I got laid off one time too many. I always considered myself an environmentalist which is why I went into the field in the first place. Alas, I don’t see the new generations of power plants as a good investment as the few that made it to actual construction are either cancelled or on life support.

OTOH, our energy picture needs all pieces of the puzzle to be complete.

Ex-nuke here as well (Navy and commercial). I echo your observations about the Chernobyl plant. I'd add that it was also a particularly bad idea to have a water cooled but graphite moderated design.

As far as investments go, the construction of a new plant is an enormously expensive undertaking. For the legacy plants, financing such a large project with such a long timeline required CWIP (construction work in progress) provisions to permit the constructing utility incremental additions to rate base as the plant was built. Many states eliminated QWIP provisions in the late 1980s. That elimination was a direct cause of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Public Service New Hampshire as it built the Seabrook plant.

Another big issue with new plant construction is the need for insurance. As others have pointed out, the consequences of an accident can be so catastrophic that no commercial insurer will insure the plant to a level necessary to go forward. The Price Anderson Act has solved that problem in the past by providing a reinsurance pool funded by the entire industry up to a certain limit, with any damages above that covered by the federal government. Price Anderson is currently scheduled to expire in 2026. Will it be renewed? I would say probably, but it is not impossible to contemplate that it will not. Additionally, anyone investing in a company with nuclear plants should be aware that if there is an accident anywhere in the US, that company will be on the hook for its share of the first level Price Anderson reinsurance (up to ~$120 million per company), even if it had no direct involvement in the accident.

 

[Markola]

In case no one has mentioned it yet, Gates and Buffett are investing in small scale nuke plants, with the first one underway in Wyoming. It seems the technology and economics have improved but the controversy about waste, proliferation and terrorism live on:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/08/bill-gates-terrapower-is-building-next-generation-nuclear-power.html

 

[38Chevy454]

One thing I haven't seen discussed is that nuclear plants (conventional fission) once up and running are basically run at full capacity and equilibrium conditions. The electricity is almost free as far as the fuel costs, but of course a lot of plant maintenance and facility costs. A nuclear plant is not designed to be throttled up and down. It is intended to be run at steady state, and near maximum output.

Even nat gas and coal (or any burning type fuel) fired steam turbine plants have difficulty with throttling up and down. They as well are best run at steady state. It is not an instantaneous jump for more electric output demand. Nuclear and the steam turbine plants are why there is more electricity available at night, when demand falls the steady state generation plants have to keep going. Can't be turned back easily or timely.

About the only quick response nat gas or burning type electricity output are the smaller land based turbine generators. Or diesel/nat gas engine generators. These can be fired up and quick response for peak demands. This is where the battery storage from renewables can be such a benefit. It helps that peak load shorter term demand.


Back to the original question on nuclear investing. I think whatever technology may be chosen, fusion or smaller more compact fission, is a long term bet. Way long term as more than 10 year and likely 20 plus years. Can you make money in that period if you pick a comapny/technology that has a breakthrough and gets attention (meaning investment dollars)? Sure you can, but it is risk. I would rather have my money in a different field than nuclear myself.

 

[NW-Bound]

Is it possible, as some are saying, that Earth already has double the population it can sustainably support?

I don't know the answer, but I suspect that it depends on what level of living standard we talk about.

The world's resources definitely cannot provide a home of 2,500 sq.ft. for every couple, nor a car that can accelerate 0-60mph in 3 seconds, nor international jet travel for all of them, let alone a joy ride into space.

If we cut that back to a tiny home of 500 sq.ft., 5 bowls of rice and bean per person each day, and a bus ride to local parks and libraries, we can go a bit longer.

Back on nuclear investing, it may be too early, and I don't know where to put my money either. Meanwhile, I have been doing quite OK on natural resource companies such as copper mining, and fertilizer companies. Even old oil and gas companies are helping my portfolio right now.

 

[Markola]

Is it possible, as some are saying, that Earth already has double the population it can sustainably support?

“Some” have been saying things like that since at least Thomas Malthus in the 19th Century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

 

[ERD50]

In case no one has mentioned it yet, Gates and Buffett are investing in small scale nuke plants, with the first one underway in Wyoming. It seems the technology and economics have improved but the controversy about waste, proliferation and terrorism live on:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/08/bill-gates-terrapower-is-building-next-generation-nuclear-power.html

Thanks, interesting article. The most interesting part to me was this design also addresses storage and throttling to meet changes in demand, while (as mentioned by some previously) current nukes pretty much run at 100% near 24/7 (thermal plants in general are very limited in their ability to ramp up/down).

I knew Gates was involved in some newer nuke tech, but hadn't read much about it in years. I seem to remember the tech was called "Traveling Wave" ...something - here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor

The cnbc article was light on those details, just mentioned it was more efficient through better computer modeling and materials, etc.

They replace the water cooling with sodium (which they claim makes it far safer, sodium can be passively cooled), which is what the thermal solar concentrating collectors use. And the heat in that sodium can be stored (just like the solar thermal collectors). They say:

That storage capability can increase a Natrium Reactor plant’s power output from about 345 megawatts to 500 megawatts for five hours,

edit - I had to correct my original calcs, it's an increase to 500 MW, not 500 MW extra ('only' 155 MW extra)...

[corrected] - The way I look at that is, it could supply an additional 155 MW ( ~ 45% of the plants continuous output rating) for 5 hours to cover a renewable shortage.

Or you could look the other way round, and say it is a 500 MW plant for 5 hours, and 345 MW continuous, and could be ramped between those values. I guess I don't know how long it would take to replenish that buffer ( which would be the extra 155 MW * 5 hours = 775 MWh) after it was used. But if they would tap off 64.5MW, leaving 280.5 MW (for when demand is lower), it would replenish the 775 MWh in ~ 12 hours (not counting losses). So it would seem that it could be done on a daily basis.

So on a daily basis, more like 280.5 MW continuous, ramping to 500 MW for 5 hours a day, so a ramp factor of almost 2:1.

-ERD50

 

[mpeirce]

So roughly 11,500 power wall equivalents of power storage. Interesting.

 

[ERD50]

So roughly 11,500 power wall equivalents of power storage. Interesting.

No, more like 57,500 Tesla Powerwalls.

I think you missed the 155 MW for 5 hours (775 MWh).

https://www.tesla.com/powerwall Energy Capacity 13.5 kWh

(775 ⋅ (10^6)) ∕ (13.5 ⋅ (10^3)) ≈ 57407.407

So the next calc I'd do (but I should step away from the computer for a while , is how many homes does a 280.5 MW continuous plant cover. Are there enough homes to even install a Powerwall in every one?

Oh heck, it's easy - assume a typical home uses a MWh per month, that's 1.39 KW continuous, 24x7. So about 202,000 homes (280.5 ⋅ (10^6)) ∕ (1.39 ⋅ (10^3)) ≈ 201798.56.

Less than 1 in every 3 homes. That's not including industrial use, etc, but I think that's OK, just account for what the homes use and store.

Now I'm curious how thermal sodium storage costs compare with a Powerwall. Could current thermal plants add sodium storage? A cursory glance says the temperatures of liquid sodium and high pressure steam are in the ballpark.

-ERD50

 

[mpeirce]

No, more like 57,500 Tesla Powerwalls.

Right. Even better.

I’m impressed that they are thinking out of the box. Not just designing a better nuclear power system, but also looking at solving the problem of producing even more power at peak usage times.

I’d much rather have an energy generation system designed to cater to human usage patterns, than to try to force people to only use power when the sun is shining.

 

[youbet]

“Some” have been saying things like that since at least Thomas Malthus in the 19th Century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

And it does appear there may be finite limits to population growth despite technology advances. We won’t be here to watch, but how we accommodate the next doubling or two will be very interesting.

 

[Perryinva]

I think French-style nuclear and natural gas are the only way out of this mess!

Sadly, politicians will find a way to mess it up.

Bingo. I was in power generation my whole career. This is the truth for the US. The US Is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas now. The efficiency of new combined cycle 3 on 1 or even 4 on 1 makes them extremely low polluters. FAR FAR below current IC engines used in cars, even the most efficient ones. But the grid needs big, heavy metal generators to stabilize the grid. CC generators are designed for flexible load swing, not base loading stability. Combine that with the NIMBY attitude in the US, and we are trying to row up Niagara Falls.

Solar & wind are nice supplements but even combined with batteries, they are FAR from a non polluting solution. Look in to the toxic waste generated mining and processing the materials to produce & replace these consumable solar panels and batteries. Yikes!

 

[bfernand]

France and Nuclear Power

Interesting Fact:

France derives about 70% of its electricity from nuclear energy, due to a long-standing policy based on energy security. Government policy is to reduce this to 50% by 2035. France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over €3 billion per year from this.

Still think that the US should consider Nuclear as a source of electricity along with other sources.